Business will not allow Grant to faith-based chariities

[Lon]

I found this fascinating. For a long time, the Federal Government would not offer grants to Christian Foodbanks or other Faith-based charities seeking to serve and help the community. The Federal Government saw this not as 'separation of church and state" but bias and unfair to organizations that provide genuine service to communities, regardless of their religious affiliation and overturned that ruling.

However, big business like Microsoft and Coca Cola, can and do discriminate against Faith-based organizations who ask for grants.

It is certainly true there are false applications for funds but it is against the law to use designated grants for anything but what they are given for, so there should be no restriction based on religious affiliation. It would make more sense to simply require that those given grants, show on paper that the grant was used for the purpose it was written to provide (these all do that anyway).

So, discrimination? Yeah, I believe it is. Grants covering specific needs, should not discriminate against a religious affiliation, when it is offering a comparative service (often incredibly better because it is 100% volunteer so no overhead expenses or operating expenses).

 

[shagster01]

Religious groups get a HUGE grant. It's called not paying taxes.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I'm not 100% clear on American system, but aren't all charities in the same boat?

Religious groups get a HUGE grant. It's called not paying taxes.

 

[shagster01]

I'm not 100% clear on American system, but aren't all charities in the same boat?

Yes. But religious groups don't pay taxes even if they aren't a charity.

 

[Lon]

Religious groups get a HUGE grant. It's called not paying taxes.

I'd like to call you intelligent and compassionate here. Stop for 30 seconds and think why that isn't so. If you can't I'll help you. You aren't being intelligent, reasonable, or compassionate.

Hint: who is the actual target?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Yes. But religious groups don't pay taxes even if they aren't a charity.

As well as many others, when they are non profit. You know that right?

 

[zoo22]

I found this fascinating. For a long time, the Federal Government would not offer grants to Christian Foodbanks or other Faith-based charities seeking to serve and help the community. The Federal Government saw this not as 'separation of church and state" but bias and unfair to organizations that provide genuine service to communities, regardless of their religious affiliation and overturned that ruling.

However, big business like Microsoft and Coca Cola, can and do discriminate against Faith-based organizations who ask for grants.

It is certainly true there are false applications for funds but it is against the law to use designated grants for anything but what they are given for, so there should be no restriction based on religious affiliation. It would make more sense to simply require that those given grants, show on paper that the grant was used for the purpose it was written to provide (these all do that anyway).

So, discrimination? Yeah, I believe it is. Grants covering specific needs, should not discriminate against a religious affiliation, when it is offering a comparative service (often incredibly better because it is 100% volunteer so no overhead expenses or operating expenses).

Right. Many places that offer grants don't offer grants to religious organization, political organization, fraternal organizations, etc.

You can twist it into some some sort of anti-religious persecution, but there are all sorts of real reasons for it.

For example, it's very common for religious groups to incorporate evangelizing into the charity work they do.

Here's a list of organizations "The Coca-Cola Foundation and its affiliated regional foundations do not generally support:"

- Organizations that discriminate based on race, color, sex, gender identity and/or expression, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age or disability..
- Religious endeavors
- Political, legislative, lobbying or organizations
- Movie, film or television documentaries
- Website development
- Concerts or other entertainment events
- Beauty contests, fashion shows or hair shows
- Fraternal organizations and related events
- Local sports or athletic teams
- Travel or organized field trips
- Family reunions
- Marketing sponsorships or cause marketing or advertising projects (For marketing sponsorship requests, visit the Contact Us section)
- U.S. based local schools, including charter schools, pre-schools, elementary schools, middle schools or high schools
- U.S.-based organizations that do not have tax-exempt status under Section 501(c) (3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code, or the equivalent
- Organizations formed outside the U. S. that do not have a charitable equivalency status under the laws and provisions of their respective government

source

Do you find it fascinating that they're persecuting "Local sports or athletic teams?"

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ok when i first read this, i missed that this was a business denying a grant - i think a business has the right to deny whatever they wish to deny since its their money.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Shagster points out that religious groups are exempted from taxes)

I'd like to call you intelligent and compassionate here. Stop for 30 seconds and think why that isn't so. If you can't I'll help you. You aren't being intelligent, reasonable, or compassionate.

Hint: who is the actual target?

The taxpayers who are required to support these groups by paying extra to cover for them?

 

[shagster01]

Do you find it fascinating that they're persecuting "Local sports or athletic teams?"

I do kind of find that interesting, actually. I would, of course, change the word "persecuting" with something else. They certainly have a right to sponsor whomever they choose, but you'd think Coke would want to get involved at that level. I'm also surprised they wouldn't get involved with concerts. Interesting policy.

 

[PureX]

(Shagster points out that religious groups are exempted from taxes)

The taxpayers who are required to support these groups by paying extra to cover for them?

Exactly. Most people don't realize that not only do these organization not pay taxes, but they continue to use the community infrastructure that everyone else pays taxes to generate and support; like fire, police, and public safety infrastructures. Not-for-profit organizations do profit from the taxes that the rest of us all have to pay in their stead.

 

[Lon]

Religious groups get a HUGE grant. It's called not paying taxes.

:nono:

(Shagster points out that religious groups are exempted from taxes)

The taxpayers who are required to support these groups by paying extra to cover for them?

:nono: You aren't paying taxes to Microsoft or Coka Cola, in order to give grants.

Right. Many places that offer grants don't offer grants to religious organization, political organization, fraternal organizations, etc.

You can twist it into some some sort of anti-religious persecution, but there are all sorts of real reasons for it.

For example, it's very common for religious groups to incorporate evangelizing into the charity work they do.

Here's a list of organizations "The Coca-Cola Foundation and its affiliated regional foundations do not generally support:"



Do you find it fascinating that they're persecuting "Local sports or athletic teams?"

No, I find it fascinating, that they will give grant money to a secular food bank, that is serving all sorts of people, and not a 'Christian' foodbank that is serving all sorts of people. IOW, the target audience is the same 'type' of people, but denying a Christian foodbank in a particular area, actually is withholding food to that particular area. Unfair? That's the question I'm asking. Is that fascinating or not? Yes or No? Christian or secular in this case, are simply the middlemen distribution.

 

[Nimrod]

You aren't being intelligent, reasonable, or compassionate.

It is not the government's job to be compassionate. The real problem is the government, being angry and calling them unjust is not pointing out a solution.

This so called problem can be fixed if the government did not tax the property you own and the government handed out ZERO grants.

 

[shagster01]

:nono:


:nono: You aren't paying taxes to Microsoft or Coka Cola, in order to give grants.

No, I find it fascinating, that they will give grant money to a secular food bank, that is serving all sorts of people, and not a 'Christian' foodbank that is serving all sorts of people. IOW, the target audience is the same 'type' of people, but denying a Christian foodbank in a particular area, actually is withholding food to that particular area. Unfair? That's the question I'm asking. Is that fascinating or not? Yes or No? Christian or secular in this case, are simply the middlemen distribution.

No, that is not unfair. That would be like saying that if you tithe to your church, but not to a secular organization you are being unfair.

 

[Omniskeptical]

I found this fascinating. For a long time, the Federal Government would not offer grants to Christian Foodbanks or other Faith-based charities seeking to serve and help the community. The Federal Government saw this not as 'separation of church and state" but bias and unfair to organizations that provide genuine service to communities, regardless of their religious affiliation and overturned that ruling.

However, big business like Microsoft and Coca Cola, can and do discriminate against Faith-based organizations who ask for grants.

It is certainly true there are false applications for funds but it is against the law to use designated grants for anything but what they are given for, so there should be no restriction based on religious affiliation. It would make more sense to simply require that those given grants, show on paper that the grant was used for the purpose it was written to provide (these all do that anyway).

So, discrimination? Yeah, I believe it is. Grants covering specific needs, should not discriminate against a religious affiliation, when it is offering a comparative service (often incredibly better because it is 100% volunteer so no overhead expenses or operating expenses).

Since government shouldn't respect establishments of religion what is the point of thy rant.