Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The problem with tax funding of faith-based charities...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 12:45 PM
Original message
The problem with tax funding of faith-based charities...
First, let me assure everyone that this is not a post AGAINST faith-based charities, or against faith in general. I attend faith services, have volunteered (lots) for faith-based charities, and have raised money (lots) for faith-based charities. This is important to understand, because I believe the RW has framed the discussion in such a way that everyone who opposes tax funding of faith-based charities is ANTI-FAITH, and this just isn't so.

Those who support the tax funding of faith-based charities may not have thought the issue through carefully. There are numerous potential pitfalls.

The primary mission of faith-based charities is faith, not charity. Those who participate see themselves as responding to a religious call. In many faiths, one of the primary expectations is that members draw others, not of the faith, into the fold (prosletyzing). But tax funding asks that the faith-based charity members forgo this primary part of their own faith. Undoubtedly, most charities perceive themselves as treating all (even those of other faith traditions) equally and fairly. Yet tax funding essentially asks these religious persons to choose between one primary component of their faith (prosletyzing) and another (charity). Some, no doubt will choose prosletyzing. The government should not subsidize these activities. Others may choose to supress prosletyzing in favor of charity. The government should not be in the business of forcing religious institutions to make such choices. Both of these, the government funding of prosletyzing and government interference in people's faith choices, are activities forbidden by our constitution.

And that isn't the only problem. How will the government decide, for instance, in a time of shrinking tax revenues, WHICH charity to fund? Say there is a Muslim charity and a Catholic charity both applying for funding for similar activities. How will it be decided who gets the money? Will it be based on religion? How will anyone avoid the APPEARANCE that the decision is based on religion? These sorts of potential scenarios could threaten to increase religious intolerance in our country.

Further, let's imagine the situation, if the trend toward tax funding of faith-based charities continues, in a decade or two from now. Charity A, run by X religious organization, has been successful in obtaining funding over the years. This means the congregation's donations have been freed up to pay for other faith-based activities. The organization has thrived. Charity B, run by Y religous organization, however, has not been so successful in obtaining funding for it's efforts. It has continued to run the charity funded only by donations from the congregation. This has placed a burden on the Y congregation that X religous organization does not share. Some of the members of Y religious organization leave to join Congregation X, which in the community becomes seen as generally more successful. In the meanwhile, the physical structures of Y congregation have deteriorated. The congregation is now unable to pay for needed repairs and so must sell their property and disband. In this scenario, the government funding of Charity A provides a major reason for the failure of Charity B. This amounts to the governmental regulation of religion, albeit indirectly, and is not allowed by our constitution. Not to mention that while criticising the "dependency" of individuals who are in the welfare system, the RW is now essentially creating the same situation, but with charities as the new dependent class.

Finally, there is one more reason to oppose tax funding of charities. In sociology there is a concept called "over-manning and undermanning." In any social group, there are tasks that need completion. In an under-manned situation, there are few people to do the required tasks. Each person therefore percieves him/herself crucially needed in the completion of the tasks, and so is more likely to pitch in to help complete them. More work gets done.

In an over-manned situation, however, there are many people in relation to the tasks that need to be completed. Each person is aware of how many people there are in relation to the amount of work that needs to be done; each thinks that there will be someone else to do it, and so each is less likely to participate in working to complete the tasks. Less work gets done. The risk is, as the government increasingly funds faith-based charities, that those who in the past have reliably responded to donation drives will be less inclined to do so, because the government will essentially have become that "someone else" who will do it, as in the overmanning example, and the perception will be that the chosen charity does not need help to the degree it once did. As donations decrease, the government will slowly have to take over a larger share of the funding for the charity, or, cease funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. I now make it a point NOT to give to faith-based charities
Sorry, don't support them at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Was that always the case, or just since the faith-based stuff started?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Since it was clear to me that they would interfere in research-based
sex ed. programs for youth. Bad idea. The dealings w/that whole Schaivo thing were predictable but that was only the icing on the cake. In the past we didn't care too much if the group or "faith-based" group was actually meeting the needs of someone. Not anymore. Since they don't confine themselves to help only and seek to now evangelize everyone they come in contact with-no more support.

I only give to environmental causes now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, those things are problems. I personally think F-B charities do good
Edited on Sun Sep-25-05 04:54 PM by Wordie
in our communities; some of them do a lot of good. Some are good in some ways, bad in others.

But their role is completely different than that of government, which we fund through our taxes for the GENERAL good. When those two roles become blurred, it is likely to have disastrous consequences, both for the charities, and for government. The wise framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights anticipated the many potential problems associated with the blending of government with religion. We should heed their words and follow the principles they set down for our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Well a good murder usually satisfies at least one person,
but I wouldn't want to perpetrate one. Sorry, no tax money for faith based endeavors for me without greater clarity and rigorous oversight of the "rules". In this administration that will never happen.

Earth, water, trees and animals....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Oh, I certainly agree NO tax money for faith-based endeavors.
I say, let religion do what it does best, and government do what it does best. And these are not the same.

I think you are entirely justified in donating only to those organizations that you want to donate to; tax funding of faith-based organizations deprives you of that right. We are agreed.

I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with personally donating to some of them; ones of my choice. I am making the choice; the government is not making it for me. There's the difference. (Doesn't this sound like something a RWer would agree with? Aren't they all for getting government out of our personal lives?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MichiganVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. The RW's want government at their beck and call. Screw the rest
of the country. They expect to order government and its services like an expensive lunch that only they are entitled to dine on. I don't care that some of the RW's want hard core religion. They can have their fill. I care that they expect me to pay for their priviledes to the exclusion of common sense, common decency and common people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. its vote buying and welfare for churches nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yes, the SAME ones who opposed welfare for people, want it for churches.
And you are right about the vote-buying part, although it's a circular process, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yup, ex: Salv. Army- openly anti-gay in the name of the Lord
That is a political position. It is discriminatory. Giving to them gives them the power to give help to those who need it, in return the recipients are beholding to them and vulnerable to their propaganda.

Ditto for Patprick Roberbaron-son
Ditto for Catholic uncharities and the new homophobic papal bull.


http://www.noahswish.org/


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-26-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. As I see it...
it is, unfortunately, a religious belief erroneously held by some. My feeling is, as far as GOVERNMENT is concerned, let them have it (belief), just don't fund it.

Let them work out the contradiction in their faith communities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-25-05 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. That church in CA that expiled the child of gay parents, how much tax
dollars do they get from faith-based, Bush-sucking, federal monies??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC