holy bible laying on pile of hundred dollar bills
Should government funds go to nonprofits that only hire Christians?

An Oregon youth mentoring non-profit is currently suing the Oregon Department of Education after unexpectedly being stripped of some $400k in grant funding. The reason? The group requires a statement of Christian faith from volunteers and employees.

Youth 71Five Ministries offers assistance to youth of all faith backgrounds, across the state of Oregon. Now the group is filing legal action against the state, arguing their First Amendment rights were violated and seeking the return of federal funds they say were unjustly taken away.

The story has sparked debate over a key question: should religious organizations be eligible to receive government funding?

Discriminatory Hiring

For years, Youth 71Five Ministries has been partially funded by grants from Oregon’s "Youth Community Investment Grant Program," which helps youth aged 6-24 in underserved communities who are at risk of disengaging from school and work.

The group says its beliefs were never an issue over that time.

However, 71Five leaves no question about its religious affiliation. Its name is taken from Psalm 71:5, which states “LORD God, you are my hope. I have trusted you since I was young.” In its logo, the 7 and 1 form an arrow aimed at the sky, unmistakably pointing to heaven.

All employees, board members, and volunteers are required to sign a statement of faith affirming their Christianity, including an acknowledgement of “the infallible nature of Scripture, the Godhead in Trinity, and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.”

When applying for the 2023-2025 grant period, there was a new box on the form certifying that organizations “do not discriminate in [their] employment practices, vendor selection, subcontracting, or service delivery with regard to… religion.”

The group was unexpectedly informed by the Oregon Department of Education that their application was denied.

Though Youth 71Five says they’ve never discriminated against anyone, the state argued that the organization’s mandatory statement of faith was inherently discriminatory on the basis of religion.

“A Punch in the Gut”

Youth 71Five enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to assist them in suing the state, a lawsuit which is currently underway.

The plaintiffs argue that this new rule is blatantly unconstitutional.

"All religious institutions in America are constitutionally protected to hire staff and work with volunteers who share their beliefs, and 71Five Ministries is no different," explains ADF attorney Jeremiah Galus. "The state of Oregon is forcing 71Five and other religious ministries to choose between forfeiting their constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms and participating in an otherwise available government program."

"Simply being religious shouldn't disqualify an organization from a program that exists to help those in need," he argues. They state it is absurd to expect a Christian ministry not to hire Christian employees.

“We want [the funding] returned and secured so that we can work in the lives of young people,” said 71Five Ministries Executive Director Bud Amundsen. “It felt very much like a punch in the gut.”

However, critics argue the decision is a correct one; a group with explicit faith requirements for hiring staff should not be eligible to receive taxpayer dollars. To allow this, they insist, would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. 

A Constitutional Question

At the heart of the lawsuit is a fundamental disagreement over the First Amendment. 

Can a religious nonprofit legally be denied public funding if it requires employees to hold certain religious beliefs?

The government is refusing to fund an organization that endorses one faith over others in hiring, while the ministry insists their religious freedoms are being trampled.

Which argument will prevail? A review of recent similar cases provides a possible clue. 

Over the past few years, numerous Supreme Court cases have expanded the scope of religious accommodations for workers, as well as the rights of religious groups to exercise their faith beliefs (and reflect those beliefs in their policies). 

What is your reaction? Could we be headed for another expansion of religious freedom protections?


  1. Joy's Avatar Joy

    I think there is a difference between protecting religious freedoms and giving away tax payer dollars. No. These people should not get taxpayer money at all.

    1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

      I agree with you Joy. They are only using our tax dollars to further their own religion, under the guise of "helping the community". I would like to see them in a court of law to answer whether they would want their tax dollars going to a different religious belief, or spirituality, who are also doing good for the community. If not, that would be all the proof needed to NOT to use tax payer dollars to further their religious beliefs.

    2. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      Sorry about your opinion, SCOTUS already ruled that a school system in Maine WAS required to give money to a religions school for their playground. The name of the case is Carson v Makin https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1088/ and they ruled that where the child goes is where the state money MUST follow

      1. Erwin Pearlman's Avatar Erwin Pearlman

        Time for SCOTUS decision to be overruled - like so many other decisions

      2. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

        And they have been so upstanding as of late. Sorry but no, its a violation and SCOTUS should be ashamed and retract it.

      3. Cheryl Pettijohn's Avatar Cheryl Pettijohn

        Just because SCOTUS has decided that public funds go to private institutions doesn’t make it correct. And it doesn’t make it right. There is a clear agenda on SCOTUS and considerable ethics violations.

      4. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

        I remember that case when it was in the papers. I think you're right, Oregon Dept. of Education is in the wrong. Yet again.

      5. Harvey Zeller's Avatar Harvey Zeller

        Government monies that go to religious institutions for any reason whatsoever is a constitutional violation including the Supreme Court's Carson decision and should have been ignored.

  1. Nathaniel Robert Hunt's Avatar Nathaniel Robert Hunt

    No they should not get public funding

    1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

      SCOTUS says they ARE, like it or not https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/596/20-1088/

      1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

        Not reading anymore of your one-sentence cherry picking of SCOTUS rulings.

  1. Michael Sciulli's Avatar Michael Sciulli

    From minister Mike they should do fund raising like other church’s do

  1. Canadian Yankee's Avatar Canadian Yankee

    I will go a little further. The answer should be no and beyond that all goverment subsidies given to religous organizations should be stopped, including exemptions from Taxes that the rest of us must make up. A third of the land in New York is untaxed dur to some kind of exhemption. Most of which are religious.

    I for on do not have a problem supporting my belief in God with my own money but feel like I am being robbed when forced to support your God.

  1. John Ash McCormick's Avatar John Ash McCormick

    OK, but ONLY if they agree to split the taxpayer money evenly with Buddhist, Wican, Atheist, Agnostic, and Satanic youth groups. That would demonstrate they really aren't just a single Christian sect trying to get taxpayers to pay for their work.

    (Unless you want to cry all the time you have to have a sense of humor.)

    There is actually a Satanic church in west central PA which sued and forced a school district to host a Satanic youth group.

    Obviously we would have been spared a vast amount of trouble if the founding fathers had only guaranteed not freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion.

    Federal judge rules Pennsylvania school district must allow ... The Hill https://thehill.com › homenews › state-watch › 398185... May 1, 2023 — A school district in Pennsylvania must allow students to convene an After School Satan Club, a federal judge ruled on Monday. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3981851-federal-judge-rules-pennsylvania-school-district-must-allow-after-school-satan-club/

    I'm NOT a member, don't know anyone in the group, and they really don't worship Satan in any form but when a small apartment house near a local church rectory burned and caused some minor damage to the church property, the Satanic group helped raise money to assist.

  1. Rev. Klaire ThD, MA's Avatar Rev. Klaire ThD, MA

    Absolutely not! Additionally, they should be required to pay a 10% federal tax on any funds and non monetary goods received from fund drives and donations to support public education.

    1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      Why should churches be taxed to support public schools? I thought you favored separation of church and state. So in effect your demanding taxation without representation.

  1. Colleen McAllister's Avatar Colleen McAllister

    I worked for a non-profit based on Judeo/Christian values. Since we received State funding we had no choice but to offer our services to all, regardless of religious affiliation. One employee in my office was Buddhist. The non-profit in question must stop having employees, or anyone involved, from asking anyone to sign any paper or contract professing to Christian beliefs. Until then, cut the funding.

  1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

    Why do the vast majority (all?) of these articles say, Should CHRISTIAN ______ group/Institution get public funding?

    I never see one that specifically talks about Muslims or Buddhist or Satanist or anybody else. Now you may be able to pull up one or two of the others that I missed over the years, but any such article specifically targeting them are extremely rare.

    Why can't the discussion be, Should RELIGIOUS _____ groups/institutions get public funding?

    1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

      Maybe your answer is that no other religion (qualifier: that I know of) is trying to use government, and government money (people's tax dollars !) to force one single religions doctrines upon our children, or through our government institutions.

      1. Dr. Zerpersande, NSC's Avatar Dr. Zerpersande, NSC

        Although I agree with MichaelRS’s point about generalization you are most certainly correct the Christian Culprits.

      2. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

        I believe because most other religious groups respect that separation. For whatever reason some of those larger Christian centers seem to behave as if they are entitled regardless.

  1. Rev “D”'s Avatar Rev “D”

    No, religion has more than enough, especially christian faiths fleecing their flocks. Amusingly this “ministry’s” assets increased over 1.5 million USD year to year according to their filed tax documents.

  1. Thomas P. Davis's Avatar Thomas P. Davis

    Usually, it comes with strings attached. For example, government food give aways. If you adhere to their belief system they will give you the food for your food banks, if not too bad. Those people starve.

  1. CB Cuff's Avatar CB Cuff

    absolutely not. Religious expression is simply a Right, and not a public commodity to exploit. Tax exemptions already provide funding for church 'business'. I can't imagine how many billions of dollars are wasted on church real estate holdings going untaxed!

  1. Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF's Avatar Bro. James the Apostate, OSHSF


  1. amacooke's Avatar amacooke

    As long as every other 'religious' group group gets the same funding for their children (when was a 6 year old considered a 'youth')/youths .. though I am not sure how a 24 year old is a child/youth .. then, why not. We waste money on so many other things, like letting youths drink and smoke. I mean, how old do you have to be to buy alcohol where you are? In Australia a child/youth becomes an adult at 18.

    So, no, not just Christian children ..

    1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      amacooke, I'm glad that people are still considered youth up to the age of 24 as young men's brain, it seems, do not finish developing until about 24 or 25. Or so I've read. But based on my personal observations of young men in that age group ... Yup, I believe it's true.

  1. Robert Gagnon's Avatar Robert Gagnon

    Sounds like an organization that serves the community. So if they want Fed money, they will have to drop the employee/ volunteer requirement. Can't have it all, just pick which one is more important to them.

  1. David Arthur Lewis's Avatar David Arthur Lewis

    No Religious organization is entitled to taxpayer funding. No taxpayer-funded organization is permitted to promote religion or to discriminate in their hiring practices. Remember the age-old adage, "You can't have your cake and eat it too." You can't have it both ways. Either you're a church, or you get taxpayer dollars, not both.

    If life were fair, churches would be taxed the same as every other business.

  1. Rev. MichaelRS's Avatar Rev. MichaelRS

    If they are not proselytizing during their community outreach and only helping in secular ways and yes. It is not unreasonable that a faith-based organization should have employees that are similarly faith-based.

    However the problem with that is that it would also apply to other religious organizations whose goal is subvert pollute the minds of today's youth toward radicalization.

    Therefore to avoid that THIS organization would have to be defunded.

    HOWEVER, since previous applications were approved for a period of time, I think they should receive funding for one more year before it is cut off with little to no notice.

    1. Rev. Rory's Avatar Rev. Rory

      "However the problem with that is that it would also apply to other religious organizations whose goal is subvert pollute the minds of today's youth toward radicalization."

      What religious organizations have the goal of polluting the minds of youth and radicalizing them? Who are you referring to?

      1. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

        Any religion that insists on proselytizing through such public outreach programs would qualify. I don't personally believe all churches are this way but the ones that are pollute the whole.

  1. Ipsissima: Leonora's Avatar Ipsissima: Leonora

    Sure. If all other youth groups can get it, too. Otherwise, why single them out?

    1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

      Because they are a religious organization who have strict religious hiring requirements and as such I have no doubt their primary mission is to convert the youths.

      That said,in accepting public funding they have to abide by the same standards as any other organization seeking public funds for public services

  1. Rev. Rory's Avatar Rev. Rory

    What is the purpose of a church if not to help people, provide community, and share their religious beliefs? That said, every church should do something for the community. No church or church school should receive government dollars. If there is a need in the community then the city or county or state should provide the service. Individual religions should support their own efforts and not take government money and have hiring rules that exclude large groups of people (gay, divorced, non-church members, whatever they dislike.) short answer: NO.

  1. Leslie Renee Gray's Avatar Leslie Renee Gray

    Organized religion is a problem in America that needs to be addressed and I believe curtailed. In any given community, there are many people who hold very different views on what constitutes religious beliefs. There are literally thousands of different religions, especially among those who call themselves Christian. Practicing Christians tend to hold the most demanding and intolerant views in America.

    Looking at the news, we see that conservative Christian politicians have been pushing their beliefs into law in their respective states restricting everything from access to abortion, to denying transgender people access to essential medical treatment, to banning books they don’t like, with no regard for the rights or beliefs of anyone else at all. There is no official religion in America. We are after all, a secular Nation that was not founded on religious principles, but rather freedom of and religion and from religious tyranny.

  1. Carol M. Anaski-Figurski's Avatar Carol M. Anaski-Figurski

    Yes They should get publicly funded. it's a very good idea to establish core values for christian faith, ethics & morales.

    1. Joy's Avatar Joy

      Oh the Christian faith and ethics of extorting money from parishoners, not allowing divorce for physically abusive marriages, allowing staff to sexually abuse children, taking people to court because they don't agree with you...I get your point. Sounds like something to stay away from! Not join!

    2. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

      NOT unless other religions/Spiritual Disciplines receive the same. Christianism is NOT the only one, nor do many adhere to it.

  1. Douglas Robert Spindler's Avatar Douglas Robert Spindler

    ABSOUTLY NOT! But then again the Mormon Church for nearly 30 years was helping members from getting money from the federal government they gave to the church.

  1. Jeffrey Charles Harvey's Avatar Jeffrey Charles Harvey

    Common sense..Nit picking nonsense who cares..if they truly help give it to them you hating lames! R.J.C.H.

    1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

      Quite the "intellect". That Satan group has more couth.

  1. Nicholas J Page's Avatar Nicholas J Page

    No who actually knows where the money goes when did a 6 to 24 year old become a youth.I always thought it was teenage years

  1. ServantOfJudgement's Avatar ServantOfJudgement

    No youth group should get public funding.

    The country is dead broke. The experts are idiots.

    1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

      unless you can provide documentation/sources etc, your comment is little more than claptrap and poorly informed opinion masquerading as knowledge

      1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

        Unless you are a supercilious ignoramus like Rev. Dr. Father JJ, you know that the primary test to determine whether any person or organization receives public funding is public good. If it benefits the public for this group to get some money, then they should get it . Providing teens with a wholesome environment with wholesome role models is at least as vital as paying to clean up after a gay-pride parade.

        1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

          Alright ! Let's here it for the many "priests", "preachers", "lay leaders", etc., who have been caught, found out, and admitted being sexual predictors. And a few more this past week and a half. A fine christ like institution to give our tax dollars to.

          1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

            For some reason, 3 out of 3 times, when typing, a word keeps changing !! If letting me, the word should be Predator.

          2. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

            Do you really believe non-religious organizations mean "free of predators? " I have a bridge in New York City you might like to buy.

        2. ServantOfJudgement's Avatar ServantOfJudgement

          I have noticed James, when the left celebrates the neighborhoods get thoroughly trashed.

          You can trust it.

          1. Amber Fry's Avatar Amber Fry

            I personally see that more from right leaning groups but I'd chalk that up to a people thing regardless of group.

            1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

              In what universe are you living? Please identify 1 right leaning demonstration that caused even a small fraction of the damage Black Lives Matter caused to our cities.

              1. Rev'd Andrew's Avatar Rev'd Andrew

                "1 right-leaning demonstration that caused even a fraction of the damage..." Exhibit # 1: the DJT-encouraged (i.e., "right-leaning") insurrection at the Capitol. Not only did they cause considerable damage to our nation's cherished seat of government, they also did immeasurable damage to our democracy.

              2. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

                Yep, ya gots me der. A whole summer of city burning can't compare to a three-hour tour of the capitol.

        3. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

          speaking of supercilious ignoramus...

      2. ServantOfJudgement's Avatar ServantOfJudgement

        Here JJ


        That's our debt clock. It's going up.

        When I was a young man we owed a few billion, now it's 34 trillion. I'm sure you know the difference between billion and trillion but in case you don't, trillion is 'way, way' bigger.

        When you owe trillions of dollars, your broke. I think one of our experts once said 'we need to spend our way out of debt'.

        It didn't work.

        1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

          what does your post and link have to do with the article here? you seem to think you're somehow above everyone here but I believe you're just a grump old....well, you know. how's your attempt at kris chin nationalizing going, are you there yet?

          1. James Mounts's Avatar James Mounts

            No, JJ. We weren't speaking of you.

          2. ServantOfJudgement's Avatar ServantOfJudgement

            JJ Try to follow your own train of thought if you can. It's bound to help you through life.

            My debt clock post was an answer to your post demanding sources from my post that said the country is broke and that's why we shouldn't give money to any youth group.

            As far as Christian nationalist goes, I've never met one. You guys claim they're as common as Biden sniffing girls hair and taking showers with kids but I just don't see it. If you find one, let me know so I can take a picture and show the missuss, she'd prolly like to get a glimpse too.

            The country is broke, we got no money for fluffy programs. See debt clock link for proof.

  1. Bishop William Dusenberry, DD's Avatar Bishop William Dusenberry, DD

    Members of Christian youth groups, should receive public funding, when they attend supposedly secular pubic schools, are sent to prison, at public expense, because they rioted at the US Capitol on Jan 6, and every time they use a public library, public park, or help to pay the salaries, of politicians intent on turning the USA into a Christian theocracy. If, and until, the USA becomes a Christian theocracy—then, and only then, should their enhanced indoctrination into Christianity, be paid for by taxpayers, whether they’re Christians, or not, will no longer matter That’s how the tyranny of the majority works.

  1. Daniel Gray's Avatar Daniel Gray

    Ok for all the wrong people in here, in 2022 a religious school located in maine Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) and the final ruling says this:

    "Maine offers tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that neither operate a secondary school nor contract with a school in another district. Parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend; the school district sends payments to that school to defray tuition costs. To be eligible for tuition payments, private schools had to be accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges or approved by the Maine Department of Education. Since 1981, Maine has limited tuition assistance payments to “nonsectarian” schools. The First Circuit affirmed the rejection of constitutional challenges to the “nonsectarian” requirement.

    The US Supreme Court reversed. Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause, which protects against “indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions.” A state need not subsidize private education but if it does so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious. A law that operates in that manner must be subjected to “the strictest scrutiny.” A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause; a state’s anti-establishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise."

    So this says no matter what you think or want to believe, religious schools are REQUIRED by law to be able to receive the same amount of money that other schools get. If you dont like this then get your Congress member to vote to overturn a SCOTUS decision which they are allowed to do so under Article 1 and 3. Now in saying that be aware that it is going to take a full 3/4th of BOTH Houses of Congress to vote to overturn, and that has never happened in the History of the US.

    1. Cynthia Mandello's Avatar Cynthia Mandello

      Different facts although our current SCOTUS could mold it to fit (considering they used 17th century British law this past year, throwing out stare decisis). Carson was a SCHOOL DISTRICT refusing to give tax collected money to a local Christian school. In the current case, 715 is a local charity applying for federal grant.

      715, by the way, is a non-denominational passage in the old Testament. They pervert the passage by requiring fealty to the Christian dogma

    2. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

      I can only hope it is this coming next year. Hoping.

    3. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

      Daniel, thank you for that clear explanation. I'm much better informed now.

  1. shiningwolf9's Avatar shiningwolf9

    You really are that dense; it isn't an act! You were calling today's christianism as wholesome environments, and wholesome role models. That is what I was acknowledging is laughable.

  1. Rev. Dr. Father JJ's Avatar Rev. Dr. Father JJ

    To the mods here, why aren't I being notified of replies as well as new articles? Unless I check the blog I am not aware of either replies, additional comments or new threads? I clicked all the right choices, is it a personal thing? ;-)

    1. ULC Admin's Avatar ULC Admin

      Uh oh! Definitely not personal. Just to confirm: you've clicked the box that says "Receive Notifications", but you're not getting them?

      If so, we'll want to investigate this. Any additional context you can provide about the issue is appreciated!

      1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

        The ULC admins do a great job and should know we appreciate all their hard work.

  1. Ari Joseph Bertine's Avatar Ari Joseph Bertine

    This is the same as a church. If a specific religion is required for membership, then it's an establishment of religion and should not be funded by the government. They are trying to get away with shenanegins.

  1. Rolando Couce's Avatar Rolando Couce

    Sure it is better than funding other countries while people here are struggling

  1. Matthew Mastrogiovanni's Avatar Matthew Mastrogiovanni


  1. Russel A. Kester's Avatar Russel A. Kester

    If the religious groups meets all other qualifications for the grant money, then who they hire or don't should not matter to the government.

  1. Michael Sciulli's Avatar Michael Sciulli

    From minster mike keep faith fallow bible do not worry we believe God, the father God, the son God, the Holy Spirit, holy Trinity.

  1. Cynthia Mandello's Avatar Cynthia Mandello

    Different facts although our current SCOTUS could mold it to fit (considering they used 17th century British law this past year, throwing out stare decisis). Carson was a SCHOOL DISTRICT refusing to give tax collected money to a local Christian school. In the current case, 715 is a local charity applying for federal grant.

    715, by the way, is a non-denominational passage in the old Testament. They pervert the passage by requiring fealty to the Christian dogma.

  1. Cynthia Mandello's Avatar Cynthia Mandello

    Different facts although our current SCOTUS could mold it to fit (considering they used 17th century British law this past year, throwing out stare decisis). Carson was a SCHOOL DISTRICT refusing to give tax collected money to a local Christian school. In the current case, 715 is a local charity applying for federal grant.

    715, by the way, is a non-denominational passage in the old Testament. They pervert the passage by requiring fealty to the Christian dogma.

  1. Ralph DeWitt's Avatar Ralph DeWitt

    The Good Lord will provide! If this organization lines up with God and His Word, then God will prevail by either helping get the grant back or drawing enough Christians to this organization to support it and it's work, have some faith and get on your knees people and what is meant to be will be.

    1. Dr Rohn's Avatar Dr Rohn

      Totally agree! I do feel that if your heart (Spirit) is in line, your needs will be met.

  1. Steven Ferrell's Avatar Steven Ferrell

    Does the state fund non-profit youth organizations that support alphabet teens and is their hiring practice that you must support alphabet teens? Do they give any grant money to muslim groups that only hire muslims? It seems the only people who can’t have any rights whatsoever and must have none of their values in anything are Christians.

    1. Dr Rohn's Avatar Dr Rohn

      Sounds like victimstance to me. Everyone else gets it but not me. I really don't see that as the underlying issue here. But I may be wrong.

  1. Walter J. Holbrook's Avatar Walter J. Holbrook

    Jesus said, "love one another as I have loved you. This of all others is my greatest commandment." Have said that. Is not the church a haven for all and not some. The Apostle Paul spoke of this in the Book of Romans of the rejection of Gentiles. The church is not a cult. To sign an oath of loyalty agreement that your faith must be the same as someone else is ridiculous. Your heart and soul are thee loyalty to the most high God. My second problem is why are you trusting in the government for this. I am somewhat confused. .

  1. Dr Rohn's Avatar Dr Rohn

    Without reading any of the other comments, here, my first reaction is to say, accept the decision. I feel that religious organizations have a lot of freedom and lead way as it is. They pay no taxes. They have lots of property exemptions that taxpayers do not have, there is a plethora of things on this list. And finally, tolerance is to be understood as, I accept your response to my question, as being what you believe is the right response. An argument to that response would be tantamount to an example of intolerance. You have not agreed with me. Ergo, you are wrong. Ergo, I'm going to fight you in court. No! I do not believe that they should have filed this in court. I believe they should accept the decision and find another way of funding. Contrariwise to everything I have just said, is merely the fact that any organization, whether religious or not, that has a mandate to assist others should be understood as a good thing, and people would be well moved to support them. Stand down and accept your place, to fight this cause is to show an agenda outside of loving your cause.

  1. Lisbeth Kieran Bushey's Avatar Lisbeth Kieran Bushey

    They shouldn't be getting that money. It's a violation of the First Amendment to establish religion like they do while accepting public funds.

  1. Thomas P. Davis's Avatar Thomas P. Davis

    In reality they should go back to the way this country was originally set up before all the minority groups camped on the doorsteps of the white house and changed it all. This country was set up for two things and two things only. Separation of church and state and to protect our soil from foreign invasion. The church was designed to take care of the rest. I read a book many years ago called the American Dream What Happened to it. I was shocked to learn that 80% of our tax dollars go to taking care of people who don't work.

  1. Patricia Ann Gross's Avatar Patricia Ann Gross

    If they truly commit to working with and helping people regardless of their faith backgrounds, but don't in their hiring practices, then their purpose is purely religious (read that indoctrination). They get around the discriminatory hiring practices by the religious exemption because they are incorporated that way. If the terms of the grant indicate that they cannot discriminate based on religion and they do, then no, they should not receive the grant money.

Leave a Comment

When leaving your comment, please:

  • Be respectful and constructive
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Avoid profanity, insults, and derogatory comments

To view the full code of conduct governing these comment sections, please visit this page.

Not ordained yet? Hit the button below to get started. Once ordained, log in to your account to leave a comment!
Don't have an account yet? Create Account