Religion Based Government Help

[Ambrosious]

What is wrong with the government getting involved in religion? Why shouldn't the two mix?



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It worked so well for Iran...

 

[Ambrosious]

The above heard on Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

 

[Angel]

Don't make me kick your ass.

 

[p_p_man]

It does in England.

Bishops of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords where thay have full voting rights. They don't make much impact but it has over the years helped form the belief that the Church is just another arm of the Establishment...

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

that and the fact...

that Henry VIII made sure that the English monarch was the final authority within the Church of England (I believe it was the "Act of Supremacy"... haven't studied English history in too long). So the Catholics have Pope John Paul II - the Anglicans have Elizabeth II.

The basis for the prohibition of Establishment of Religion in the first amendment relates in part to the problems created by this act and other consequences of religious/political entanglement.

Most people who object to Bush's idea of entrusting religious organizations with the public monies to spend on social welfare base their objections on the assumption that this governmental/religious entanglement will make government a partner in the religious intolerance of these organizations. This is a legitimate concern, but I'm far more worried about government corrupting religion than I am about religion corrupting government. Do we really want our churches participate in bidding wars for government dollars? Doesn't this somehow replace God at the center of the church with the government?

When you think about it that way, what skeptic of organized religion shouldn't want government-subsidized religion. It's a chance to bring the church's on-board with all the progressive social programs of the day

"Catholic Church" Washington would say, "you have to reach out to gays or you can kiss this check goodbye".

"But we DO reach out to gays!", the church would say.

"Not the way WE want you to. It's our money... take it or leave it."

If religion wants to keep its conscience clean, it'll leave it.

 

[p_p_man]

I agree completely...

...he who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[christo]

Can of Worms

So Bush and company want to give money to religious organizations. I guess you could make the argument that these organizations can make more efficient use of the money than the bloated federal government. I don't know if it's true, but the argument can be made.

So who gets the cash? That's the part of this whole thing that makes no sense. How much does the Catholic Church get? Southern Baptists? Hare Krishnas? Who decides who gets what? Are conservative Christian Coalition Republicans going to let millions in tax dollars go to, say, a Buddhist group who wants to buy a building? Will pro-choice groups go apeshit when the feds give millions to a church whose members picket outside abortion clinics. No matter who gets the money, someone is going to be royally pissed off.

The separation of church and state has worked pretty well the last 200 years. You can worship whatever god you want here, or you can choose not to worship any god at all. There are a lot of religious organizaions out there doing great work, and they should be supported-- by the people who support them, not by the federal government. If Bush wants to increase funding to these groups, then increase the amount you can deduct for charitable contributions. But don't get the feds involved. I thought Republicans wanted to REDUCE the size of government, wanted to give people the freedom to do with their money what they see fit. Or do you think they plan to use the bulk of this money to fund religious groups who tend to be a bit more conservative, a bit more pro-Republican than others? Nah, they wouldn't do something like that.

 

[Valdimer]

Religion and Goverment mix like water and oil, no way.