You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #4: Uh, I'm not terribly comfortable with your comment [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-18-04 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Uh, I'm not terribly comfortable with your comment
Of course, I have no idea how things work in the Bush administration (and rightly ought to suspect the worst), but what you've written is often used against liberal 501(c)(3)'s and it's just not true:

every dollar a religious group doesn't have to spend on construction or maintenance is a dollar it can use for proselytizing (or whatever their mission involves).

The reason it's not true -- at least under NORMAL circumstances -- is that when 501(c)(3) organizations apply for federal grant money, or even private foundation grants, they have to do it with a particular program outlined in depth in their applications,a nd they are required to use the money granted for exactly the purposes outlined. And there's considerable accountability for showing that that's what they've done.

Now, sometimes they can use the money for ongoing operations, IOW their normal "mission," but a lot of times the money can only go for a specific and well-detailed often new program. So the idea that the money is "fungible" just really isn't the case. When, for example, Planned Parenthood gets money from whatever source for either its ongoing operations or some special program they've developed and would like to fund, there is NO WAY they can shift any funds from their normal operations or the new program money to their political activities -- which is precisely what the rightwing claims they do or can do and why they should be "cut off" from any and all taxpayer money. In this case it can't happen because of very, VERY stringent IRS rules which you KNOW the rightwing would be all over them about and close them the heck down in a NY minute if they violated.

Now, will faith-based operations proseletyze along with whatever programs they're delivering under these initiatives? Many probably will, some won't. So your point about that remains viable, IMO. I just had to speak up about the language you used and the fact that the identical argument is wrongly used by rightwing idiots against leftwing organizations they would dearly love to destroy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC