Forums | MacLife

I'm not really paying attention, you're saying the Salvation Army can take government money, but Planned Parenthood can't, right ?

Planned parenthood does take government money.

I have stated that I do not like my tax money going to abortion - for which people here responded that it doesn't, claiming that it goes to sex education.

But somehow the fact that the government money to the salvation army goes to non discriminatory charity doesn't matter to the same people who argued that the money Planned Parenthood takes doesn't go to abortions.

resedit wrote:

And those other organizations are free to request money from the government.

Where are they?

Are you suggesting that no other child day care organization exists besides the Salvation Army?

The same reason why they don't hire people involved in other sinful lifestyles - such as pornography and adultry and swingers.

Whether you like it or not, they have a right to consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a sinful one, and as a ministry organization, they have a right to exclude those living sinful lifestyles from paid employment in their ministry.

I've never claimed otherwise.  However, they shouldn't receive public funding in that case.

What if an organzation refused to hire Christians?  You would not have any issue with your tax money going to fund them?

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

Does that 90% take into account volunteers who work without pay because they believe it is their christian duty?

Good luck finding such volunteers outside of the religious world - they are virtually non existant.

You have numbers to back that up ?

Please be sure its a measure taken as a percent of the group size, not total people. 

Thanks.

I have volunteered at outreach programs countless times.
Different churches take turns, bible study groups within churches take turns, prayer groups take turns, etc.

Services include basic food preparation (cooking is usually done by a hired certified cook), food service, cleanup, clothing distribution, food distribution to those who can not make it to the distribution point, etc. - it's a lot of work, done for free by volunteers.

Sometimes non religious groups participate - occasionally you'll get volunteers from a drama club, boy scouts, 4H clubs, etc. but the bulk of the volunteers are from religious organizations.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Also, seriously, Pearl Jam to the Salvation Army 3 pages.  Don't ever change, MiniThink.

I say let's impeach Cheney. (That one was on the 4th comment before moving onto the now-resigned AG. Of all people. And it wasn't me, that time either. I get crap for mentioning certian legal issues in a thread about legal issues, which was associated in the threads title.)

Pardon me if I have issues on this issue.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

And those other organizations are free to request money from the government.

Where are they?

Are you suggesting that no other child day care organization exists besides the Salvation Army?

Of course others do - and they are free to request money from the federal government just as the salvation army is.

The religious nature or lack thereof of the charity group should not come into consideration when the government provides assistance to these programs. What should come into consideration is the quality of the assistance provided (IE is there a history of health code violations etc.) and fair distribution of service amongst those who need it.

The same reason why they don't hire people involved in other sinful lifestyles - such as pornography and adultry and swingers.

Whether you like it or not, they have a right to consider the homosexual lifestyle to be a sinful one, and as a ministry organization, they have a right to exclude those living sinful lifestyles from paid employment in their ministry.

I've never claimed otherwise.  However, they shouldn't receive public funding in that case.

You want to use public funding as a carrot stick for your agenda - even though their policy of not hiring those they consider to be willfully engaging in a sinful lifestyle has absolutely nothing to do with how any funding received is used?

What if an organzation refused to hire Christians?  You would not have any issue with your tax money going to fund them?

I would have no problem whatsoever with an Islamic welfare organization that met the needs of the poor and destitute receiving federal funds and refusing to hire christians.

Does that answer your question?

unanimous consent to rename the thread "AT&T and the Army of Salvation Eats Pearl Jam. Lyrics at 11."

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So they don't pay people they hire?

They pay the people they hire.
The lawsuit about them not hiring homosexuals however has nothing to do with charity.

I know they hire homosexual bell ringers during christmas, which is part of their charity - at least out here they do.

So they don't use government money to pay their employees, just for charity so it's okay?

Just like Planned Parenthood uses government money for things that aren't abortion...

Here's the bottom line.

The federal government is not allowed to discrininate against religious organizations. If the organization does charity w/o regard to race, religion, or creed - they can not be disqualified.

Due to this pesky piece of parchment called the Bill of Rights, the federal government can not interfere with how a religious organization sets its religious based criteria for who they hire.

Thus - regardless of how you feel about it the Salvation Army decision not to hire homosexuals, they can not discriminated against by the US government because of their religious conviction because of the first amendment - and thus, as long as they do not require religious obligations from those who receive their charity, they are qualified to receive federal funds.

If you don't like it, contact your representatives and ask that they nullify the first amendment.

A quick google turned this up -

Current federal guidelines require that clinics receiving Title X funds offer abortion referral and "non-directive abortion counseling." So a pro-life crisis pregnancy center would not be eligible for Title X funds, even if their services included distribution of contraceptives. In fact, a clinic cannot be neutral, but must be pro-abortion in order to receive these government funds. In reality, this has allowed many Title X grantees to offer referrals for abortion and actually provide abortions. Though federal law prohibits these clinics from the direct use of government funds for abortion, the infusion of federal money for their non-abortion activities frees up other funds to pay for abortions. And the "marriage" of all these services -- which allow a clinic to provide contraceptives, screen for pregnancy, refer for an abortion, and later perform an abortion on the same premises -- has given rise to a lucrative industry.

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp? … yid=family

resedit wrote:

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1025&department=CWA&categoryid=family

Unfamiliar with that website, then?

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

Are you willing to concede then that my tax dollars are going to pay for abortions at planned parenthood?

Readily.

So you agree that Planned Parenthood is in violation of the federal law saying the money can't be used for abortions and therefore should have such funding cut?