Religious organizations and govt funding (churches, faith, catholic, Christian)

[lilithu]

I split this off from the GLBT at BYU-Idaho thread since it is very off-topic but something that I think is worth pursuing.

Originally Posted by lilithu

Actually the govt does provide grants to private religious universites. The Rehnquist Supreme Court loosened the separation of church and state by arguing that automatically disqualifying religious schools from govt funds consitutes a hostility to religion. So govt funds can go to religious schools as long as the money does not go directly towards promoting that religion.

I am ambivalent about this. He had a point about the hostility thing - religious schools should not be penalized for being religious. That is, they should not automatically be barred from govt funds that are available to other private universities that are not religious. Tha seems unfair. But it still seems to me that any govt funding that goes to a religious school does on some level go towards promoting that religion. Even if the govt funding goes specifically towards the cost of a building and not towards religious programming, that still frees up money for religious programming that otherwise would have been used for the cost of the building. I don't see how they can be separated.

Originally Posted by jonny

The only issue I have with the government not giving grants and funding to projects at religious universities is that it leans towards creating a state religion of secularism. I don't believe that this was the founding fathers intention when they drafted the constution. The supreme court got this one right.

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

Secularism isn't a religion.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

The term "secular religion" is an oxymoron, and a straw-man, BTW.

Jonny, I totally understand what you're saying - secularism can be a worldview as is religion. But by calling it a religion you open the door for people to criticize that aspect of your argument while failing to address the heart of the matter. So let's put that asside.

As the Supreme Court under Rehnquist argued, govt cannot be hostile towards religion since that violates free exercize of religion, as protected by the first amendment.

Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not?

If Rehnquist is correct, in cases where the govt provides funding for secular/non-religious organizations, shouldn't it also provide funding for religious organizations that do the same thing? This would include organizations such as universities and charities.

On the one hand, doesn't withholding funding constitute a bias against religion? Otoh, doesn't providing funding constitute govt support of religion?

[MaddLlama]

First, explain to me how "secularism" is a worldview. I'm not quite clear on how it's a way of looking at the world in the same way that a religion does. Secular humanism maybe, but if something is secular, that just means it has nothing to do with religion.

Another problem is that it's not the governments job, or business to be supporting religion. Non-religious humanitarian organizations, charities and schools get funding because they are either private, or follow specific federal regulations. Religious organizations don't get money from the government because it would violate the establishment clause - even if you were to say "well, then every religion should get government funding", that wouldn't work logistically, we simply don't have that kind of money. Because the government doesn't have the money to support every religious and non-religious organization and institution out there, and to support one or a few over others would be construed as "establishing religion", religious groups don't have the ability to get money from the government to support thier religious activities. That's why there's a seperation between public and private organizations and schools.

The government is meant to be secular, and therefore has no business making any statements about religion - and funding religious organizations is making a statement.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

First, explain to me how "secularism" is a worldview. I'm not quite clear on how it's a way of looking at the world in the same way that a religion does. Secular humanism maybe, but if something is secular, that just means it has nothing to do with religion.

Nothing is devoid of content, but that's not the point of this thread. It might make an interesting topic for another thread.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Another problem is that it's not the governments job, or business to be supporting religion. Non-religious humanitarian organizations, charities and schools get funding because they are either private, or follow specific federal regulations. Religious organizations don't get money from the government because it would violate the establishment clause - even if you were to say "well, then every religion should get government funding", that wouldn't work logistically, we simply don't have that kind of money. Because the government doesn't have the money to support every religious and non-religious organization and institution out there, and to support one or a few over others would be construed as "establishing religion", religious groups don't have the ability to get money from the government to support thier religious activities. That's why there's a seperation between public and private organizations and schools.

MaddLlama, religious organizations DO get money from the govt. That's what Bush's "faith-based initiatives" is all about. And as someone said in the other thread, BYU gets govt funding from research grants (as do other religious schools). The question I'm asking is whether this is ok.

As for the govt not having enough money to fund everyone, I would assume that funding would be decided based on the merit of the proposals rather than on whether an organization is religious or not.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

The government is meant to be secular, and therefore has no business making any statements about religion - and funding religious organizations is making a statement.

So if organization A is a Catholic charity that feeds the homeless. And organization B is a secular charity that feeds the homeless. If the govt funds organization B but not organization A, isn't that also making a statement about religion?

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Nothing is devoid of content, but that's not the point of this thread. It might make an interesting topic for another thread.

Saying secularism is a religion is just like saying "atheism is a way of life".

MaddLlama, religious organizations DO get money from the govt. That's what Bush's "faith-based initiatives" is all about. And as someone said in the other thread, BYU gets govt funding from research grants (as do other religious schools). The question I'm asking is whether this is ok.

No, it's not ok.

So if organization A is a Catholic charity that feeds the homeless. And organization B is a secular charity that feeds the homeless. If the govt funds organization B but not organization A, isn't that also making a statement about religion?

Yes, it's making the statement that the government isn't promoting religion. Which is what is supposed to be happening.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Yes, it's making the statement that the government isn't promoting religion. Which is what is supposed to be happening.

If the Catholic charity is providing the same service for the general community as the secular charity, and yet it is disqualified from govt funding while the secular charity is funded, some would say that the govt is making the statement that it is against religion.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by lilithu

If the Catholic charity is providing the same service for the general community as the secular charity, and yet it is disqualified from govt funding while the secular charity is funded, some would say that the govt is making the statement that it is against religion.

Why? Why should the government be required to give money to any private religious organization? If the government has to give money to support any and every religious charity that asks for money, then when exactly does it cross the line into violating the establishment clause? The government has no business supporting any religious institution, that's why such things are private, and not public organizations. If the government decides that it will only give money to certain religious charities, which ones will it give to? Only the soup kitchens? Only Christian charities? How many Muslim or Wiccan charities is the government likely to support? Wouldn't that be endorsing one, or a few religions over a number of others?

[jonny]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Jonny, I totally understand what you're saying - secularism can be a worldview as is religion. But by calling it a religion you open the door for people to criticize that aspect of your argument while failing to address the heart of the matter. So let's put that asside.

Calling it a religion may have been the wrong way to go. What I was trying to get across is that the government cannot be for or against religion - it needs to be completely unbiased on the issue. If it isn't unbiased, it is elevating one world view over another world view. I guess that's what I was trying to say and secularism was the best way to put it. Atheism isn't broad enough.

Originally Posted by lilithu

As the Supreme Court under Rehnquist argued, govt cannot be hostile towards religion since that violates free exercize of religion, as protected by the first amendment.

Do you agree with this argument? If not, why not?

I agree with the argument for the reasons I've listed above. The government cannot establish any religion - even if that "religion" is atheism - and elevate it over another. It needs to make decisions without regards to religion.

Originally Posted by lilithu

If Rehnquist is correct, in cases where the govt provides funding for secular/non-religious organizations, shouldn't it also provide funding for religious organizations that do the same thing? This would include organizations such as universities and charities.

Probably, but it needs to make sure that tax dollars are not being used to promote the religion. My church has expressed that it has no desire to collect money from the government and prefers to fund its charities and other work from within. If another church wants money from the government for its charities, it needs to give the government some authority over how that money is spent.

Originally Posted by lilithu

On the one hand, doesn't withholding funding constitute a bias against religion? Otoh, doesn't providing funding constitute govt support of religion?

It is only promoting a religion if the money is used to promote the religion. If a church runs a soup kitchen and any homeless, regardless of their religion, are allowed to come in and get something to eat without having a religion forced upon them, then that church should be eligible for state grants.

I personally don't like the idea of the government giving money to the churches because I think that it is too hard to monitor.