BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
Visiting our advertisers directly supports this site. Thanks!
... fits over a proposed amendment to the Georgia Constitution which provides that the state may offer financial support to religious organizations which provide social services.
Removing the constitutional language that prevents public money from going to religious organizations would open the door to voucher subsidies for religious schools and allow the state to abdicate its role in providing social services for needy Georgians to religious groups. Furthermore, religious organizations would be able to discriminate in their hiring and firing in programs funded by the taxpayers.
Giving taxpayer money to religious organizations threatens the voluntariness of religious activities and the autonomy of houses of worship, both of which have been important aspects of religious freedom in this country since its founding.
Yadda-yadda-yadda. I haven't a clue why people believe half the things they believe, but there is no reason whatever to believe that the Founders intended that religious affiliation should disqualify anybody from full participation in civic life. AU is wrong.
For starters, religious faith indubitably does help some people overcame problematic behaviors. I don't believe for an instant that some actual cosmic spirit enters a person's body and begins to wag his finger at misbehavior, but if other people believe that it does and it works for them ... fine with me. It can't be worse than the methadone therapies, and it unquestionably is cheaper.
Let's look at some of the other "dire" consequences.
... open the door to voucher subsidies for religious schools ...
This is, in fact, the best defense of religious freedom we could possibly make in this country. WHAT!!? Yes. Of course. It's obvious. I rest the case on a simple, common sense assumption: that those parents who seek a religious education for their children will send them to schools of their own faith. Jewish parents will send their children to school that teach Judaism; Baptist parents will send their children to Baptist schools; Muslim parents will send their children to Islamic schools — and they'll all adopt a policy akin to Britain's historic policy toward continental entanglements: They'll ally themselves against the most powerful. If it appears that one group or another is gaining some sort of upper hand in public life, the rest will unite against them.
Multiple healthy religions assures that none will take over and visit its pet imbecilities upon everybody else by force. The constant noise is an awful bother, but certainly it is an improvement upon government by such as Donald Wildmon.
... and allow the state to abdicate its role in providing social services for needy Georgians to religious groups.
There is no reason whatsoever to fear such a thing. None. As in the matter of religious education, the more the merrier. If the spigot starts running disproportionately toward religious organizations ... well, does anybody doubt that the secular organizations will commence howling? They will, and they'll make a fearsome noise.
... religious organizations would be able to discriminate in their hiring and firing in programs funded by the taxpayers.
This is an objection with some, albeit narrow-gauge, merit — but not so much as to warrant rejection. There will, and I believe there should be, religious discrimination within the organizations themselves. It's simply ridiculous, for instance, to imagine that Baptists can fight drug addiction in their own Baptist, hellfire-and-brimstone way with a bunch of Buddhists floating around the room. Similarly, it's hard to imagine how Buddhists might fight drug addiction in their own way, with their own message, with Cotton Mather bashing Bibles over people's heads.
I doubt that *I* could be much use to any of 'em and, like the old joke about banking, wouldn't wish to see a troubled friend served by a faith-based organization that would hire me (bank that would give me a loan).
The more serious danger of discrimination, unremarked by AU, is twofold. First, rejection by an agency of services to those nominally of a different faith, a refusal by Faith A to lend assistance to someone of Faith B. This could happen, and needs watching, but I doubt there'd be much of it. There's nothing a Baptist likes more than to straighten out and dust-off a Methodist, for instance, and I imagine most faith-based organizations have about the same attitude. Second, there are historic, non-sectarian prejudices embedded deeply within all the different faiths. Mormons have a very poor record regarding blacks, as do the Southern Baptists, and it's not unreasonable to wonder whether some traditional, secular, non-sectarian prejudices might appear in treatments. The answer to this is the same as the threat of sectarian prejudices; watch it, but expect the good intentions of most sincere believers to keep it under control.
After all, it was America's churches that led the fight to end segregation.
There almost certainly will be occasional instance of both secular and non-secular discrimination by faith-based organizations; no doubt about it. There won't be so much, however, as painted by the more lurid critics, or enough to justify rejection of faith-based initiatives.
Giving taxpayer money to religious organizations threatens the voluntariness of religious activities and the autonomy of houses of worship ....
Nah. All faith based organizations are required to provide services without regard to faith. All will be looking for a way to snag a few more souls for the Big Guy, of course, and will interpret the prevailing rules governing proselytization aggressively, but most have far too much sense to make aid contingent upon listening to old Billy Sunday sermons or some such.
Besides, the ACLU and AU will be out there policing it.
Nor am I much concerned about faith-based organizations succumbing to the doughy weight of bureaucrats; most are insanely jealous of their prerogatives. Many of the largest have refused to participate because of that fear.
There's only one additional condition I would put on faith based organizations receiving public money: I would like to see them obliged by statute to publish their 990-forms, their tax returns, on the Internet. Then they'll all police each other.
Excepting that, Americans United needs to find better things to worry about. In my estimation they did the nation a real service by fighting off the goofs running Dover, Pennsylvania's school board, and this kind of screechiness diminishes them.
"I haven't a clue why people believe half the things they believe, but there is no reason whatever to believe that the Founders intended that religious affiliation should disqualify anybody from full participation in civic life."
But you might say they never intended anyone to receive "financial support" from tax money. Overall, I agree though.
"Multiple healthy religions assures that none will take over and visit its pet imbecilities upon everybody else by force. The constant noise is an awful bother, but certainly it is an improvement upon government by such as Donald Wildmon"
What about the cultural factionalism that leads to civil wars so consistently, in say Africa perhaps?
Regarding the first, I agree that it isn't government's business to hand out taxpayers' money to "do good." I should probably have said something like ... "as long as government is giving money away, there is no reason why religion should disqualify anybody for a ride on the gravy train."
Regarding the second, I actually considered that objection when writing the piece, but decided it wasn't necessary to address it because I'm clearly discussing the United States -- a secular nation (the invention of Swiss anabaptists, though conservative evangelicals now tend to use the word "secular" as a pejorative). In a secular state with a tradition of peaceful co-existence and where civil authority isn't descended from some idea of divine grant, what happens is precisely what is happening now with the political ascendance of conservative evangelicals under the influence of such as James Dobson; the others ally to sell a competing message and snipe at whomever's on top. Thus the recent splashes by the World Council of Churches, and the Rick Warren group involved in environmentalism.
3 Comments:
"I haven't a clue why people believe half the things they believe, but there is no reason whatever to believe that the Founders intended that religious affiliation should disqualify anybody from full participation in civic life."
But you might say they never intended anyone to receive "financial support" from tax money. Overall, I agree though.
"Multiple healthy religions assures that none will take over and visit its pet imbecilities upon everybody else by force. The constant noise is an awful bother, but certainly it is an improvement upon government by such as Donald Wildmon"
What about the cultural factionalism that leads to civil wars so consistently, in say Africa perhaps?
Both good points.
Regarding the first, I agree that it isn't government's business to hand out taxpayers' money to "do good." I should probably have said something like ... "as long as government is giving money away, there is no reason why religion should disqualify anybody for a ride on the gravy train."
Regarding the second, I actually considered that objection when writing the piece, but decided it wasn't necessary to address it because I'm clearly discussing the United States -- a secular nation (the invention of Swiss anabaptists, though conservative evangelicals now tend to use the word "secular" as a pejorative). In a secular state with a tradition of peaceful co-existence and where civil authority isn't descended from some idea of divine grant, what happens is precisely what is happening now with the political ascendance of conservative evangelicals under the influence of such as James Dobson; the others ally to sell a competing message and snipe at whomever's on top. Thus the recent splashes by the World Council of Churches, and the Rick Warren group involved in environmentalism.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home