* Proud atheist Rob Sherman wrote recently about the new capital bill, which he claims includes…
…hundreds of unconstitutional donations to politically connected houses of worship, ministries, parochial schools and other religious organizations.
Sherman also claims that Gov. Pat Quinn “knows that those provisions are unconstitutional, because he told me so.”
Last fall, when Rod [Blagojevich] was still the Governor, I spoke with Pat, in the parking lot of the State Capitol in Springfield. Pat was sitting in the driver’s seat of his modest, humble, white sedan.
I mentioned to Pat that I was in Springfield, that day, on a hearing regarding my lawsuit against Rod and the State of Illinois over Rod’s proposal to donate one million of our tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church.
Pat said that he was aware of my lawsuit and that he agreed with me: Donating state money to a church is unconstitutional, he said.
Sherman also claimed that his “team of attorneys” is preparing a lawsuit to block the capital projects which benefit religious institutions.
* The Question: Is Sherman right or wrong about these capital grants? Explain.
…Adding… Erickson had a story on this topic a few days ago and I didn’t see it…
In Normal, the St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Newman Center on the campus of Illinois State University is in line for $200,000 in state funds. The under-construction facility, which will serve Catholic university students, is being built for $3.2 million with most of its financing coming from the Catholic diocese in Peoria. […]
State Sen. Bill Brady, R-Bloomington, said the state money is aimed at the student services portion of the Newman Center project.
“I was looking for a way to help ISU and its students,” said Brady, a candidate for governor and a Catholic.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:03 pm:
He’s right about state constitution, and he does, in fact, have a suit coming.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:04 pm:
Explain, please.
- wordslinger - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:06 pm:
I’d have to see on a case-by-case basis.
If it’s money to bring a community daycare center up to code, fine. If it’s to build a Golden Calf or install a Festivus Pole, probably not.
- Ghost - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:09 pm:
Depends. If the State is providing money on a religious neutral basis, then thetre is no problem that religious insitutions are also eligible and requesting the money. i.e. if you provide grant money to say support purchasing computers for a school classroom; and the applicants need only establish certain educational requirements to get the grant; then all school providers should be eligible.
It would be illegal to refuse to give a neutral grant to someone becuase they were a religious entity just as it would be illegal to make being a religious entity a condition of recieving the money.
A church has the same right to request and recieve grants as a non-church.
- Heartless Libertarian - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:09 pm:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Now, is the capital bill a law? I would say so. Now, what is the use of the money? If it is to build a new church, I would say it is unconstitutional. If the money is going toward non-worship aspects, such as a food pantry or other welfare programs, I would say there is no constitutional basis for denying it.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:10 pm:
I am as surprised at the number of religious organizations who would accept Caesar’s filthy lucre as I am that our state would hand it out. Sherman’s right.
- Steve - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm:
Here’s what the state of Illinois Constitution says:
SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be
guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his
religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby
secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or
affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify
practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.
No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry
or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any
preference be given by law to any religious denomination or
mode of worship.
Most honest people would interpret “No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry
or place of worship against his consent,” as banning public funding. But, this is Illinois: there’s seems to be no limit on what government can spend money on.
- Downstater - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:16 pm:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
There is nothing in the constitution prohibiting governments from giving money to religious organizations. If the state gave money to a religious organization and declared it the state sanction religion, then it violates the constitution.
Liberal nonseculars always tend to twist the meaning.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:16 pm:
When a person is obsessed, they view everything that they read or hear through that obsession.
Mr. Sherman is obsessed about God. So, as we struggle through our government follies, he is seeing his God-obsession in this government meltdown. (Sorry Christine, the budget did not prevent a meltdown - a meltdown is still occurring.)
So naturally, Mr. Sherman sees programs that should be cut based on his God-obsessed priority lists of government funding.
Is he right? In his little dark world, he is. But fortunately, the rest of us understand the proper role of these grants and the priorities our communities have in the real world, and correctly look at Mr. Sherman as a ridiculous man with a serious case of God-obsession. When you get cornered in a plain white sedan by him, you will do whatever you can to get away from him too, even if it means agreeing with him. We naturally recognize those among us with obsessions, and try to escape without getting swallowed up in their deranged world-view.
- Speaking at Will - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:20 pm:
Vanilla Man 1. Sherman 0
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:26 pm:
State constitution is the operative ban here, Article X Section 3 (full text above). Absolutely no money to churches or orgs controlled by churches. Was put there in 1970 almost explictly to prevent vouchers.
You COULD make case for the being unconstitutional via fed. Constitution, but that’s an aside.
State constitutional ban is air-tight.
- Legaleagle - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:29 pm:
He’s wrong. US Constitution is no problem, as the moneys go to secular (non-religious) programs, not to religious instruction or rites. But social services rendered by the otherwise religious group must be available to all - not just members. Illinois Constitution is tougher, but again no bar to state funds for secular services. Art. X Section 3 bans state money “for sectarian purposes”. Religious groups who offer social services to all generally do so more efficiently, and with many volunteers, than could the state government, which would inevitably bog these programs down with bureaucracy and patronage. So they are a good deal for the taxpayer.
- Cheswick - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:33 pm:
What did Pilgrim do with the money they got from the state?
There’s a difference. If the religious institution is doing a job that, if the state did it on its own would cost 10x as much (an example, but not out of the realm), then the religious organization becomes a contractor that just happens to also have a church or temple or whatever.
- siriusly - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:36 pm:
VM makes some good points
However, I think Sherman could win a suit if he brings it against the right project. A church? A purely religious or majority religious oriented project, yes. However, the Bush administration started (and Obama is continuing) to provide Federal government support to faith-based NFP’s so long as they use the money for non-sectarian purposes. Many of the NFP’s getting assistance under the capital bill are doing just that.
Bush’s policy was court challenged and sustained. I think Sherman may have A valid point, but if he misses the mark with his suit he’ll lose or just be dismissed.
- siriusly - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:37 pm:
As for Quinn telling Sherman he agreed with him last year. Well those are the words of an out of power Lt. Governor. This Quinn is a different guy in a different position. I don’t think Sherman should count on calling the Gov as a witness.
- Black Robe - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:37 pm:
VM is correct and Sherman wrong. Steve’s interpretation of Section 3 of the Il. Con is also wrong. There is no such prohibition and the clause he refers to has always been understood to be a prohibition against forced attendance or support of a church. It is not a prohibition on what the State does with revenue gleaned from taxes. In fact, a significant percentage of social programs the State pays for is outsourced to religious organizations like Catholic Social Services.
- Lefty Lefty - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:38 pm:
This is obviously one for the lawyers, but it sure sounds to me like Sherman is right. This isn’t a debate about social service spending, it’s about the capital bill. Roofs, parking lots, lighting for ballfields, roads and bridges. If a Christian school in Chicago is getting a new parking lot from this legislation, it is illegal.
- OldSmokey2 - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:40 pm:
One of the problems I have is when grants go to religious groups that practice and/or promote discrimination. Illinois law, for example, bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. If we give tax dollars to groups run by homophobic ministers such as James Meeks, Wilfredo DeJesus and Bishop Trotter, that could mean that my taxes are supporting discrimination. Some of the programs run by such churches may indeed be helpful to people, and I understand that. I would have less of a problem with it if any group, church-related or not, that gets state funding had to sign a contract that included assurances that they would conform to Illinois’ non-discrimination law in their hiring practices and in who they choose to serve. Religious groups would still be free to practice and promote discrimination if they chose not to sign those contracts and take public funds.
- Cheswick - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:44 pm:
I neglected to say it before: Rob Sherman is wrong.
The constitutional test should be how the organization uses the money. If the money is being used to teach the bible and buy hymnals, then it is unconstitutional. If state money is used to teach blind people how to walk with a cane, then it should be treated as any other non-religious organization that does the same job.
Sorry if I sound like I’m repeating myself.
- notacelebrity getmeouttahere - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
My gut says he’s right, because I have so much reason to mistrust these politicians and all of their actions.
- jake - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Some of the items in the capital bill are for churches themselves, with no clear connection to a social service function. Those should be struck out of the bill. Apparently these were pass-throughs from particular legislators. On the other hand, a social service function that happens to be sponsored by, or resides in, a church (child care, meals for homeless, homeless shelter, battered women shelter, etc.) would seem to be o.k., provided there is no religious test imposed for people who would utilize the social service.
- what went before - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Are there any past audits that show how NFP’s used the grant money? Perhaps proposed to use funds for non-religous purposes, but then realy built a home for the pastor or a parking lot?
- Capitol View - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:02 pm:
a real world perspective here, if I may:
who is going to run homeless shelters, except religious zealots? And if a church wants to open a shelter, they have to be ADA compliant and in compliance with all fire / safety rules. Same with food pantries, most of which are organized under religious group sponsorship.
What is a religious organization? The Catholic Church clearly is, but Catholic Charities serve everyone with no religious activities participation. Same with Episcopal Charities. Same with the Jewish Federation - which is lay board led.
George W. Bush wanted to expand government services run by religious organizations, because in a rural Texas town with only a gas station, a bar, a church, and a small grocery store, only the church had the capacity to offer human services.
Ever hear of the DCFS initiative to involve churches in adopting African-American kids?
The biggest Episcopol Church in Illinois is a few blocks from the United Center. When it was built in the 1800s, that was where their churchgoers lived. Today, its sanctuary is filled only on major Christian holidays. But its social hall is a major community center resource to the area under privledged kids and families. That social hall has received public funding for a new roof, and I’m glad that the dollars were available.
Lesson here: there is a difference between “religious organization sponsored”, and “religious.”
Even with the State Constitutional separation, parochial school students receive special ed services - sometimes through area public schools, and sometimes through community organizations. All state recognized parochial schools receive Title I support, for their math and reading deficient students. Those students will be part of our work force in another few years.
The lawsuit is nonsense. Dollars are distributed only after a reviewing state agency approves the project, primarily to avoid political embarassment. A bond funded capital project that is truly religious in nature may be appropriated, but its funds will not be released by state government. The General Assembly does not have the authority to issue project approvals directly - this would be special legislation. All capital grants are made through an executive branch agency, which is why Blagojevich was able to play political games with releasing only some by a favored political caucus — one year, only the House Republicans received projects funding and implementation(sic).
Find a more appropriate target for your publicity and fund raising purposes, Sherman.
- Anon - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:03 pm:
RE: the Illinois Constition being operative and “tougher” than the U.S. Constution: Yes to the first, no to the second. The Illinois Supreme Court interprets the religious clauses of the Illinois Constitution as it would the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Board of Ed. vs. Bakalis 54 Ill.2d 448). Since that decision, it’s repeatedly held that any statute that is valid under the U.S. Constitution is valid under the Illinois Constitution, and Given the decisions of the US Supreme Court over such funding issues, like others have said: so long as these funds are for nonsecular purposes and not aimed to favor one religion over another, they should be ok.
- lake county democrat - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:03 pm:
A bit of a tangent but I sure hope they fix all the potholes and manage to repave some Chicago streets before they build any new churches.
- Plutocrat03 - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:06 pm:
For a man who does not believe in a God, Sherman spends an awful lot of his time worrying about the subject. Whether the state can provide money depends on what is done with the funds.
The state should not be involved in worship facilities or administrative facilities, sacristies or housing for the religious.
Facilities which are open to the public for secular purposes such as day care facilities, soup kitchens, schools (whose primary purpose is other than religious education) can be funded under the same rules as secular organizations.
I would also like some better rules about funding secular organization who provide services, but that is another topic.
- Anon - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:08 pm:
*That should be secular, not nonsecular purpose
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:08 pm:
Among other things, capital bill funds roof repair of church buildings, etc. That’s obviously afoul of state constitution.
Catholic Social Services (which I assume is Catholic Charities is what you mean) is not run or operated by the Catholic Church. Affiliated, sure, but not run by and not suppporting the “religious” mission of church.
- HoosierDaddy - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:24 pm:
The question will all boild down to what the money is used for. If there are no restrictions on the grants, they are clearly unconstitutional. If the money is to support specific non-worship missions, e.g. homeless shelter, food pantry, clothing ministry, drug rehab, then I think it would be religious discrimination to DENY the grants”
“no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his
religious opinions;”
A grant made avaiable to organizations to provide social services could be construed as a “right”. Denying such a grant for religious reasons is prohibited by the same section of the State Constitution.
The federal constitution will control only in case of a conflict between federal and state constitutional rights. If the state constitution protects MORE rights than the federal, the state will stand. The federal constitution only provides a minimum level of protection of rights.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:24 pm:
“Liberal nonseculars always tend to twist the meaning.”
I love this phrase. An allegedy religious person is making the blanket statement that everyone who is does not believe in that person’s faith must be a deceiver.
It is a phrase that says far more about the person using the phrase than about any opponent.
- phocion - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:25 pm:
When churches start paying taxes, they can start getting grants.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:28 pm:
Correction: Since “secular” is “not bound by monastic vows or rules” then “non-secular” must be “bound by religous vows or rules.”
So a “liberal non-secular” would be a liberal religious person. Per Downstate, THOSE people are the liars.
My bad.
- Red Bird fan - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:37 pm:
Many faith based organizations receive grants from the state and federal government to provide social services. Lutheran Child and Family Services, Catholic Charities, Shriners Hospitals and the United Church of Christ’s neighborhood houses are faith based organizations that provide services to many people across the state and country. As long as they serve anyone who enters needing help without regard to their religion and they don’t require that person to hear about their religion or take part in their religious services there shouldn’t be a problem. From what I understand about Rod’s grant to the church is that the church did not service individuals outside of their faith family.
- Narcoleptic - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:38 pm:
If building a building, fixing a toilet, expanding a soup kitchen or any other state- sponsored act helps that religion or any other religion in the furtherance of proselytizing new members I don’t believe it would constitutional. One person’s “dark obsession” is another’s “quite natural and obvious” order.
I have to say, though, what self-respecting church believing in its mission would accept one dime and the strings it brings from government?
Oh well. It does mean construction jobs.
- Cheswick - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:38 pm:
We pay state and federal dollars to hospitals that are backed by religious organizations in the form of Medicare and Medicaid. I’m sure Sherman objects to that, too.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:48 pm:
“I was looking for a way to help ISU and its students,” said Brady, a candidate for governor and a Catholic.
At the time, Brady clearly was thinking “`Pork’ is spending in somebody else’s district.”
I always love that. These people whine about spending, unless it is for stuff that they want. Pathetic.
- rrt - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 1:56 pm:
A lot of good comments here; I agree with many that this depends on the funds’ use. If it supports proselytizing, then no. Otherwise I think it could indeed become discrimination. Now, there is unfortunately a grey area, in that the public funds could be offsetting religious funds. I would bet Sherman argues this. Ideally I’d rather have a government with social support mechanisms that don’t need non-secular help, such that we don’t even have to ask these questions.
siriusly: Bush’s faith-based initiative was NOT itself sustaied. The court ruled against the plaintiffs on standing, which may have been worse. It basically means that the taxpayers are denied the right to sue the executive branch over giving their money to religious groups in the first place. Theoretically Bush or Obama could build mosques and you’d be SOL to stop it (though I’m sure they’d change their tune real quick if that happened).
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:00 pm:
Churches don’t pay taxes because they are not profit generating institutions (and those that do sell things are covered by IRS rules for that portion). Their members, however, most certainly do pay taxes.
For the record, VFW halls don’t pay taxes, AA doesn’t pay taxes, and if you started a swinger club that wouldn’t pay taxes either.
- soccermom - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:02 pm:
So if you’re getting your health care from Resurrection or Provena, you’re not covered by Medicaid or state health insurance? And the State of Illinois should cancel its contracts with Catholic Charities?
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:03 pm:
John,
You are completely mistaken.
Not generating income has nothing to do with the tax free status. If so, many restaurants (and most businesses in the first year of operation) would be completely tax free.
Instead, we have a long history of the view that taxation on churches is an illegal state burden on churches.
You can’t re-write history.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:08 pm:
I didn’t say non income, I said non profit. The term is defined in the tax code, take a look.
Churches are a type of non-profit, but not the only one. Sure there is the burden on religion, but its also economically absurd.
That’s like taxing a bum on the money he receives by pan-handling.
And restaurants do generate income, perhaps not enough to cover costs, but that’s another story.
- Ghost - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:17 pm:
Skeeter, a church that is oprating for profit can lose there tax exempt status, thats part of the inquiry on these mega churches with multi million dollar leaders.
y the same token you said === many restaurants (and most businesses in the first year of operation) would be completely tax free. ===
You are correct, most business’s pay no income taxes once they deduct for operateing expense if they are failing to make a profit. But that is neiother hear nor there since they hope to make a profit and are just failing.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:19 pm:
John, you didn’t say “non profit.” You said “NOT profit.” Huge difference.
But to the merits: You don’t believe some of those mega churches generate substantial dollars? Just because they might claim that it is not profit would not make it so. When some of those people are flying in private jets, they would be a nice source of income for the state.
But you can’t do that since doing so might be a burden on religion. It has nothing at all do with whether these places COULD be a source of income for the state. Many could. It has to do with whether they SHOULD be.
- rrt - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:22 pm:
Um…look, I’m on the fence as to whether churches should be taxed, generally or partially. But you may wanna rethink equating church incomes with those of panhandlers, John. Last evangelical service I attended, the preacher instructed his flock that it was their duty to tithe like they meant it, to help him plug that quarter’s million-plus gap.
- Brennan - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:25 pm:
Skeeter: There is a difference between an enterprise with a mission to generate profit that is failing to do so through market conditions and their own error from that of an institution that establishes a mission with no profit seeking objective.
I think the Pilgrim donation was clearly unconstitutional. What grounds did the state have to play insurance carrier for a church? This was Rod being Rod and making up costs savings that will actually cost the state dearly.
I’d prefer that religious groups and not for profits receive no money from the government, but the grants are part of a bargain to keep tabs on what these organizations do. It’s resource tracking. The government buys its way into their books. Politicians favor it. It’s yet another source for endorsements. Brady demonstrates that.
A good Catholic would find ways to keep Caesar’s hands outside the church at all costs.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:28 pm:
- Among other things, capital bill funds roof repair of church buildings, etc. That’s obviously afoul of state constitution. - Bambenek
Not quite so obvious John, if the building isn’t used for religious purposes and serves as a homeless shelter or a soup kitchen, then this probably isn’t a violation. I haven’t looked at each specific project but you should provide a very specific example if you’re going to make absolute claims. Not saying you’re wrong necessarily, but you need to provide more information.
- Skeeter - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:34 pm:
Brennan wrote:
“Skeeter: There is a difference between an enterprise with a mission to generate profit that is failing to do so through market conditions and their own error from that of an institution that establishes a mission with no profit seeking objective.”
I agree, which is why I disagree with Bambenek. He would just look at the economics of the matter (i.e generating $) where I would look at the mission.
I have no opinion on the Pilgrim donation but only because of the historical nature of that structure. In most cases, I would agree that the state has no role in such a situation, but to take it to a bizarre extreme, if the struture was the Acropolis [I know — Greek law, not in the US, etc. — I’m just adding an extreme example] then even though the structure might have a religious purpose, preserving a historical building might outweigh those other concerns. I’m not an architectural historian, but I wouldn’t rule out that the Pilgrim church might fit that criteria.
- Brennan - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:36 pm:
==Last evangelical service I attended, the preacher instructed his flock that it was their duty to tithe like they meant it, to help him plug that quarter’s million-plus gap.==
In the “tax” category, Illinois’ Income Tax looks like a walk in the park compared to the christian rate of 10%. And that’s a Biblical minimum. The actual rate exceeds 20% if you account for the all the Old Testament scriptures.
Mohammed had a good pitch. His rate was only 2.5%.
- fed up - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:37 pm:
How much did the state pay for building State Sen Meeks cathederal to himself the house of hope.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:39 pm:
Skeeter et al-
Read tax code on “unrelated business income” (or revenue don’t remember off the top of my head). Many non-church not-profits have been raked over that very thing of “excess benefits”.
Small Town Liberal-
A “church roof” generally means the roof on a church. A church is generally a building used for worship. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s by definition.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 2:52 pm:
Bambenek - You didn’t say a church roof, is that what the money is being used for? Is a homeless shelter operated by a church but not used for religious purposes still a church building? I’m asking because you said “church buildings” so I’m asking you to explain what exactly a church building is. Don’t act like I’m an idiot when you apparently can’t even quote yourself accurately.
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 3:10 pm:
Small Town Liberal-
YOU quoted me in #46 which uses the exact phrase “roof repair of church buildings”. We’re basically saying the same thing… House of worship, bad. Social service building, good.
Try to take a step back from knee-jerk and thought-blocking partisanship for a moment.
I’m on a blackberry, if you want a law review article then perhaps blog comments aren’t the right format for you.
- Small Town Liberal - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 3:20 pm:
Can you read on your blackberry? I’m asking if when you say “church building” you mean a building used for religious purposes only or can it be one used for social services, is this so hard? I told you up front I wasn’t saying you were wrong, I just wanted to know what you were talking about. And I still do. Is your official answer that a “church building” refers to a house of worship? If so then I agree with you (first time ever).
- John Bambenek - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 3:33 pm:
Yes, I mean houses of worship.
- Frank Booth - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 5:10 pm:
If this is unconstititional then there’s a whole lot of Illinois FIRST money that should be paid back. Who do you think paid for the new football field for the Bears at that private, church-affiliated college where they hold spring training?
- Emily Booth - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 8:32 pm:
Yes, I agree with Sherman and Quinn. Totally.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Jul 17, 09 @ 9:27 pm:
There are no devils hiding behind every dollar our governments distribute to community organizations located or originating from community church or faith organizations. In many parts of our poorer neighborhoods, citizens depend upon their local churches, just as they have depended upon other community organizations over the generations. It is a better value for our governments’ sincere desire to reach and assist the needy via these voluntary organizations whose mission is to reach out and assist the needy, than it is to build bureaucracies and offices staffed with union public employees.
We are talking about personal transformation here, and churches and religions have been leading personal transformations for more than a few Millennium. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here folks!
Church organizations recognize the third rail they risk touching when they accept government money to perform charitable work. Government agencies recognize the third rail they risk being electrocuted against when they hand out public funds to church organizations. But the bottom line has been proven - these organizations do a superb job and work hard, with, or without, taxpayer monies. To assist them is a good thing.
The legal arguments can be shelved for now. Not because there isn’t an argument to have, but that in this case, the argument’s negative consequences far outstrip any good it can deliver. There is a time to discuss these thing - when news indicates that the money is being abused, when it is exposed that the money is being used in a church-growing program, or when the money is being wasted. This is not the case, and even if it was, we have legal precedent to guide us in resolving the issue.
Our God-obsessed atheist friend may have a legal point, but having a legal point should not, and does not counter the societal benefits being efficiently delivered to our needy during these difficult times. We cannot allow legal arguments from an obsessive individual derail the Public Good.
Ignor him.
- Smitty Irving - Saturday, Jul 18, 09 @ 1:38 am:
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend put it best when she spoke about prior to Bush 43, religious entities founded separate organizations to receive government money & abide by all relevant laws. Unless Sen. Brady’s recipients are using the $$ for a separate facility, they are in violation of the Illinois Constitution.