Good article. The last place I want the government is in my church. It has no business there, and once again, Obama’s idea is to throw money somewhere that tax payers have to pay for. I’m sick of politicians bloating the size of government. All it does is breed inefficiency and increase paperwork. It’s time to shift power from the federal government to the states.

Father Jonathan,

I would think that Obama’s position favors the constitution more than you think. His first statement:

1) In an Obama administration, the federal government would supervise the hiring process of faith-based groups to make sure they do not give preference to employees who share the faith of the organization.

Insure that the government does not use it’s money to promote one faith over another, so that someone who is an episcopalian can work with methodists or Jews. That seems right in line with the constitution to me. As with the second:

2) In an Obama administration, the federal government would only give money to “secular programs” of faith-based groups.

Well that just helps make sure that church’s are not using federal money to prostlytize. That keeps the separation of church and state intact in my view. So that one church doesn’t enjoy an advantage over another. Otherwise, no federal money (tax dollars) should be used for the promotion of one religion over another. The guidelines look fine to me, and remember, you didn’t teach constitutional law and you also live in Vatican City…. which is after all a theocracy. Just saying : )

Jonathan,

Those who “push” their faith on others are desiring the Glory of God, and those whom seek to control man(politics) desire the Power of God. There is a natural separation between these two groups and do not require us to keep them apart. The only time these two groups truly come into conflict is when that is all there is left…the evil of man seeking God’s Glory and the evil of man seeking God’s Power, of which no man can handle either.

One must search his heart for what he believes to be right and avoid the arrogance of man.

Peace,
Brad

Wow! Thanks for highlighting this very important difference. Obama seems to consistently demonstrate his lack of experience and show us how it will waste a lot of time and money not to mention probably embarrass us as a country if he is elected.

Although I am sure President Bush meant well, when I first heard about government support of faith-based programs I was concerned. Sen. Obama’s reinterpretation of it shows why. If a church or synagogue becomes dependent on government dollars for a significant part of it’s budget, it puts itself at the mercy of the government’s power. You are exactly right, if religious content and hiring is under government control, the program ceases to exist as a religious faith-based program and becomes just another secular program.

You say “News Alert: religion is not poison.” Wrong. Religion IS poison…it poisons free speech. And I choose to not have my tax dollars support it through any type of “faith-based initiative.” If religions want tax-exempt status, they have to raise their own money. Enjoy your religion as you see fit, but stop trying to make it a requirement of society.

Obama isn’t any different than what we currently have. McCain really hasn’t said much on the subject.

Currently if a secular part of an organization accepts public funds they cannot discriminate and must not show preference to their faith in both hiring and helping. There are special cases were this is not so, but this is the reason why there are secular parts of many churches.

And if we did it your way Father Johnathon you’d be impacting the employee and the recipient’s right to freedom of religion, while mantaining the organizations right to its religion. Either way someone gets discrimiated. I’d rather side with the individual. I’ve seen the greater church(all christian churches) treat people poorly — so much in fact I’d prefer they be forced to follow Jesus’s Greatest Commandment for a change(since it gets thrown out the window whenever there is a disagreement).

I have always felt that churches could do a better job providing services to the needy than then government. There are many wonderful faith-based ministries that provide ministry to the poor, the hungry, the sick, the unemployed, and those in prison. However, I wonder if you believe that federal grants should go to churches such as Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s former church led by Rev. Wright. Two recent FOX news stories reported that this church has received $15 million dollars for “outreach” programs over the past 15 years. I am concerned about my tax dollars going to a church that preaches hatred and tells falsehoods about our country. Another Fox news story reported that this same church has the financial ability to build a 10,000+ square foot retirement home for Rev. Wright. I am also concerned about tax dollars going to a “wealthy” church that afford to build an expensive home for their pastor.

What does it say about America and it’s political system when a candidate for any position including dog catcher has to pronounce himself holier than thou just to get elected? How many candidates are hypocritcally paying lip service to God, religion, the Bible, etc. just to get elected? How many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc., have to abandon their beliefs and take up an evangelical, fundamentalist and sometimes extremist version of Christianity just to get elected? I believe that organized religion is inconsistent, full of outright contradictions and almost always in opposition to my own personal moral and ethical beliefs. But Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s. Guess he didn’t include America’s presidents or congress in that admonition to keep church and state separate, eh?
Robert Gerard
Edmonton AB Canada

As an athiest… I wholeheartedly agree with McCain and Father Jonathan. Groups of faith should be allowed to discriminate based on faith! What would Obama have us do next? Force a Church to hire a rabbi to conduct it’s services because the church got $50 from the US gov?

I am sorry to see that the Father has fallen for the propaganda from the Christian dominionists. Obama’s proposal would simply return government policy to what it was under every adminstration before Bush developed his faith-based program to use as an payoff for his extremist right wing support.

Come on, Father Jonathan. How is passing out millions of dollars to Christian programs with no accountability, blatant prosletyzing and openly discriminatory hiring not “establishing religion”. How much money is going to non-Christian groups? Can you imagine the hissy fits from the evangelicals if just a few million dollars went to an Islamic charity that only hired Muslims and required Islamic practice from its beneficiaries!

Here we go again. Just as Christians do not want there tax money to be used for abortion I do not want my tax money to be used to discriminate.

What is more important, helping people or preserving our “identity”.

2 billion people in the world are Christians
World GDP 51 trillion
US GDP 14 trillion

Over a million children die every year becuase they do not have either adequate food, housing, water or medical. There has been no time in history where we can reduce poverty significantly but our 5000 sq. ft. houses, big SUV’s and big flat panel HD televisions keep getting in our way, not to mention those big beautiful churches.

When are Christians going start to making “real” sacrafices for their faith?

Here’s a thought- limit taxpayer dollar expenditures to pay for the free flow of commerce, trade and national security as was the intent of the Founding Fathers. All else are scams to buy votes and line pockets. Religious groups can collect donations all they want. Stay out of my wallet, panderers.

The wall of separation is real, it is not phantom. President Obama is on the right path towards restoring cooperation between churches and the state. The government should support churches and other public institutions in their efforts to benefit all of society, but should have nothing to do with promoting or supporting any unlawful (discriminatory) church practices. Father Jonathan should stick to theology–even if his political theology has been blessed by the unconstitutional theories of George W Bush and the right-wing extremists.

Fr. Jonathan:

Thanks again for a great piece. I was not aware of the details of Obama’s position on faith based initiatives. Forcing a religious organization to check it’s faith at the door sounds like more of a program one might expect in a Communist regime. I sincerely doubt that any committed faith-based social outreach program will apply for any grants with the stipulations that Obama has outlined. That will leave a bloated bureaucracy providing funds to scam artists who open churches with a secular arm that is in it for profit, not the general good.

Steve

It never ceases to amaze me how liberals demand tolerance for everybody but are themselves the least to show tolerance. The ACLU whole-heartedly supports Planned Parenthood’s right to reject any employment-applicant who does not share its views on abortion, but faith-based service providers are forbidden to reject applicants who do not share their views on faith! ANY private organization who can help the government supply personal services should be encouraged to do so, and be given financial support as well, as long as they can do so effectively, and be able to show it.

“News Alert: religion is not poison. ” That’s your opinion.

“And it certainly is not the federal government’s role to supervise the religious content of a faith-based program. ” It absolutely is! If my tax dollars are funding it, it’s not only the government’s role but the governments obligation, to me as a tax payor.

Dear Fr. Jonathan,

I appreciate your clarity on the issue of Sen. Obama’s endorsement of faith-based initiatives and what that would mean in his administration. Your inclusion of the two main premises of the Obama plan are crucial to understanding the huge difference between his and Sen. McCain’s plan. From my perspective the fact that the federal government would be the sole decision maker in the Obama plan raises a red flag. Even more disturbing is that the federal government would give money to “secular programs” only and those running the programs would be unable to hire people of their own religious faith. One doesn’t have to be a genius to realize where the bait and switch comes into play. We all know that Sen. Obama is a shrewd lawyer, which may be the biggest understatement of the campaign. We also know his expertise is in Constitutional law. Consequently, to suppose that he doesn’t know what he is DOING is nonsense. He knows full well that his statement, which you quoted, means something other than what he is SAYING it means. He does this artfully and if we don’t examine it fully, we may miss his very clear message. That message is that: 1) he is committed to his purpose of changing the way America IS, 2) if elected, he would accomplish his goal through all branches of government, particularly the judicial, 3) he would eliminate the “representative” part of what our country IS - a democratic REPUBLIC; we would become a direct democracy, 4) he would establish a NO RELIGION ban as our government’s legal position and we would become a totally secular nation; we would in essence become a nation of secular faith, and consequently 5) the federal government would control our lives totally. Sound Orwellian? It would all be done quite legally and with everyone in agreement. Don’t forget, with a Democratic president, a Democratic Congress, House, etc., he and his party would control the government. States would be beholden to the federal government because he would ensure that they would need federal money to stay solvent. He is a scary man with a scary agenda. I am not afraid to share my vision of what I believe he will eventually do because I see the seeds that have already been sown and that continue to be sown. His faith-based initiative is just another part of his plan to control and limit our freedom to accommodate his insatiable lust for power.

Or you could read it that Obama still wants to be everything to everybody. I wonder at the effects his planned oversight might have had on his previous church’s community outreach? I also wonder about the potential for abuse of his proposed system of oversight.

Obama continues to try to be “all things to all people”. He is simply playing for the vote of the Religious community without alienating his left wing secular base. Barack Obama is simply Mr. “I am everything to everyone!”(And….your tax dollars will pay all the bills!)

It’s obivous Primus Tomlinson never taught constitutional law and probably doesn’t attend church and doesn’t realize how faith base orgainzations work and that the vast majority of the money they do get comes from those who are of the same faith and beliefs and pay taxes too.

Thank you for a terrific analysis of Sen. Obamas proposal for ‘faith-based’ organizations. What Sen. Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that if you attach government to charity it changes the whole aspect of the idea. Instead of putting government restrictions on faith based groups, he should be encouraging people to form their own groups that fit their moral values, instead of forcing groups to shelve their morals and values. Again, thank you for a very thought provoking article.

My feeling is that if the government does not want to give money (my tax dollars) to faith-based organizations, then give me my money (my tax dollars) back so that I can give my money to which-ever faith-based organization I choose. I prefer not to give my money as a handout to welfare programs, but the government hands my money out for me. I would rather my money go to a successful organization - faith-based or not - but one of MY choosing.

If your organization is receiving federal money, federal employment laws should apply. This isn’t DoJ.

Mark Baird I believe even Jesus said there would always be poor. A lot of the poor are in sad shape because their governments steal all the aid given them but the “rich” countries.

Faith based organizations already operate tax free, I consider that a government subsidy. If faith based organizations are not in favor of the funding conditions for their initiatives, seek funding elsewhere, plain and simple.

Jonathan, Im suprised by this sentence you wrote:
“Senator McCain has a long way to go in convincing America that he is religion friendly. ”

What does this mean? Senator McCain, by words and deeds is clearly a real and authentic Christian. You are saying McCain is lacking something important, perhaps authenticity when it comes to his religious beliefs? Or America is not convinced McCain is a religious person therefore questioning his being religion friendly, therefore overall, as it stands right now America believes McCain is NOT religion friendly?

If a person is genuinely an outstanding example of living a humble Christian walk as John McCain does, then what other ‘convincing’ is there?

The new movie by Ben Stein about schools portray people who really are NOT religion friendly. I would like to watch it, but cannot find information about the movie.

No stranger to controversy, Father Jonathan has very succinctly illustrated the ambiguity that surrounds Barack Obama. It is OK for Faith-based orgnizations to exist and, even, receive money from the Federal Government so long as those organizations abide by the secular rules of a non-theocratic government. The problem is, with an Obama State moving to control all aspects of life, private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, major league sports and, yes, churches, no one will be free of the Government’s oppressive hand.

To the Lib/Progs: Please explain, using concrete, verifiable examples, just how permitting the Federal Government control hiring practices by religious groups does not violate the Constitution? Would not such action also violate the Jeffersonian principle of ‘Separation of Church and State’?

Government is not and cannot be our savior. Let them make their rules, I would hope every christian organization would simply refuse those tax dollars out of principle and operate on a smaller scale. And in response, let us ourselves explicitly give (tax deductible donations) to the churches and organizations that use funds the way we would like (rather than routing through the govt in the form of taxes). I think Christians are to some degree guilty of looking to the gov’t to solve our problems instead of focusing on their own efforts and those of their church.

There are church sponsored food pantries, prison ministries, homeless outrach programs, job traiining, etc. Support those programs directly and vote for candidates that favor lower taxes, leaving us more money to do good work with on our own.

Andrew
Belleville, IL

Obama is trying to provide assistance to religious organizations to do the secular work that their faiths claim is important - feeding the poor, sheltering those in need, etc… He also must balance the Constitutional requirement that sectarian doctrines not be supported with taxes provided by the secular state. While I am not happy about tax funds going to religious organizations, I can see where it may do some good. The twisted logic used by the author is an example of the simplistic doctrine of religious organizations that have raised a wall of separation between church and faith in order to provide for the parasitic class of organisms know as “clergy.”

AS A PRACTICING CATHOLIC AND EUCHRISTIC MINISTER FOR THE SICK THE CHURCH NEVER CRITICIZES THE GOVERNMENT FOR ILLEGALLY INVADING IRAQ AND PROMOTING THE DEATH PENALTY. THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY AND THE LATE POPE JOHN PAUL SPOKE OUT AGAINST INVADING IRAQ. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS SPOKEN ABOUT AT SUNDAY MASS IS ABORTION. HISPANIC CATHOLICS FAVOR OBAMA WHILE WHITE CATHOLICS TEND TO FAVOR MCCAIN. DO I DETECT RACIAL PREJUDICE? BY THE WAY OBAMA IS SCOTCH-IRISH ON HIS MOTHER’S SIDE AS HER GRANDFATHER CAME FROM IRELAND.

News Flash: Religion is one of the roots of evil. Thou shalt not commit religion.

It is amazing to me how liberals are all for freedoms to suit their needs and ambitions but are against freedoms for anyone else. How our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves at the lack of religion in this country today! This is not what they lived, not what they wrote, not what they fought for and not what they intended. How ideologically twisted the left has become to the point where seals and butterflies have more protection under the law than do unborn children who are made in the image and likeness of God. As a former Democrat, the Democratic Party is no longer a party for the people. While the Republican Party leaves much to be desired, it still has many candidates who are on the right road, who have not taken away the rights of believers and who have fought the rights of Christians and many others. As for the ACLU, a group supposedly to protect our civil rights, — when was the last time they ever spoke up to help a Christian who was being attacked or discriminated against??? Pretty much never. The ACLU conveniently disappears when an issue no longer suits its political leftist agenda.

First of all, history clearly shows that any entity which receives money from the federal government for anything subverts itself to that government. Just look at the federal highway funds and how the government uses it to control states. Secondly, God does his work without federal dollars. God does not need Bush’s, Obama’s, or McCain’s money to accomplish His work. This is clearly an effort by the federal government to reign in and to begin to tightly control religion in this country. This is and evil bill that I hope fails quickly.

We already use public money to support churches by making our donations tax deductible. Why not simply make these donations tax credits instead… I believe people would give more if every penny could be deducted from their taxes, then people who didn’t believe in the cause or particular religion wouldn’t have their tax money given to that particular church.

Great comments from readers (of the written word) who seem to be on a decline. Bush’s faith based initiatives should not be powered by taxpayer dollars, while at the same time offering nothing to the federal coffers at the IRS. Just as was done in the ancient Egyptian times, what was done to erase the bad leadership of the Pharaohs, their faces and names were chipped away from the stone architecture. Let’s chip Bush’s image from American history, and away from the delusional evangelicals. Let them earn there own money to pay off their crimes against society. Religion has given us war, murder, bigotry, polygamy, and porn. How can I sign up for tax exemption status for the church of John.

I do not understand this.
The church has always provided charity according to their funds. You go in, listen to a sermon, then get a meal and a bed for the night.
The government has it’s own aids - AFDC, food stamps, aged blind and disabled (ABD), etc.
The government should not finance church charities and church should not ask or accept such aid.
Government money always comes with strings attached.

Contrary to what our society says now, the separation of church and state was never meant to keep tax money out of churches, synagogues and mosques. The government does give money to many faith -based initiatives, not just Christian ones, and that is not putting one faith over the other. As he says, the constitution only requires that the government doesn’t put one faith over the other and doesn’t require its practice. If you give money equally to Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Jewish groups, you aren’t going against the constitution, it is as simple as that.

One of the problems with this country is that people are trying to read more into what the constitution says than is really there.

So, why are the only local programs touted those that are faith-based? Can’t a non-faith based local program provide just as much positive return as one that is faith-based? Why can’t we target those and leave the whole question of faith alone? I have a problem with my tax money being used to fund faith initiatives. And to that end, if an entity is receiving federal money they should not be able to discriminate on any basis regarding who they hire & who they serve. If you want to do that - find your own money, don’t use mine.

It can be as simple as the age old adage Having your cake and eating too! These groups want tax dollars but want to make sure that there are no strings attached! Our government owes us at least the privilage of knowing where and what our tax dollars are being spent on. I would much prefer none of mine go to the religious sect. Get a grip…

Great article…and the post about Planned Parenthood was great too! Margaret Sanger is a racist(the founder of planned parenthood) and it really burns me that my tax dollars go to fund legalized murder of unborn children. So faith based organization are a good investment of my tax dollars compared to that nonsense. A great point that the misinformed left always misses is that in this country there is no seperation of church and state. Obama who is suppose to be a constitutional lawyer(how you can be a democrat and say you know the constituttion escapes me)either is a liar, or is ignoring the facts or both. If we vote this clown into office, man are we in trouble.

Thanks

Dear Father Jonathan,
Thank you for the heads up on Obama’s secular view of the “faith-based initiative. As with everything about Obama, is you look a little deeper into his statements theres bound to be a liberal catch. I’m only afraid that once again he has fooled the American voter into thinking that he is a religious man when it is so evident that he is not. The devil is always in the details as far as this guy is concerned. Do your homework America. Don’t go to the polls without knowing what the man really is and what he stands for. I hope most of the truth comes out in the debates but maybe we shouldn’t count on it.

Faith based initiatives are simply politicians pandering for votes.Buying them in fact.With my tax dollars.

Religion isn’t poison?As long as it’s kept in check,it isn’t.Let religion get the upper hand and civil liberties suffer greatly.The founders of this country knew exactly what poisons lay within the church.

I’m sure McCain, who divorced his wife and left his children to be kept by his new trophy wife, is a much better example of Christianity to a wingnut moron such as yourself. Fair and balanced!

Jonathan-
Organized Christianity has given us 8 years of George W Bush. There have been many calls from the pulpit to vote (and vote again) for this war criminal. The TV preachers openly ask for prayers to support his policies of indifference, suffering and death. Heck of a job, Georgie.
Organized religion is quite good at building churches, hiring staff and sending money back to the head office. Just check out your own Vatican. As far a delivering services to the poor; not so much.
The world will be much better off when your reign of fear and ignorance has finally run its course.
Peace
JTL

The Father’s comments are profound, but overlook something. Obama has no character or morals, and everthing this creature says is a political calculation first and a statement of beliefs second. Obama has no interest in faith-based organizations or the faiths they represent. Obama made a political statement in an effort to undermine possible faith-based support for McCain. Obama’s goal was to appear “safe” and to reassure religious groups that he was and is not their “enemy” (much like the Greeks made a peace offering of a wooden horse to the Trojans after feigning a withdrawal of forces from Troy). Obama believes in “liberation theology”, pursuant to which the existence of God is not as important as exploiting or mining new sources of revenue for socialist programs. That is why this politician is not to be taken seriously.

Hey Primus,
That is the name of one of my favorite bands. Anyway, can you tell me where EXACTLY the words “separation of church and state” exist in the constitution? Just because the government gives federal funding to a church, synagogue, mosque, scientology group, athiest organization, agnostic, etc. it does not mean that it is the “official” religion of the country so it does not violate the constitution at all, however if you tell them who they can hire since they are faith based you are taking their religion away, which does violate the constitution. Father Jonathan quoted exactly what is written in the first amendment and you should read it again a couple of times as well as the rest of us before we cast a vote.

This arguement bears no real relevance.In this country it is impossible to seperate church and state,we’ve been trying for 200 years.Furthermore organized religion is now just as bad as the government when it comes to being biased.I’m sure God really doesn’t give a crap about whether Obama or Mcain wins,he is probably wondering instead why even though he gives us so much,and all the neccessary means to live in harmony.We constantly try to one up each other no matter the costs.Forget about the war,what about all the homeless starving kids right here in our own country,why isn’t stuff like this at the front of our to do lists.Preachers have lost so much of their respect and credibility,they are just like any other criminal,except they act as if it is god’s will for them to DO and SAY whatever they want.To me this is the worst kind of liar.Obama is just doing what all politicians do ,saying whatever it takes to win.

For churches that wish to continue discriminating in their hiring practices or provision of services, the answer is simple - don’t take Federal money; raise your own.

Obama’s premise is neither complicated nor earth-shattering; if churches are going to accept taxpayers’ money (which taxes are paid by everyone, including people of other faiths and no faith), then they can’t use that money to proselytize or discriminate against others. Not real difficult here, people.

You wrote: “As a former professor of constitutional law, Senator Obama surely knows the Constitution says only two things about the federal government’s relation to religion: 1) it should not establish one religion over another 2) congress should pass no law that prohibits its free exercise.”

I bet that Sen. Obama knows what Article VI of the Constitution says about religion. Perhaps you did not read that far.

And since you have frequently cited the Constitution in this blog, perhaps some of the words of the “Father of the Constitution,” Founding Father James Madison, might be of interest:

“Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’ of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” [James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822]

“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” [in a letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 23, 1774]

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” [in "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” [ibid.]

“…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.” [in a speech before the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]

Smart guy, that Madison!

So you like McCain’s plan better than Obamas? How, as a Christian, do you justify McCain’s stance on war? I’m a Vietnam combat vet, by the way, and I support Obama. And another thing, how, as a Christian, do you justify appearing on Fox “News?”

Dear Fr Jonathan,
Obama’s ideologies sound a bit like Francis Bacon and Karl Marx -YIKES! Faithless hope all over again! If you don’t know what I mean- look up their ideologies and look into history to see just how their ideas on freedom and reform turned out. Not so good.
Nancy

As the late, great comedian George Carlin so beautifully put it, we need to add this commandment to the list: “Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself”.
Use my tax dollars to build schools, fix the infrastructure, promote medical research, etc., but do NOT use a penny of my hard earned cash for any religious organization. The Vatican is one of the richest states in the world, so why not send some of that money to the poor instead of taking their money on Sundays??

Obama wants to fund churches and their programs with tax payer money.
Obama wans to control churches with lots of do’s and don’ts.
Obama needs to establish religious police to make sure the churches are using the money “correctly”.
Religious police…hmmmm… where have I heard that before?

If I’m jewish, can I go to a Catholic charity and demand they feed me? If they say something religious, can I call the religious police?
Maybe churches need to increase their liability insurance policies?
Will followers stop giving so much to their church if they know the gov’t is also sending money?

It is in the best interest of religion if the federal gov’t leaves religion alone.
Religion should leave the federal gov’t alone.
VOTERS can vote for whichever candidate represent their morals and beliefs. In my opinion, we should have a God-fearing man in the White House. Not a religious controlling one.

Obama is in the pocket of planned parenthood and never met an abortion he did not support. That is all I need to know (re: his faith and beliefs - mass murder supporter) and should be enough for anyone. 100% full blown support for abortion is in conflict with God and the Bible etc. and speaks volumes.

I hate to say that I’m with Obama on this one, as I fall decidedly conservative in the majority of my politics, but as someone who is part of a group that is almost gleefully discriminated against by religious types, I’m going to have to. Government isn’t a magical institution. Their money doesn’t come from a source unknown. Government money is my money, and I don’t want it spent on people who are allowed to continue hating me even though the law of the land says they can’t. If an organization is going to get money from the government, then I think it only fair that they have to play by the government rules. It’s a bit of a catch 22 for the faith based organization.

If you want the money I earned, then you can’t refuse to hire me too. Cake and eating it. Not yours.

d
a
v
e

This comment is for SeniorD,

Just how would giving religious groups Federal money and continuing to allow them apply discriminatory hiring practices in violation of federal law, not violate that separation? Sounds to me like you’d love to violate that tenant as long as it’s done in your favor.

d
a
v
e

For those of you who made comments regarding the Vatican and Sunday collections (JTL, Zilana):

Catholic Charities and Food for the Poor are two excellent Catholic charitable organizations that work in the US as well as abroad. They are supported by the Catholic Church (Vatican) and the small amount of overhead that these organizations operate on is astounding (most money goes to help).

Do the secular charitable organizations that you support do an equally efficient job?

I agree with the handful of posters who contend that government should stay out of religion entirely. There is no need for faith-based charities to accept government subsidies (taxpayer dollars) at all. Many of them already do just fine without it. Accepting government money puts the church / charity in the position of serving two masters. Any that would accept government money are likely not interested in doing the Lord’s work anyway. As a very religious taxpayer, I do not want my tax money doled out to the faith-based organizations that meet Sen. Obama’s criteria, John McCain’s criteria, George Bush’s criteria, or any other politicians criteria. I would rather keep my tax money and have the freedom to hand it over to the faith-based charity of MY choice - based on MY criteria! (Which, typically, will be the one that I believe makes the most efficient use of my dollars to help the most people.) Then, and only then, will I truly be engaged in charitable giving. Note to America: it’s not charity when you vote for politicians who promise to take your money and give it to the poor for you.

Fr. Jonathan: Faith based initiatives are undoubtedly more successful than govt. programs. Proof positive extends to schooling which families pay out of pocket for that is much more successful than public schooling. In Obama’s program, it becomes another govt. beauacracy since govt. will be telling us how they need to be run and even with whom based on the hiring policy he is suggesting. Your comments on the constitution are accurate and I find it strange that some posting interpret the constitution so differently rather than literally. Strict construction provides exactly the opposite of what Obama suggests. In fact, let’s go a step further. Didn’t he really suggest it just to move further into the center as he’s done in the last week on troops in Iraq by “refining” his position based in what he might learn on a future trip. Too bad he hasn’t followed some things more closely. I have faith in my belief that he’s not a new kind of politician but one who is just slicker and more “artful” in his speech. What does he really believe and will Rev. Wright be the head of the new Faith Based Council he woul create once he’s in office or is he just blowing smoke again like he did in college? Peace, T

Listen to a good person’s accusers and you will see into the accusers’ hearts. They accuse Christian conservatives of hijacking Christianity. That’s because that is what they are eagerly trying to do themselves. They wish to distort the faith so that people see getting the government to help the poor to be the same as actually helping the poor themselves. In this hijacking attempt they seek to usurp Christian social responsibility by handing it over to government. When Jesus said “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” He wasn’t just saying we should pay our taxes. He was also saying we should not get government responsibility and Christian responsibility confused and mixed up.

There is a good lesson on the secular side of this as well. If government discovers that religious institutions do certain things better, perhaps the government is in the wrong game.

And back to the religious side, if Churches need government money to get their own work done, perhaps the Churches are failing to meet their missions. The government funneling money into their efforts on a regular basis means that wise government administrators are making the best in an area where they shouldn’t have been the ones with the money in the first place.

Great article. Thank you Father Jonathan!

Father Jonathan,

You are right on the point, again!

I belong to a group of