Quote:
Originally Posted by politicophile
The churches were doing work that the government otherwise would have been obligated to do: those families had to get food and shelter from somewhere. I'm just guessing here, but isn't the Red Cross a non-profit as well? If so, I don't see how you could favor reimbursing one and not the other... on either side of the issue.
That said, this is, in the strict sense, not costing the government money. Rather, the government is choosing to accept a burden that the churches took upon themselves. Since some churches will surely turn the money down, the churches will still have saved tax dollars. Furthermore, the churches will be pleased with the government's recognition of their work.
This doesn't look like an establishment clause violation either, but I would have to see how carefully the money was earmarked before I would know for sure...
|
Some good points..... but now the churches are doing it for recognition and brownie points and not for faith and to help their brethren and in the belief this is what Jesus would do?
One that truly wants to help man and prove a point of faith need not seek attention nor expect and want it, for the attention shall come in actions done and from where and how the actions came.
Deeds done for true faith and wanting to help and being meek and unimposing speak far louder and more honestly and respectfully, than standing up and shouting and wanting recognition or selling your beliefs for silver.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
|