GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED CHURCHES?

Mr. Bush's goal is to make churches and other organizations dependent on federal money, and
through intimidation to concentrate even more power into federal hands. His target is America.
His new Ministry of Compassion is the tool.

Dear Editor, Post-Dispatch

Churches to become federally controlled? Will your church get federal aid so it can
be more "charitable"? Could federal monies to churches result in federal control?
Follow the money. Whoever OKs the federal check to the church becomes the
boss. Federal aid is always followed by dependency and federal control. Beware
of Pres. Bush's plan to send tax money to churches, whatever the contrived excuse.

The Supreme Court has declared the federal government has not only the authority
but the requirement to control and supervise how tax money is used. That means
fedgov would be required to control church activities. If a church becomes a
distributing agent for tax-paid "charity" does that mean the church pastor has
become an agent for the government? A federal agent? Could federal money
to churches become a political weapon to reward compliant and subservient
pastors and punish those not politically correct?

Can you show me any federal spending program over the past hundred years that
has not been corrupted by tax money, bureaucrats and false promises? How
many government spending programs really solve problems? How many
actually create worse problems?

A good example of this is our public school system which has already been
effectively federalized with megabillions in tax money each year. Pres. Bush now
wants to send them even more taxpayers' money than Clinton, expanding the
failure of public schools.

Why is it that government schools cost four times more than non-government schools?

And now, Junior Bush wants to "help" the churches and other "qualified" organizations.
When the government agent knocks at your church door and says, "I am only here to
help you", what will you do? If churches accept federal money to be followed by
regulations, guidelines, warnings, sanctions, disapprovals, restrictions, conditions,
controls, obligations, specifications, directives, requirements, quotas, obedience,
federal police power, intimidation, rules, prohibitions, mandates, and possible penalties
with fines, does that mean pastors will be free from the fear and dependency of a
government-controlled church?

I can hear it now, "That might happen in your church, but not in mine". The
solution: Congress needs to hear from you to stop Mr. Bush's whole socialist
scheme. More research at www.thenewamerican.com.

Donald G. Crowell
3402 Greenway
Hannibal, MO 6340

doninside@socket.net
=================================================================
Freedom Page - freedompage@mindspring.com

Friends,

If being a government church under the provisions of 501(c)3
tax exempt status is not bad enough, many churches will now
gladly come under direct control of the government.

Why? Greed. Today, many churches are more concerned
about money, prestiges buildings, and feel good sermons
than salvation.

Jim Hardin - jhardin@mindspring.com

The Freedom Page
http://www.freedompage.ws

Alabama Committee To Get Us Out of the UN
http://themustardseed.home.mindspring.com

From: "Douglas F. Newman" - dougnewman@juno.com

A Faith-Based Recipe for Disaster
January 31, 2001
Liberals, predictably, oppose President Bush's newly created White House
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, on separation of church
and state grounds. Christians and conservatives should likewise stand
foursquare against it on biblical, constitutional and historical grounds.
The details of the Bush program, otherwise known as "Armies of
Compassion" (AOC), will become increasingly clear in the weeks ahead.
However, Bush's campaign web site spelled out the general philosophy. It
stated that: "Resources should be devolved, not just to the states, but
to the charities and neighborhood healers who need them most, and should
be available on a competitive basis to all organizations - including
religious groups - that produce results."
At first, Bush's proposal seems harmless. He wants to make it easier for
us to write charitable donations off our income taxes. I'll take any tax
relief I can get, but I have a better idea: implement substantial tax
cuts now, and stop micromanaging how Americans live their lives and spend
their money. Truly compassionate people will give more to organizations
that help those who are legitimately suffering.
The problem lies with providing taxpayer dollars to religious
institutions. II Corinthians 9:7 states that, "Each man should give what
he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion,
for God loves a cheerful giver." God does not want stolen money, although
many pastors do. Tax money is, by definition, given under compulsion.
Giving tax dollars to churches and other religious institutions goes
against God's word. (Are we talking about armies of compassion or
compulsion?)
The "general welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution is not a
grant of unlimited federal authority to tweak with society and its
institutions until arriving at some optimal arrangement. Article I,
Section 8 spells out those things the federal government can proactively
do. The Tenth Amendment strictly limits Uncle Sam to these enumerated
functions. Helping those in need is not a Constitutional duty of the
federal government. It is a responsibility that the churches long ago
abdicated in large part to the federal government. Under constitutional
government, people could keep what they earned and donate it however they
pleased, without fear of federal interference or need of federal
approval.
(If I might digress, the real outrage of the Linda Chavez episode was the
failure of anyone to ask the following question: what kind of government
criminalizes simple acts of humanitarianism such as that which derailed
Ms. Chavez' nomination? Moreover, will the Bush administration stop
criminalizing such acts?)
The relevant golden rule here states that he who has the gold makes the
rule. If religious organizations wish to qualify for federal dollars they
will have to subject themselves to federal regulations. This is not mere
speculation. It would be instructive to look at the history of federal
aid to colleges.
In the 1960s, when Congress launched aid to college and university
students, everyone was assured that this money would not lead to federal
control of higher education. Before long, colleges and universities
learned that, in order to keep receiving this aid, they would have to
comply with federal affirmative action regulations, racial hiring quotas,
and numerous other requirements. It is not an overstatement to say that
dependency on federal aid has poisoned higher education in America.
Any university, corporation, or other organization receiving federal
monies or contracting with the federal government must now comply with a
seemingly endless labyrinth of federal regulations on everything from
racial hiring quotas to drug testing. For states to receive federal
funding for education, highways, and numerous other purposes, they must
likewise surrender a measure of their autonomy to that district from
whence all blessings flow. A common conservative argument against school
vouchers is that tax dollars for private schools will in turn increase
state and federal regulation.
The same dynamic will apply to churches. Accepting federal money always
leads to federal control. It is bad enough that for decades churches have
been faced with the choice of curtailing their political activity or
losing their tax-exempt status. Churches, for the most part, no longer
seriously question the modern megastate. The result has been dumbed-down
churches, which are more dangerous than dumbed-down schools.
Can you imagine your church being faced with the choice of having to
perform homosexual marriages or otherwise losing federal subsidies? Can
you imagine having sermons subject to federal scrutiny if your church
wishes to keep receiving federal money for a day care center? Can you
imagine your church losing federal money because one of its alcohol
counselors violated church-state separation by telling the story of the
Prodigal Son to an alcoholic in desperate need of help?
Based on the history of federal funding of education, this is what awaits
us under AOC. If Caesar has the gold, Caesar makes the rule. Do you want
to risk the possibility of a president Hillary Clinton, or a house
speaker Dick Gephardt manipulating the purse strings of your church? If
President Bush's agenda truly departs from that of the last eight years,
why is he so enthusiastic about something as fraught with peril as AOC?
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs His followers that, "No one
can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or
he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve
both God and Money." This is the choice facing churches under AOC. The
question is: how many will have the fortitude to choose the right master?If
few do, then AOC will be a faith-based recipe for disaster.
=================================================================
American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)
http://www.apfn.org
APFN EMAIL LIST SUBSCRIBE/UNSCBSCRIBE IN SUBJECT LINE TO: apfn@apfn.org
APFN-1 YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-1-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
APFN CONTENTS: http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm
APFN MSG BOARD: http://disc.yourwebapps.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN Petition Page: Petitions to Abolish H-1B, IBT, Reclaim America.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/petitions.htm
APFN SITE MAP:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sitemap.htm



Home Edu.Org.(Worldwide)
http://www.home-edu.org

Donald G. Crowell