Wouldn’t it be fabulous if our tax dollars went to pay for new air conditioning units and windows in churches?
No?
Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a measure that will “provide subsidies to ‘faith-based’ organizations and other non-profits to cover of up to 50 percent of the cost of retrofitting their energy systems.” Americans United explains the problem:
Aiding the environment always sounds great, but here’s the problem: the First Amendment prohibits the government from constructing or repairing buildings used for worship. Those funds must come from private donations. It’s not the job of the state to make religious institutions green.
The provision for faith-based institutions was pushed by Diament and a coalition of religious groups that included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Council of Churches and United Jewish Communities, as well as the Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Florida-based mega-church Northland; the Rev. Jim Ball, head of the Evangelical Environmental Network; and Jim Wallis, head of Sojourners.
Luckily, the Senate version of the climate-change bill makes no mention of similar subsidies for religion. Americans United is supportive of the Senate approach, and here’s hoping that perspective prevails in the long run.
I’m with the AU here. The government should not be taking money out of our pockets and putting it into the hands of churches to get better A/C’s or windows. These organizations have a tremendous amount of money — just consider that to be a member of a church you usually commit to “tithing” at least 10% of your income.
No folks, churches ain’t poor. They don’t need government handouts — let them improve their buildings and purchase more efficient air conditioning themselves.
They can get as much tax money back as they paid in the first place. Oh, wait – they don’t. That’s settled, then.
Why don’t churches donate money to (poorer*) people so those people can get a/c or better windows (would they have to be stained glass windows?).
* Everyone’s poorer than churches.
I think churches should be able to get tax money for improvements.
On ONE condition.
They need to start PAYING taxes first.
Come on, the two local non denominational churches I pass by on the way to work could really use it, otherwise the pastors may not be able to afford the shiny BMWs I see in the church staff reserved spaces as I pass by, and that would just be a shame.
I have a friend who heard about this first, and preemptively called me to tell me that I was already wrong (for agreeing with Mr. Florien), because the congresspeople are elected by the people who pay the taxes, and they’re doing what the people want done, and so it’s therefore ok.
I asked this friend if it’d be ok to go to maternity stores in suburban malls with wire hangers, abduct pregnant women, and do hanger abortions in the fitting rooms. He said no, because there are laws against that. I *then* pointed out that there is also a law against the government building or repairing churches. He backed down, for like the 4th time ever!
It was kinda funny though that I got him to agree with a forced abortion analogy.
(Hope you don’t mind but I’m stealing that)
Actually there is no law against the government funding churches. What the law does do is make it illegal for churches to fund the government. Big difference.
What law?
The Constitution says otherwise.
In 1947, Supreme Court Justice Huge Black said: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another [...] Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.”
lol Hugo
By their standards, my former employer was a non-profit organization. Only that we weren’t, and we had to pay full taxes. We accomodated kids and young adults all day long, every day of the week for ten hours, provided them with shelter, light, chairs and tables for the day. We were also a store selling games (the physical type, not electronic). The web came along, undercutting prices. Various competitors showed up, some using dishonest means to undercut prices some more. In all the years our store was running, we could not afford any climatization system or similar improvements.
All those ‘faith-based’ orgs have no idea what it means to really be there for clients and to actually work for every cent they want to spend.
… and I haven’t even gotten back close to the tax money I’ve paid the gov’t – whereas in my country the gov’t is obliged to subsidize building and renovation efforts of the churches who pay no taxes. Thanks, now I’m angry again, way to start out my day. :(
You worked for Games Workshop, didn’t you?
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 7/11/2009, at The Unreligious Right
These are the kinds of things you get passed when many of the people voting know nothing about who they are voting for other then they are christians.
But really, I’m so confused…shouldn’t God provide the cooling of the churches himself? Surely, if everyone in church was overheated and wanted to cool off, they’d pray and it’d be granted, right?
I don’t see why we couldn’t just start our own “religion” and get a piece of this pie. Make it something outrageous on purpose and have “followers” and places of “worship.” Then we, too, can have free money from the Government we don’t deserve.
Ever heard of the Church of the SubGenius or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I intend to open the Church of Gravity.
Gravity, at least, I know exists.
That helps me get new windows in my place of worship(IE: my house) how?
Pingback: The New Atheist » Blog Archive » Fresh From Twitter: Must stop this …
I’m sorry but I must disagree with this one. There is lots of government money being spent on energy-efficiency upgrades. If you own your home you may be eligible. Efficiency upgrades are good for all of us, regardless of who gets them… although admittedly it’s more better for the person paying the energy bill.
It’s ridiculous that churches are tax-exempt, yet get tax money spent on them, but that’s not new.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
What do you think of the comments I just made below that notes the distinction between churches and other faith-based NPOs?
It’s ridiculous that churches are tax-exempt, yet get tax money spent on them, but that’s not new.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Churches don’t pay taxes.
The government spends money on churches.
The government gets most of its money from taxes.
Right?
Yes to 1 and 3. I don’t the answer to 2. If churches do get money from churches, I’m unaware of it.
Isn’t that what this article is about? Where else would government subsidies come from but tax money?
I understood this:
yet get tax money spent on them, but that’s not new.
to mean that churches are already having gov’t money spent on them. I’m unaware of that happening in the present.
But yes to your first question. I don’t think there’s any question about what this article and this potential legislation is about.
Ah, right.
Yes to 1 and 3. I don’t the answer to 2. If churches do get money from churches, I’m unaware of it.
Heh, I obviously mis-typed what I intended to say. “If churches do get money from the gov’t …” is what I intended. But looks like you saw past my error there.
What do you think of the distinction between faith-based NPOs and churches with respect to federal funding? Given our debates about church and state in the past, I’m curious what you think.
I have a better idea. Lets tear down all places of worship, regardless of what religion they belong to, and plant trees in the ruins. That will be much more efficient in reducing energy use and will help absorb some of the CO2 put into the atmosphere by people driving Hummers.
Remind me not to vote for you if you ever run for office.
I believe in freedom of religion and from religion. They have a right to have a church — I just don’t want my tax money paying for it in any way. Suggesting people should tear down a church is just as bad as when fundies suggest burning down doctors offices because they perform abortions.
Tolerance works both ways.
Finally, a voice of reason that I agree with!
“Tolerance works both ways.”
i had no idea! when did that start happening?
No folks, churches ain’t poor. .
That’s an awfully generalized way of putting it, don’t you think?
Many of the big denominations do have quite a bit of money — although you will find that this is rapidly changing given the economic climate.
But your comment seems to be addressing local churches, not denominations. That claim needs to be qualified. Churches tend to reflect the demographics of their members. So, churches in the ‘burbs tend to have expensive buildings, lots of programs, lots of staff — because they have lots of money. However, churches located in areas of poverty tend to be impoverished.
Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a measure that will “provide subsidies to ‘faith-based’ organizations and other non-profits to cover of up to 50 percent of the cost of retrofitting their energy systems.”
There’s an important distinction to be made here.
Faith-based NPO’s are eligible to receive federal funding (usually via grant funding) as long as that funding does not support: worship, evangelism, or religious instruction. Those same guidelines should apply here, I would think, in order to be non-discriminatory.
Take mentoring, for example, as that’s the field I’m currently working in. Two of the largest mentoring organizations in the USA are faith-based mentoring programs: Kids Hope USA and AMACHI. Both of these programs partner with churches to recruit volunteers, but are otherwise ‘secular.’ They don’t evangelize; they don’t hold worship services, and they don’t provide religious instruction. They simply recruit volunteers from churches, because it’s arguably the most volunteer-rich and volunteer-concentrated population in the US> Sometimes, churches provide free office space or host events, etc., but that’s the extent of it.
I don’t think the government should be buying local churches air conditioners that would be put in sanctuaries — which are explicitly and almost exclusively used for worship services, religious instruction, and evangelism. That would be a violation of church and state separation.
But on the flip side of that coin, faith-based nonprofits should be as eligible as any other nonprofit agency, as long as they comply with the distinction I noted above.
From Daniel’s post, it’s unclear whether faith-based NPO’s are getting lumped in with churches. They shouldn’t be lumped together.
Can’t you can get volunteers from churches without being “faith-based”? If you don’t evangelize, provide religious instruction, require your staff to be religious, etc., then it doesn’t seem faith-based to me.
Can’t you can get volunteers from churches without being “faith-based”?
Absolutely. Churches are a target for recruitment for all volunteer-based organizations.
If you don’t evangelize, provide religious instruction, require your staff to be religious, etc., then it doesn’t seem faith-based to me.
As an example, a lot of churches in urban areas (especially the historically black churches) run all different types of after-school programs that are explicitly designed to keep kids of the street from the times of 3-6pm — which is the peak time frame for your delinquency and youth victimization. Sometimes it’s tutoring, sometimes it’s mentoring, sometimes it’s sports activities, etc.
The faith-based portion simply means that it was started by a religious or faith-based organization and is often run out of a church or a building owned by a church, etc. But, there’s nothing religious about the activities for the youth. That’s not the point. The point is to keep them off the street, keep them safe, and keep them out of trouble.
Obviously, there are similar programs that have an explicitly religious component. Those programs don’t qualify for gov’t funding.
Ugh…if they keep this up, I’m either moving to Canada or Norway. This is way ridiculous.
Just stay away from Alberta – it’s Texas North.
Hey! You remember that I’m from Texas, right!?!?!
You are the one assuming he meant it as an insult
;)
I’m so sorry LRA…
*shakes head sadly*
I do, but notwithstanding the beacon of rationality that is your state capital, Texas has fundamentalism on the brain.
Don’t worry, we’re ashamed of Alberta up here too.
Canada is teh awesomeness.