If a government agency is going to give money to a “faith-based” operation, to my mind that operation cannot turn around and say that they can only support folks who don’t offend their ideological sensitivities.
A St. Francis, Minn., Lutheran church refused to care for a woman who once was a man — adding its case in a growing national battle, a report said.
The case began last May, when Trinity Lutheran rejected providing day-care lunch services to the unidentified woman. The church said the gender change violated its beliefs, among other reasons.
The battle was resolved last month when the Missouri Synod church agreed to get no new clients from Anoka County, Minn.
Or, put another way, if you want to perform charity, more power to you. If you want to limit the folks to whom you do so based on your religious beliefs, that’s your prerogative, and you are more than welcome to gather up funds from folks who believe as you do in order to do so.
But if you accept my tax money, you give up the right to discriminate on, essentially, my behalf.
It’s your choice. It’s not an imposition of my will on yours. You can simply walk away from the money. If you can’t walk away from the money — well, you know the old joke about “we already know what you are, now we’re just settling on a price.”
If I remember correctly, churches that recieve federal dollars are exempted from all civil rights rules and such if they violate a groups belief.
I, for one, am waiting with worm on tongue for the westburough baptist folks to apply for federal monies so that they can continue their “good” works.
That’s certainly been a bone of contention in the Federal faith-based initiatives. And, yes, I’m waiting to see some law suits from folks whose applications for federal dollars get rejected.
Where I agree with some religious groups — the ones who reject federal money — is that even if there’s currently a loophole, sooner or later the quid will required a pro quo. Once an organization becomes dependent on the governmental teat for funding — as much as that funding lets them do even more than they could before — then whoever controls that funding will have control over them. The classic example is the increase in federal funding of education, which was brand new in the 60s and 70s and was greeted by some with warnings about how the feds would interfere with local educational policy as a condition for continuing the funding. That got pooh-poohed, and today that’s precisely the situation.
Were I in charge of a faith-based charity, I would stay far away from governmental contribution, no matter how seductive. The undue influence flows in both directions, sooner or later, corrupting both the government and the church.
Bwahahahaahahahahahahahahaaa*snort*hahahaahaha! 🙂
Heh.