How do you feel about Congress authorizing millions in federal grants for churches and nonprofits security?

It is bad enought that these cults are tax exempt. Now there is tax money wasted on them.

Yeah, it’s not like they’re strapped for cash…
Geez.
What’s next?
Charity shows for Buffett, Bezos, Musk, and co?

I’m against it.

@JLeslie That surprises me as the anti semitic attacks are one of the reasons they approved it.

I’ll be curious how the money is actually distributed. We won’t know that until it has been put in place.

Synagogues?
Mosques?
Wiccan places of worship?
Buddhist temples?
AME (African baptist) or Southern Baptist?
and so on

If it only goes to Christian institutions, that would stink to high heaven.

@KNOWITALL One of the first things I thought of were the recent attacks in synagogues, before even reading the article. I think it provided a perfect opportunity for religion to get money from the government for the churches, because maybe a few people who usually would see the problem with crossing church and state financially, will be more emotional about the topic and vote in favor of this.

When the government provides financial assistance they also have some control, because money is power. I don’t want the government t controlling places of worship. I also don’t want the government having opportunity to favor one religion over another financially. It’s just wrong I think. It’s not American. If something happens where a place of worship is at heightened risk in a community, then the local police can help protect those citizens. Moreover, synagogues have been in danger always. Literally, as long as I can remember many synagogues I’ve been to or driven by have security (hired off duty police officers) that is nothing new.

I would say this is like when a shooting happens and the anti-gun people take to opportunity to try to change laws. Some scary things happened at places of worship and the people who want the government in churches took the opportunity. Anyone who wants lower taxes, it makes no sense to fund this. Churches already pay no property and income tax. They get enough.

They mention the Christian church shooting in TX. If I’m not mistaken the shooter had it out for a particular parishioner, not Christians. Money going to white Christian churches probably does not address the actual risks to various religions. Even if it was not against a specific parishioner, I don’t think it was anti-Christian, I could be wrong though.

@elbanditoroso It doesn’t specify any religion per se, that would be interesting to know. Good point.

@JLeslie I agree. Another person also made the argument that PP is tax exempt but they don’t get security paid for.
Also, they won’t fund the Violence Against women Act, can’t fund homeless veterans, can’t fund healthcare, but they can fund religious institutions security? I can almost understand the Senate, but the House?

I’m shocked it passed. I’d be interested to know if any congressmen argued against it.

I’m okay with it, though honestly, if we made concealed carry nationally allowed, much of this could be averted.

@elbandit Looks like it’s several faith leaders, but I’m not sure how other faiths will be affected.

Looks like Schumer presented it.

More information:

BALTIMORE, Maryland – Senators Chris Van Hollen and Ben Cardin, alongside Representative John Sarbanes and Jewish, Muslim and Christian faith leaders, called on Monday to quadruple the budget for the Nonprofit Security Grants Program (NSPG) for houses of worship, from $90 million to $360m.
Van Hollen and Cardin addressed the media in Baltimore and vowed to support the initiative– first presented by Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York – after the antisemitic stabbing attack in Monsey, New York.

https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/US-politicians-support-grants-program-for-houses-of-worship-614060

Short answer is, it’s bullshit.

Places, like the South side of Chicago, are a war zone. I don’t see any special allocations, going there…

Organized religion, is a plague. It doesn’t need any help…

@KNOWITALL I know there are various faith leaders involved, but in the end, it is results that matter.

After they have distributed the money, I want to know to what organizations and their affiliations.

I’m for it. As long as the funds aren’t being used to promote or engage in religious activities, but only to protect them from attacks and bolster security, I believe this is considered consistent with the establishment clause in the Constitution. The role of the government is to protect citizens’ rights to freely practice their respective faiths.

Edit: we should also be funding other initiatives for the public as well.

Yeah… This money is totally going towards defense and not Gulfstreams.

And really. Where is the money to help schools? Way more deaths from guns in schools than churches. Oh, kids can’t vote and don’t trend R.

Let me get this straight it okay to let any wack job get a AR-15 because of 2nd Amendment and there is question about authorizing millions in federal grants for churches and nonprofits security that “WACK JOBS” are targeting. Anyone can get a semi-automatic weapons to HUNT deer !

I’m missing something !

It’s frustrating. Our government is in shambles.

@Tropical_Willie – it’s perfectly OK to shoot people and kill them at music festivals and night clubs and Walmart and at high schools.

It’s not OK to kill them at churches or synagogues. That’s the message here.

Of course faith leaders pushed for it. They seized the moment of recent violence promoted in the media. Free money. It bothers me more, the more I think about it.

I have no problem with it, but I think it’s a sad statement that churches feel the need for all this security. Attacks on places of worship are not new, but there does seem to have been a rise in them lately.

It’s the power of prayer.

A big part of me feels that if it was that important to some of the churches that have a LOT of money, they would’ve done it sooner, but it really isn’t any different than money given to schools for security.
I think my HS got $190 thousand for updates to our security. I think it helps to have that money but if they had spent their own they’d have less towards education (or more likely, salaries and sports)
I don’t know what churches need to spend money on so I don’t know how much it would hinder them to spend their own money on security.

Churches as forts? Why not spare the taxpayers the expense & mandate that all churches and temples be relocated to military installations and police stations. The same protection should of course be afforded to planned parenthood outlets and abortion clinics.

^ Yes! Or start taxing them!

Serious Question: Why can’t we tax churches?

When our country began, people came each for their own reasons, and for many of them it was religious persecution.

To convince themselves and others that never would the government mandate things such as what religions would be allowed, how much of a person’s wage should go to the church, poor people not allowed into rich people churches, and such. They made it law that government and churches should never mesh, or battle. That way people could feel free to live as their particular religion stipulates.

Did that make sense to you?

Yes. The government providing this kind of funding doesn’t count as “government and churches meshing”?

But, part of that deal is, churches pay no taxes. So, they do not financially support the government they want to protect them.

Hmmmm. So maybe I get it. They should pay taxes then if they want the support, but at the same time I’m not against the government giving that funding as long as the churches use it exclusively for security. I do believe that security is very important, so I’m going to put the politics aside and say I support this act. It is the second tier in Maslows Hierarchy, and in my security class I’m learning how important it is and that if people don’t feel secure it can affect a lot. I’ve also seen first hand how scared and worried people were at school (different than a church, I know, but it’s the same concept) about school shootings and having school assemblies in case one happened.

I’m not religious, but faith is really important and I wouldn’t want people scared to go to church over something like it not being safe enough.

Final answer: I support it this time but if they want more funding, they should then agree to pay taxes.

Churches are immune from taxation supposedly as a matter of separation of church and state. The big deal slogan (understandably) at the time of the founding of the country was “the power to tax is the power to destroy”.

This is also the powerful reason for the prohibition of government sustenance of religious institutions.

People volunteer for all sorts of religious activities. Why can’t they just get volunteer security?

The measure is guaranteed to be challenged in the courts.

@MrGrimm888 that is what they did in Texas at the end of last year. The guy showed up, pulled a shotgun and started blasting. He killed two and one of the volunteer security guys shot him dead.

No. Many of these churches take in millions per year. Let them pay for their own security. I sure as shit would have to pay for mine.

^Agreed. GA Darth…

@seawulf575 . You have to be careful, in the south.
Anyone, could be armed…

I’m glad that guy, got gunned down. As you know, I’m an atheist. But. There’s just something extra fucked up, about an act of violence, in a place of worship…

I’m sure you are aware of Dylan Roof, and his killing of 9 people, in a church, in my hometown of Charleston SC.
It simply infuriates me…

I am VERY proud of how my community handled it. But. I expected that.

I used to park, at that same church, when I worked security, around the area. After the incident. I never parked there, without thinking of what happened. I’d love to get a few minutes, alone, with Roof.
There really wasn’t a single person, here, that didn’t feel the trauma of that event. Black, white, Hispanic etc…
It was/is, a “black” church. They let him in, because of how diverse my city is.
They welcomed him, with open arms. And the Bastard, killed 9 very important people…

The son of a bitch, tried to start a race war. Instead, he united the city, in a way I can’t explain…

There was a large rally. People, of all races, held hands across our longest bridge, in a sign of love/coexistence.

My heart melted, at the way we took it…
It was a terrible, yet beautiful thing…

We will never forget the atrocity. But. We will always remember that we are all a community.
That’s kind of ironic, considering the Civil War, and the role our city played.

Sorry for the rant…

I guess I thought it pertinent, to say that, armed guards, aren’t the answer. Love. Is the best weapon….

@MrGrimm888 Don’t apologize. Fools like Roof deserve a lot worse than he got. And I think there are a lot of people that feel much like you…I’m one of them. Those people welcomed him into their church because they are good people. My church is much the same. It doesn’t matter your race, your sex, your past…you’re welcome. But I’m pretty sure there are some CCPs in the crowd.

I would support, a public execution of Roof. I’d be fine, with nailing him to a cross in Marion Square. Only a few hundred feet, from the church. Let the crows, pick at him. Let people know what happens to such people…

About a week after the incident, I had to kick a guy out of my venue. I was a bit harsh, with him. He decided to yell, about how great the shooting was. Then. I had to protect him, from the other people. He went to jail. He sucker punched me (a LEO,) and practically started a riot.

The guy, tried to hit me, with a beer bottle. Let’s just say that he was unsuccessful. I took him down, hard. And I let him up, because I thought I may have injured him. That’s when he popped me. A good straight right. Then, he started talking about the shooting, and used a lot of racial slurs. The crowd immediately went after him. So. I had to stop him, from being lynched…
It’s one of the reasons, why I left law enforcement. I, personally, would have been fine, letting the crowd take him out…
But. I had an oath. I saved his sorry ass. But. I arrested him.

Assault on a LEO, public intoxication, and other crimes, were charged on him…

I generally, just let people go. Regardless of what they did to me. As long as they left, and stayed gone…
I hate paperwork, and court…

But. I took this guy down. He’s probably out now. It’s been awhile.

Some people are just a disgrace, to society…

As long as you and I, and fellow people, take them off the streets, the world will be a better place…

There is something to be said for wild west law sometimes.

Something like that.

The hallmark of an uncivilised society.

ON THE OTHER HAND OF COURSE,
I never tire of seeing a nazi getting knocked the fuck out.

When the shooting happened in that church in Texas last year, and the gunman was killed by the deacon, it was called a victory for gun rights advocates. When that guy stabbed a bunch of Jews celebrating in a home in New York, no one called it a victory for gun restriction.

Texas: Three dead, NY: five injured, two hospitalised.
Guns create death.

Of course, we might be too far infested with guns to make it reasonable to restrict them from the citizenry. I sympathize with the argument that you need to be able to get what the bad guys can get.

@Smashley “might be too far infested with guns to make it reasonable to restrict them from the citizenry’
Well yeah, it’s a constitutional right, so it’s a few hundred years too late.

@KNOWITALL – changing the Constitution is also a Constitutional right.

@Smashley Try it, see what happens. :)

@KNOWITALL – and now we see the problem..

@Smashley Yes, that’s how real Americans defended this country and kept us free. Still do.

@KNOWITALL What ya going to do rally all the deer hunters with the AK-47’s and start killing kids in school, oh they are doing that already ? ?

How can gun advocates argue that the law says they can have guns, but any constitutionally valid change, or attempt to change the law, will be met with murder? We aren’t arguing law any more. This is only about power.

That is why the label “law abiding” is so appropriate.
Because it means they only follow the law until it becomes inconvenient.

I don’t mind the stance of gun huggers that they have the right to tote guns regardless of the death toll. It is the idea that the toll will decrease when everyone is heavily armed that makes my teeth chatter.

Most commonly stolen items from autos in my county:

Cash

Computers

Guns

Not necessarily in that order. And there are hardly any broken windows, the owners left cars unlocked.

Pretty sure the guns stolen didn’t to “law abiding citizens” !

@Smashley If you try to take guns away it wouldn’t work for many reasons. No one here that I’ve seen has threatened to kill anyone.

“Try it, see what happens. :)” – You

@ragingloli Oh so ‘try it and see what happens’ = murder. Got it. Brilliant deduction.

Your pretend-obtuseness insults us both, colonial.
It is basically the same as this.

@ragingloli Love that movie! Doesn’t prove your point in any way, but good movie.

Well, what did you mean by “Try it, see what happens. :)” then?

@Smashley Another revolution.

So exactly what we thought you meant.
Murder. Treason, even.

@ragingloli By definition, you’re wrong.

I am right.
And you know it.

This is hilarious. A German with an avatar that shows a young girl toting an automatic weapon is trying to tell an American that gun control is a good thing. @ragingloli you crack me up.

She is a combat android.

@ragingloli Sorry, had to take a couple calls!

Well, meeting violence with violence is a real possibility. Especially when it comes to illegal immigrants raping 92 year old grandma’s, or Antifa.

JFC…

@KNOWITALL

I was talking about changing the constitution legally, not with violence, silly.

Soo.. your answer to my constitutionally valid proposal is to start an armed rebellion… whom do you propose killing first? Those who voted for the congress, the congress itself, or just stick to “I know em when I see em”?

@Smashley She considers the only way too change requires bringing out the AK-47 to protect the 2nd, in my opinion.

@Smashley I’m saying there’s a lot of people that would support background checks, outlawing bump stocks and things of that nature.

There’s also many who will lose their patience at a database of any kind or further restrictions on Conceal Carry, etc..

The smaller fringe groups are calling for revolution due to the treasonous Dems trying to take their legally elected President down.

@Tropical Don’t speak for me, please.

OK, I’m already presupposing a scenario in which a constitutional amendment has the popular support to pass, though. What will happen when people “lose their patience” at this? You seem to be hinting at something.

Off topic, but impeaching and removing a president is not treasonous. It is a power explicitly granted by the constitution to Congress which was also elected by the people. Sounds like you’re the one who wants to overturn elections.

Gun control is both naive and meaningless once there are more guns in your country than people. It’s just that simple, and we have long since passed the point when there was any realistic chance of checking the escalating shooting incidents defining our sad country. Happy hunting!

@Smashley I’m not hinting at anything, I’m telling you there’s dangerous unrest building in some fringe groups. Virginia has stirred thing’s up, too. I’m afraid it’s creating a perfect storm of sorts.

Impeachment is not the option most politicians choose because it is perceived at usurping the vote, the will of the people. Pelosi said it several times if that helps. Sigh.

Usurping power and breaking laws is two different things, your hero is a mobster and a thug from NYC. Broke many laws then litigated with threats and big dollars lawyers for the last 50 years. But . . . He’s your hero and heart throb.

Laws don’t apply when you’re dictator and have the GOP in your pocket !

@Tropical I wouldn’t let ANY of them watch my dog for one minute. Trump included.

@KNOWITALL I’m not too worried about fringe groups. Haven’t you heard? The police have military grade equipment, there are traffic light cameras, and executive power is at its zenith (I hope). A rebellion without broad popular support would be put down quickly, and I just don’t see it, especially when even a solid “Red” state only means 57% of the vote.

Impeachment and removal is seen as a lot of things. It is also an essential check on the power we give to the executive branch. It is inherently political. It has a very high bar for success. It is therefore rarely used, but it is the power and the duty of the Congress, by the vote by the people.

@Smashley You aren’t worried about fringe groups? They can be the worst! Yep, there are all those things you mention that are protections. But think about it…all of those things aren’t going to stop the initial impact. How many times has some nut gone crazy and shot up something? Pulse nightclub, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas….all done by people with “fringe” mentality. Go back further…Oklahoma City, 9/11…all fringers/extremists. Yes, they were all eventually caught or killed themselves, but not until the damage was done. And in a war, if you can kill 50 for every 1 of your losses, you are going to do some serious damage.
The better way to deal with it is to gather together in an open forum, put your emotions aside, and have a conversation…find out what everyone is really worried about and don’t discount their fears, address them.

And bring your gun! Personally, I think the forum less than practical, and to spare us all the trouble and expense will go out on a limb and predict that what “everyone is worried about” is getting shot. People feel unsafe, and being the logical beings we all are feel compelled to be empowered. Thus, the gun bonanza, where home safety and safety overall is imagined to be weaponry and plenty of it. How do you protect yourself? What are the risks? In a land where guns outnumber fire extinguishers at a ratio of better than 200 to 1? I know I feel safer!

@seawulf575 The nonchalance is a bit comical but also sad.

@seawulf575 – Federal power is massive. The surveillance state is upon us. I just don’t see anything happening worse than a few Bundy’s making their name even worse. There could be movements, and there could be violence, but it wouldn’t take long for Americans to call for some gestapo tactics to keep themselves safe. I really feel like most of the people on the right would accept reasonable, baby steps gun control measures long before they would turn to violence.

I’m about as pessimistic, as one can be…

But. I don’t see a full blown Civil War, in our future. Terrible things, seem to unit America. When people try to separate us, they just bring us further together.
We are far, from perfect. And we definitely fight, amongst ourselves. But. When it boils down to it, Americans ultimately come together…

Left, or right. We’re all neighbors… I help my neighbors, in hurricanes, and despite whatever difference between us, I will do whatever I can, to help them…
I damn sure, wouldn’t hurt them.
Not, for political reasons…

We have issues, with one another. But. I’ve seen it, over and over again. When someone is in trouble, you don’t ask about their political positions. You just help them…
I’m talking about the basic people, of our country.

Yes. A lot of us, have guns. But. That’s for personal protection. Or, other purposes.

Overall, the US population wants the same thing. They just have different ways, that they want it to happen….

@Smashley I’m a right-winger and a gun owner. I know many people that fit that description. And we all have one thing in common: We respect the power of the gun, the dangers of the gun, and the law. Here’s the question I always ask when I get into a gun control discussion: what law would you put in place that will stop people from breaking the law? I know it sounds goofy, but really…we have some idiot shoot up a school or play amateur sniper at an outdoor venue. There are already laws against killing people. These people do not care. ⅔ of the gun deaths in this country are suicides. Again…these people don’t care what the law says. Extra gun laws are only ways to inconvenience gun owners that already obey the law. It’s a way for an already corrupt, immature, ineffective government to target those that have guns. That’s all most gun laws are good for.

I used to sell firearms. IMO. The majority of the vetting process, should be done by the arms dealer.

I took it, VERY seriously. I asked a lot of questions, about why people wanted a gun. If they didn’t convince me that they were not going to do something bad, I would ID them, and report them to NICS…

We also had a logbook, with people who were questionable, or failed the background check, or answered odd on the 4473 form…

One of my coworkers, sold a shotgun, to a woman who killed her husband with it. I know that he didn’t know what she was planning to do with it. He was just a 22 year old kid…

I suppose, it would be ignorant to think none of the guns I sold, didn’t hurt anyone….

Some weapons, I would not sell, to anyone… I wouldn’t sell a certain weapon we carried. It was basically, a sniper rifle. It had a range of over 700 yards…

I don’t even know of a civilian range, with that distance…Around here…

I sold a lot of assault rifles. Some, to people who never owned a gun. They were going like hot cakes, after Sandy Hook…

Everyone thought Obama, was going to make them illegal.

I didn’t like selling guns, but I had to, to be able to do what I love. Selling kayaks/canoes. It was the same department…

Gun control laws, should be updated. IMO. The background check, only proved that a person hadn’t committed a violent crime, YET…

I’m a gun enthusiast. But. I’d be selfish, by being “inconvenienced,” by a more thorough background check. If it stopped just one murder, I’m fine with that…

@seawulf575 The problem I can’t get past with guns is that they make death from situations that wouldn’t have death. Hundreds of people, mostly kids, are killed, many more are injured every year in accidental shootings. Gang violence claims lives of participants, bystanders and innocents at home in their beds. Gang members need guns here, because everyone has guns here. Meeting police carries the specter of death. Running from police is a killable offense. Criminals need guns because everyone has guns. A burglar is dumb to break in without a gun, lest he should encounter someone with a gun. Maybe he will die, maybe the homeowner will die. Death may happen when the only goal was theft. Drunken fights can now end in death. Road rage can now end in death. The deranged now have wonderful tools to kill as many people as they can. Suicide is so prevalent, (among cops as well, blue suicide matters too), partially because guns make killing yourself so damn easy.

Homicides are up strongly this decade, so are suicides, so are gun sales. I won’t deny that in many of these cases, the dead are committing crimes, but many are not. There are innocents dead everywhere, and the innocents whose lives are destroyed by the deaths of criminals they loved and depended on. Think of the rippling social harm of death. Society has problems. Always had, always will, but a culture that asks for more guns, asks for more death.

My laws would have been something like, nothing over yea big, nothing over yea many bullets, a reasonably high bar to obtain one, in line with a drivers license, a federal registry, and a moderate tax on gun manufacturers for civilian production. Unfortunately we are so far beyond those being reasonable laws to pass. You are right. There are too many guns to prevent the good guys from having them. Only a slow cultural unwinding of this ridiculousness can help us. Until then, our suicide accident and homicide rates will continue to be sky high.

^While it would certainly be a good idea to have a gun, if you are committing a home robbery, most don’t. They’re often desperate people, who can’t afford a gun. Junkies, often have knives. Not the nice kind. It’s usually a plain old kitchen knife. Probably acquired, from a previous robbery.

Accidental deaths by firearms, are indeed common. I know I heard of a hunter, killed by his dog. The guy had a loaded/chambered shotgun, in the back of his truck. The barrel was pointed out the back. When his dog jumped in, it accidentally stepped on the trigger. Blew the guy, in half…
If people were more responsible with their weapons, a lot of these deaths would be avoided…

When I was a LEO, I never carried a chambered gun. I only chambered, if I thought I would have to use it. I only did that, like 3 times, in years. I tried to handle everything, with my hands. Even if the suspect was armed. I would rather die, than kill the wrong person. You have to choose angles, when shooting in a crowd. For example, if you have to fire on a bus. You would kneel, and fire upwards, at the target. That minimizes the chance of hitting unintended targets…

When I see LEOs, spraying gunfire, it makes me cringe…

The cop, who infamously shot an unarmed black man while he was running away. That was in North Charleston, SC. On River’s, and Remount. A busy intersection. The fool simply unloaded on the man. He could have injured/killed multiple people. He killed his fleeing suspect. He’s now in prison. Where he belongs…

That’s why I hated selling assault rifles. They are chambered, with NATO rounds. If you are shooting at someone, in your home, you may hit people in houses around you…

My advice to people wanting home defense, was usually, get a dog and some mace. I don’t have a direct/current source. But. Statistics show that people are more afraid of dogs, than guns… The thought of being mauled, is apparently worse, than the thought of being shot…

I had lots of women, who wanted a gun because they had a crazy ex, or a stalker. They were generally a sweet person. And I had doubts, that they would ever pull a trigger…

A good dog, does a good job, at deterrent…

@Smashley “The problem I can’t get past with guns is that they make death from situations that wouldn’t have death.”

They also save lives which would otherwise be lost.

Six year olds can’t hunt in Missouri legally and we are not required to register our guns. If you buy them at a store, they do run a background check. But if you buy one from John down the road, nothing is required.

For myself, I passed the Hunters Ed class, passed background check , as well as Conceal Carry check at the Sheriff’s Dept, and I’ve been shooting since I was around 10 yrs old.

Yes, if I went crazy, I could probably do some damage, but unless it was in my background search, meaning there was a red flag down the line, nothing you could enact would prevent anything. To me it’s more sensible to create more mental health access, diagnosis centers, as well as a mental health database, more so than weapons.

@Smashley I would suggest looking at the gun death statistics. In 2017, according to the CDC, there were 39,773 firearm related deaths. 23,854 were suicides. That leaves 15,919 deaths by firearms that weren’t suicides. According to the CDC, 14,542 of these were homicides. the FBI data has that number slightly lower at 10,982. I bring this up not to say the CDC is wrong or to try downplaying the deaths. I bring it up to point out the weapons used. The CDC doesn’t dig into that, the FBI does. According to the FBI, of that 10,982 firearm related deaths, 7,032 were from handguns. This is not those horrid assault rifles that everyone tries targeting.
The point of all this is that we need to fully understand the issue before we try fixing the problem. Admit it, every time someone takes an AR type weapon and kills someone else, there is an uproar for more gun control laws. But those are very few relative to the real issue. And in the end, the issue remains the same…the people that are killing others don’t care about the law to start with. So more laws aren’t really the answer. We need to better understand the question before giving the answer.