Faith-Based Recommendations the Obama Team Hasn't Posted
Reader Comments
Who are you?
Kim Kaufman of CA, it would be a bad mistake not to take God into consideration when it comes to government, espicially ours. Washington was a Mason, but had a very poor attendance record for something that only promoted brotherhood and social interactions. Franklin was a Deist during his early life, but in his autobiography we can see that he attributed all of his success to God. An act that a true Deist wouldn't do because God, according to Deists, merely watched humanities actions and did not interfere. The list of founders goes on.
As for religions not having to pay taxes, who would you be taxing? The believers? Well you tax them already without having to be a member of a religion. The pastors and leaders? The only reason they receive a paycheck is because that is their job. Almost all offerrings and tithes go to missions, those in need, or benefitting the church in some way.
Also, most of the people in America are religious, so it would behoove Obama to pay attention to these groups.
wonder why Obama is not making these meetings public. This list of demands seems pretty good -- and I am against mixing church and state. But it's a lot more in line with the concerns these tax-free religionists should be having than from the previous administration (gay marriage, abortion, war-mongering end times nonsense).
Dan Gilgoff Responds
I find it intriguing that Richard Pierard wants to shut down the WH Office of Faith Based Initatives partly because "it is harmful to the churches involved." It's an argument that's often lost in the left's criticism of Faith Based Initiatives, which is usually predicated on protecting the state from the church. In crafting the First Amendment, the founders seem more concerned with protecting churches from government.
Faith-Based recommendations
I feel we would be best served if Obama simply dropped the "faith-based" initiative program. It is harmful to the churches involved, makes them more beolden to the government, and undermines that separation of church and state. We saw how badly Bush misused this and it is quite clearly open to abuses.
Danger, danger, danger!
(Whatever) of (whatever), what you are suggesting is very dangerous. For the American government to only be using a one way communication for religious groups could signify that the State can dictate to the churches, synagogues, and mosques what to teach. An open two way system would be better as it would keep the government from taking over any religion or vise-versa.
Response to the other comment.
Better served....wha.....?????
Are you saying the government should turn a deaf ear to
the Churches? Or are you another of those, who are paranoid about "the line" being blurred between government and religion?
I think open, two way dialogue might be the better way to go.
