As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I wonder if the State has any business, really, in running schools.

Presumably State-approved curricula taught by State-trained teachers using State-approved textbooks and resources are not ideology-free and values-neutral.

If religious education is the business of the parents, why is not any education the business of the parents?

Would it not be better, if the State wishes to assist parents in educating their children, to either subsidize or fully fund the schools chosen by parents or provide per capita entitlements ("vouchers") that parents can transfer to the schools of their choice?

For some reason, the Democrats in the USA are against school vouchers. They don't want poor, inner-city kids to have the chance to go to a better school they normally couldn't afford. I'm not sure why that is because it seems like a fantastic idea.

Statists in Australia agree with the US Dems. There is some fear that the most slickly promoted schools would have an unfair advantage in attracting clients, but, really, the government sector knows it would see an even greater reduction in its market share if vouchers were introduced. (About 34% of Australian children are already educated in non-government schools that receive various levels of government subsidy.)

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

As far as schools are concerned I'd ban all religious schools. If parents want to instill a particular faith into their children that's their business. It's no business of the State to facilitate it.

I wonder if the State has any business, really, in running schools.

Presumably State-approved curricula taught by State-trained teachers using State-approved textbooks and resources are not ideology-free and values-neutral.

If religious education is the business of the parents, why is not any education the business of the parents?

Would it not be better, if the State wishes to assist parents in educating their children, to either subsidize or fully fund the schools chosen by parents or provide per capita entitlements ("vouchers") that parents can transfer to the schools of their choice?

For some reason, the Democrats in the USA are against school vouchers. They don't want poor, inner-city kids to have the chance to go to a better school they normally couldn't afford. I'm not sure why that is because it seems like a fantastic idea.

Statists in Australia agree with the US Dems. There is some fear that the most slickly promoted schools would have an unfair advantage in attracting clients, but, really, the government sector knows it would see an even greater reduction in its market share if vouchers were introduced. (About 34% of Australian children are already educated in non-government schools that receive various levels of government subsidy.)

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

In layman's terms...dumb down the masses?

For some reason, the Democrats in the USA are against school vouchers. They don't want poor, inner-city kids to have the chance to go to a better school they normally couldn't afford. I'm not sure why that is because it seems like a fantastic idea.

Statists in Australia agree with the US Dems. There is some fear that the most slickly promoted schools would have an unfair advantage in attracting clients, but, really, the government sector knows it would see an even greater reduction in its market share if vouchers were introduced. (About 34% of Australian children are already educated in non-government schools that receive various levels of government subsidy.)

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

In layman's terms...dumb down the masses?

How else do they expect to get them to vote year in and year out for politicians who think they are incapable of bearing any responsibility for their own lives?

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

Well, there you have it then. In the USA, Teachers' unions are an extension of the Democratic Party. That would explain why the Democrats are so against vouchers.

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

Well, there you have it then. In the USA, Teachers' unions are an extension of the Democratic Party. That would explain why the Democrats are so against vouchers.

It's what is called in the UK the 'lawnmower' policy - trimming everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

The Labour governments of Tony Bliar and Gordon 'sell-the-gold' Brown destroyed an already suspect British education system, selling off playing fields, reducing the number of tests/exams in order that pupils did not need to compete and thus be classified into winners or losers - 'cos no-one should be a loser.

..., reducing the number of tests/exams in order that pupils did not need to compete and thus be classified into winners or losers - 'cos no-one should be a loser.

Geez, and I thought that insanity was limited to the US.

Teachers' unions and university academics have a significant influence on the Labor Party, in particular, and unions and academics give priority to equality and uniformity wherever possible, and are generally hostile to private education and religious initiatives. There's no way they'll support a free and open market in education.

Well, there you have it then. In the USA, Teachers' unions are an extension of the Democratic Party. That would explain why the Democrats are so against vouchers.

It's what is called in the UK the 'lawnmower' policy - trimming everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

The Labour governments of Tony Bliar and Gordon 'sell-the-gold' Brown destroyed an already suspect British education system, selling off playing fields, reducing the number of tests/exams in order that pupils did not need to compete and thus be classified into winners or losers - 'cos no-one should be a loser.

Tell me again what you've done to help?

SC

Please explain how church based tax relief is taking money from people that might disagree with the theories of the church.

Everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, pays taxes. Some of that money is used to give tax relief to religious institutions without regard for the beliefs of the taxpayer. Notice that I said 'religious' not 'church'. I include all religions in my belief that they shouldn't receive subsidies in any form from the State.

Please explain to me how tax relief for any entity, "religious" or not, suddenly becomes a subsidy.

If there is no legal obligation to pay taxes, does that magically become unearned revenue for the government and thus a subsidy?

What about the Red Cross and other non-religious charitable organizations. They also receive tax relief.

Tax relief is not a subsidy. It is merely relief from having to pay taxes.

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

On education, you would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are excellent Catholic schools in the UK (Ampleforth and Stoneyhurst come to mind), and in many countries the Catholic church has been the first and often the only provider of education. In others, other Christian groups have done the same.

The UK had an excellent education system with the grammar schools which didn't have any religious affiliations. The problem was that the secondary moderns were looked down on a second best alternative whereas they were suitable for a different type of pupil with a different set of aptitudes.

It's what is called in the UK the 'lawnmower' policy - trimming everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

The Labour governments of Tony Bliar and Gordon 'sell-the-gold' Brown destroyed an already suspect British education system, selling off playing fields, reducing the number of tests/exams in order that pupils did not need to compete and thus be classified into winners or losers - 'cos no-one should be a loser.

Tell me again what you've done to help?

SC

Bred a daughter who went to very good private school, then Leeds Uni. and teacher school. She is now senior language teacher in a well-known academy.

I am a great believer in education - pushing kids to learn and to aspire to want to know much more so that they can use all their knowledge to progress onwards and upwards, For this they must know that they are clever, intelligent and well-educated and know that they waste their lives if they sit on their fat <deleted> bleating for more handouts from the community.

Please explain how church based tax relief is taking money from people that might disagree with the theories of the church.

Everyone, regardless of religious beliefs, pays taxes. Some of that money is used to give tax relief to religious institutions without regard for the beliefs of the taxpayer. Notice that I said 'religious' not 'church'. I include all religions in my belief that they shouldn't receive subsidies in any form from the State.

Please explain to me how tax relief for any entity, "religious" or not, suddenly becomes a subsidy.

If there is no legal obligation to pay taxes, does that magically become unearned revenue for the government and thus a subsidy?

What about the Red Cross and other non-religious charitable organizations. They also receive tax relief.

Tax relief is not a subsidy. It is merely relief from having to pay taxes.

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

The USA is a secular country. They are not above secular laws. If women's health legally includes services that Catholics object to, and these Catholic institutions are involved with government funding, they need to be Americans first, not Catholics first.

About the cross at the "sacred" 9-11 site, so let me ask, was it only Christians who were victimized by the terrorists? I think not. I don't think a cross belongs there.

Not sure about the "Americans first" idea. People have a nationality, but it normally goes together with some other individual characteristics. One may be an American, but one is also a housewife, a Presbyterian, a Red Cross volunteer, a registered Democrat, etc. What should a person discard first in order to be more fully an American?

If Catholic hospitals or pregnancy counseling centres have a faith-based objection to doing abortions or providing advice on how to obtain one, what proportion of their funding should be withdrawn from them, and how will it be calculated so that the withdrawal does not impact on other, valued services the hospital or centre provides? And what if, say, the enforced euthanasia lobby becomes powerful and Congress feels obliged to gently put to sleep unproductive people such as paraplegics and the very old? Should the cudgel of potential funding cuts be raised over the heads of objectors, and if their funds are withdrawn in whole or part, who will benefit?

Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs.

Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs.

How about citing some examples of tax money being spent as you state.

Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs.

How about citing some examples of tax money being spent as you state.

Both secular and religiously-affiliated entities have long received funding from the government to provide social services. Until the mid-1990s the constitutional rights of taxpayers and social service recipients were protected because entities receiving federal financial assistance had to abide by employment non-discrimination laws and constitutional religious liberty protections. Religiously-affiliated organizations like Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity received funding to provide social services alongside secular entities without raising civil rights concerns or diminishing services.

At the time, religious organizations were required to secularize their services and facilities in order to be eligible for public funding, by

• separating their social service functions from their sponsoring religious institutions
  
• removing religious symbols from the facilities in which the social services were conducted
  
• abiding by fair employment practices
  
• satisfying professional licensing requirements, and
  
• prohibiting religious activities and proselytizing in conjunction with the publicly funded services
  

Religious organizations that did not secularize their services and facilities were not eligible to receive public funding. As explained in a Congressional Research Service report, "As a concept, charitable choice challenges these restrictions and seeks to allow religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their faith in carrying out programs that are directly subsidized by government."

Charitable choice was first included in the 1996 welfare reform measure "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA) , which did include some protections -- no use of direct funding (as opposed to vouchers) for inherently religious activities, no discrimination against beneficiaries based on their religion or beliefs, and the required availability of alternative service providers for beneficiaries who objected to the religious nature of faith-based organizations (FBOs). However, the legislation also provided an invitation for abuse because the religious organizations were permitted to

• receive grants without segregating the funds from private sources
  
• provide services in spaces replete with religious symbols, and
  
• discriminate in hiring practices in favor of coreligionists
  

Subsequently, Congress considered charitable choice provisions for various social service programs, adopting variations on such rules for the TANF, Community Services Block Grants (CSBGs), and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Opposition to charitable choice gained momentum and prevented adoption in legislation for juvenile delinquency prevention programs and job training programs.

In 2001, Congress also failed to adopt President Bush’s "Community Solutions Act" (H.R. 7), that would expand charitable choice provisions. Undeterred by Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI) and created the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in executive departments. These "faith-based initiative" executive orders extended charitable choice, but with even fewer safeguards allowing FBOs to directly apply to federal agencies for government grants to perform social services in their communities.

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

What has the cost of government got to do with the fact that they use tax money to subsidise religions? Even if they reduced their spending they'd still be using taxpayer's money to subsidise religions that many of them don't believe in.

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

What has the cost of government got to do with the fact that they use tax money to subsidise religions? Even if they reduced their spending they'd still be using taxpayer's money to subsidise religions that many of them don't believe in.

Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs.

How about citing some examples of tax money being spent as you state.

Both secular and religiously-affiliated entities have long received funding from the government to provide social services. Until the mid-1990s the constitutional rights of taxpayers and social service recipients were protected because entities receiving federal financial assistance had to abide by employment non-discrimination laws and constitutional religious liberty protections. Religiously-affiliated organizations like Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity received funding to provide social services alongside secular entities without raising civil rights concerns or diminishing services.

At the time, religious organizations were required to secularize their services and facilities in order to be eligible for public funding, by

• separating their social service functions from their sponsoring religious institutions
  
• removing religious symbols from the facilities in which the social services were conducted
  
• abiding by fair employment practices
  
• satisfying professional licensing requirements, and
  
• prohibiting religious activities and proselytizing in conjunction with the publicly funded services
  

Religious organizations that did not secularize their services and facilities were not eligible to receive public funding. As explained in a Congressional Research Service report, "As a concept, charitable choice challenges these restrictions and seeks to allow religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their faith in carrying out programs that are directly subsidized by government."

Charitable choice was first included in the 1996 welfare reform measure "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA) , which did include some protections -- no use of direct funding (as opposed to vouchers) for inherently religious activities, no discrimination against beneficiaries based on their religion or beliefs, and the required availability of alternative service providers for beneficiaries who objected to the religious nature of faith-based organizations (FBOs). However, the legislation also provided an invitation for abuse because the religious organizations were permitted to

• receive grants without segregating the funds from private sources
  
• provide services in spaces replete with religious symbols, and
  
• discriminate in hiring practices in favor of coreligionists
  

Subsequently, Congress considered charitable choice provisions for various social service programs, adopting variations on such rules for the TANF, Community Services Block Grants (CSBGs), and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Opposition to charitable choice gained momentum and prevented adoption in legislation for juvenile delinquency prevention programs and job training programs.

In 2001, Congress also failed to adopt President Bush’s "Community Solutions Act" (H.R. 7), that would expand charitable choice provisions. Undeterred by Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI) and created the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in executive departments. These "faith-based initiative" executive orders extended charitable choice, but with even fewer safeguards allowing FBOs to directly apply to federal agencies for government grants to perform social services in their communities.

From your own link any tax money being spent by a religious organization is to be used for social services and must be secular in nature.

You still haven't showed us where taxpayer money is being spent for, in your own words, "use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs."

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

What has the cost of government got to do with the fact that they use tax money to subsidise religions? Even if they reduced their spending they'd still be using taxpayer's money to subsidise religions that many of them don't believe in.

I hardly knew which of your posts to respond to so I chose this one.

My point is the government could cut off some of these non-vital programs and would need comsiderably less of our cash to operate. I will ask you the same question that our new found member sirineou attempted to answer.

Please provide some instances where taxpayer money is be used to "subsidize religions that many of them don't believe in."

You may refer to my post immediately before this one as it covers social services and the secular nature of government aid.

At the risk of repeating things which have been said several times in one form or another....

Governments do not subsidise religions; they subsidise social services. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic school, they will have to provide extra school places themselves. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic hospital, they will have to provide more hospital places. They do not at the same time buy the right to tell Catholics when and how to practice their religion. That would be curtailing the freedom of religion which most Western countries claim to support.

At the risk of repeating things which have been said several times in one form or another....

Governments do not subsidise religions; they subsidise social services. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic school, they will have to provide extra school places themselves. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic hospital, they will have to provide more hospital places. They do not at the same time buy the right to tell Catholics when and how to practice their religion. That would be curtailing the freedom of religion which most Western countries claim to support.

Well said, IB.

I'm trying to unpack the "rights" issues in regard to public funding of faith-based or religious-sponsored public services.

Constitutions like the US and Australian ones do not allow governments to fund the propagation of religion. However, funding of public services provided by religious institutions is permissible where the primary purpose of the service is not religious propagation.

Many people could argue that a religious organization, e.g. the Daughters of Charity, a Catholic nursing order, can't fail to transmit religious values in a favorable light through their services, and this is a form of propagation; however, governments don't usually accept that argument. There are signs that this could change, however, and crucifixes may have to be removed from walls and crosses from the nuns' apparel. This may be regarded as a breakthrough for secularization, but I'm not sure whose or what rights are protected as a result or how it would contribute to people's freedoms.

As a taxpayer, however, what rights do I have? Basically none. A government having been elected, it can spend taxpayers' money as it thinks best as long as it is within the law. I can actively or passively oppose its taxation policies and vote against it, but I can't demand that my taxes be used to some ends and not others.

Do I have moral rights in respect of government policy? For example, am I morally right in opposing government funding of hospitals that are sponsored by a church organization. Who knows? People agree and disagree over moral issues. One has to have an agreed starting point and agreed goals to be able to reach agreement on moral questions. Otherwise we just make competing assertions and claims, and the outcome is determined by non-moral criteria, e.g. who gets elected or who has the most powerful army.

I can argue till the cows come home that governments have no obligation to fund any kind of hospital or school. I might quote Jefferson and Mill and all sorts of generally well-regarded people, and I might point to the unfortunate and unintended consequences of governments spending money (and thereby exercising control) in areas that should not concern them, but people may equally well argue against my assertions and claims, so I can't claim a moral right to my views being applied.

Equally, I might feel strongly that my tax contribution should not be spent on services that I disagree with, but this is a view that at present I can't impose on my fellow citizens. Perhaps it's better just to get the politicians off the public expenditure habit altogether and see how civil society and private enterprise manage to provide necessary services. I'm sure we'll find that a lot of services that governments at present fund are no longer seen as essential.

Many people could argue that a religious organization, e.g. the Daughters of Charity, a Catholic nursing order, can't fail to transmit religious values in a favorable light through their services, and this is a form of propagation; however, governments don't usually accept that argument. There are signs that this could change, however, and crucifixes may have to be removed from walls and crosses from the nuns' apparel. This may be regarded as a breakthrough for secularization, but I'm not sure whose or what rights are protected as a result or how it would contribute to people's freedoms.

This, I would argue, is an interference with those nuns' freedom of religion. I thought my last post really answered that (nicely Jesuitical though it was!).

The individual taxpayer has no rights; maybe he should have, but in practice he has none. This (going way off topic here)is where our modern so-called democracies are not really democracies at all.

Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs.

How about citing some examples of tax money being spent as you state.

Both secular and religiously-affiliated entities have long received funding from the government to provide social services. Until the mid-1990s the constitutional rights of taxpayers and social service recipients were protected because entities receiving federal financial assistance had to abide by employment non-discrimination laws and constitutional religious liberty protections. Religiously-affiliated organizations like Catholic Charities, Jewish Federation, Lutheran Services of America, and Habitat for Humanity received funding to provide social services alongside secular entities without raising civil rights concerns or diminishing services.

At the time, religious organizations were required to secularize their services and facilities in order to be eligible for public funding, by

• separating their social service functions from their sponsoring religious institutions
  
• removing religious symbols from the facilities in which the social services were conducted
  
• abiding by fair employment practices
  
• satisfying professional licensing requirements, and
  
• prohibiting religious activities and proselytizing in conjunction with the publicly funded services
  

Religious organizations that did not secularize their services and facilities were not eligible to receive public funding. As explained in a Congressional Research Service report, "As a concept, charitable choice challenges these restrictions and seeks to allow religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their faith in carrying out programs that are directly subsidized by government."

Charitable choice was first included in the 1996 welfare reform measure "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA) , which did include some protections -- no use of direct funding (as opposed to vouchers) for inherently religious activities, no discrimination against beneficiaries based on their religion or beliefs, and the required availability of alternative service providers for beneficiaries who objected to the religious nature of faith-based organizations (FBOs). However, the legislation also provided an invitation for abuse because the religious organizations were permitted to

• receive grants without segregating the funds from private sources
  
• provide services in spaces replete with religious symbols, and
  
• discriminate in hiring practices in favor of coreligionists
  

Subsequently, Congress considered charitable choice provisions for various social service programs, adopting variations on such rules for the TANF, Community Services Block Grants (CSBGs), and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Opposition to charitable choice gained momentum and prevented adoption in legislation for juvenile delinquency prevention programs and job training programs.

In 2001, Congress also failed to adopt President Bush’s "Community Solutions Act" (H.R. 7), that would expand charitable choice provisions. Undeterred by Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI) and created the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in executive departments. These "faith-based initiative" executive orders extended charitable choice, but with even fewer safeguards allowing FBOs to directly apply to federal agencies for government grants to perform social services in their communities.

From your own link any tax money being spent by a religious organization is to be used for social services and must be secular in nature.

You still haven't showed us where taxpayer money is being spent for, in your own words, "use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs."

Xangsamhua said and I quote: "If Catholic hospitals or pregnancy counseling centres have a faith-based objection to doing abortions or providing advice on how to obtain one, what proportion of their funding should be withdrawn from them,"

.

to which I responded, and I quote"Catholics or any other religion have the right to their beliefs as long as these beliefs do not interfere with other peoples rights.

What they don,t have is the right to use public funds ( part of my tax money) to finance their beliefs."

then you asked and I quote "How about citing some examples of tax money being spent as you state"

and I did,

;No where did I state that Tax money were used for religious purposes, I stated that they dont have the right to use tax money to support their belief, a statement supported by my later reply on FBO's.

If you will read the FBO reply carefully, you will see that FBO's dont have the right to use federal funds in non secular ways but have actively attempted and are attempting to circumvent the secular provisions of the act . and I quote

"As a concept, charitable choice challenges these restrictions and seeks to allow religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their faith in carrying out programs that are directly subsidized by government."

Charitable choice was first included in the 1996 welfare reform measure "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act" (PRWORA) , which did include some protections -- no use of direct funding (as opposed to vouchers) for inherently religious activities, no discrimination against beneficiaries based on their religion or beliefs, and the required availability of alternative service providers for beneficiaries who objected to the religious nature of faith-based organizations (FBOs). However, the legislation also provided an invitation for abuse because the religious organizations were permitted to

• receive grants without segregating the funds from private sources
  
• provide services in spaces replete with religious symbols, and
  
• discriminate in hiring practices in favor of coreligionists
  

Subsequently, Congress considered charitable choice provisions for various social service programs, adopting variations on such rules for the TANF, Community Services Block Grants (CSBGs), and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. Opposition to charitable choice gained momentum and prevented adoption in legislation for juvenile delinquency prevention programs and job training programs.

In 2001, Congress also failed to adopt President Bush’s "Community Solutions Act" (H.R. 7), that would expand charitable choice provisions. Undeterred by Congress, President Bush issued executive orders to establish the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI) and created the Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in executive departments. These "faith-based initiative" executive orders extended charitable choice, but with even fewer safeguards allowing FBOs to directly apply to federal agencies for government grants to perform social services in their communities."

At the risk of repeating things which have been said several times in one form or another....

Governments do not subsidise religions; they subsidise social services. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic school, they will have to provide extra school places themselves. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic hospital, they will have to provide more hospital places. They do not at the same time buy the right to tell Catholics when and how to practice their religion. That would be curtailing the freedom of religion which most Western countries claim to support.

Well said, IB.

are guys for real or is his a jock? I am having trouble deciding.

Government do not subsidize religion ,the should subsidize catholic schools? Don't catholic schools teach religion?

" If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic hospital, they will have to provide more hospital places"?

If government does not use it's tax money to support secular Hospitals but instead use some of it's funds to support religious hospital that limit their care options to those allowed by their religious doctrine, doesn't this practice limit the health options choice of the public and at the same time allow the religious institutions to use tax money to promote their religious agenda?

Are you proposing that government secedes it's responsibility to provide services, to religious institutions?

If it is a jock it is not very funny.

Many people could argue that a religious organization, e.g. the Daughters of Charity, a Catholic nursing order, can't fail to transmit religious values in a favorable light through their services, and this is a form of propagation; however, governments don't usually accept that argument. There are signs that this could change, however, and crucifixes may have to be removed from walls and crosses from the nuns' apparel. This may be regarded as a breakthrough for secularization, but I'm not sure whose or what rights are protected as a result or how it would contribute to people's freedoms.

This, I would argue, is an interference with those nuns' freedom of religion. I thought my last post really answered that (nicely Jesuitical though it was!).

The individual taxpayer has no rights; maybe he should have, but in practice he has none. This (going way off topic here)is where our modern so-called democracies are not really democracies at all.

"This, I would argue, is an interference with those nuns' freedom of religion"

No it's not,The nuns have every right to practice their religion as long as they don't use tax payer money to do so.

" I thought my last post really answered that "

Your last post answered nothing of the short, it made as much sense as this post.

"The individual taxpayer has no rights; maybe he should have, but in practice he has none."

Of course he/she does, they are described in the constitution, if the taxpayer fails to exercise them it is his/ her fault.

If I'm right, in the US there is no government funding for faith-based schools,most of which are Catholic. In Australia, however, all schools, whether government or faith-based, are eligible for some level of public funding, providing their curriculum and standards are acceptable to their respective State Ministers of Education. Obviously, government schools are funded 100% by State governments (who have this responsibility) and this amount is topped up by the Federal government. Poor Catholic schools, and most Catholic schools educate a cross-section of the population - few have endowments - are funded by State and Federal governments to a total of about 80% that received by government schools.

Religious education (i.e. the religion classes taught in the school), however, is not funded by the government; RE is in the other 20% that is collected in school fees. Wealthier non-government schools (e.g. Anglican grammar schools) of course receive a lesser proportion of government funding.

The question of whether it is constitutional to fund non-government schools - overwhelmingly Catholic schools, which educate about 23% of the total school population - was taken up by the High Court in 1980, and the case against funding these schools was defeated 6-1 by the bench.

A country's history and culture must be taken into account when considering the relationship between government and religion. It's not a simple matter of justice vs injustice.

If I'm right, in the US there is no government funding for faith-based schools,most of which are Catholic. In Australia, however, all schools, whether government or faith-based, are eligible for some level of public funding, providing their curriculum and standards are acceptable to their respective State Ministers of Education. Obviously, government schools are funded 100% by State governments (who have this responsibility) and this amount is topped up by the Federal government. Poor Catholic schools, and most Catholic schools educate a cross-section of the population - few have endowments - are funded by State and Federal governments to a total of about 80% that received by government schools.

Religious education (i.e. the religion classes taught in the school), however, is not funded by the government; RE is in the other 20% that is collected in school fees. Wealthier non-government schools (e.g. Anglican grammar schools) of course receive a lesser proportion of government funding.

The question of whether it is constitutional to fund non-government schools - overwhelmingly Catholic schools, which educate about 23% of the total school population - was taken up by the High Court in 1980, and the case against funding these schools was defeated 6-1 by the bench.

A country's history and culture must be taken into account when considering the relationship between government and religion. It's not a simple matter of justice vs injustice.

Now you are arguing against the separation of State and Church, and for the Tyranny of the Majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

If I'm right, in the US there is no government funding for faith-based schools,most of which are Catholic. In Australia, however, all schools, whether government or faith-based, are eligible for some level of public funding, providing their curriculum and standards are acceptable to their respective State Ministers of Education. Obviously, government schools are funded 100% by State governments (who have this responsibility) and this amount is topped up by the Federal government. Poor Catholic schools, and most Catholic schools educate a cross-section of the population - few have endowments - are funded by State and Federal governments to a total of about 80% that received by government schools.

Religious education (i.e. the religion classes taught in the school), however, is not funded by the government; RE is in the other 20% that is collected in school fees. Wealthier non-government schools (e.g. Anglican grammar schools) of course receive a lesser proportion of government funding.

The question of whether it is constitutional to fund non-government schools - overwhelmingly Catholic schools, which educate about 23% of the total school population - was taken up by the High Court in 1980, and the case against funding these schools was defeated 6-1 by the bench.

A country's history and culture must be taken into account when considering the relationship between government and religion. It's not a simple matter of justice vs injustice.

Now you are arguing against the separation of State and Church, and for the Tyranny of the Majority.

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_majority

Do you think so? It seems something of a leap to suggest this, I think. I'll need to give it more thought.

But to argue that asserting something to be a right makes it so is simply what Bentham called "Ipsedixitism" ("I say it, therefore it must be so"). Without agreement on the moral premises (e.g religion is a private matter and faith-based schools or hospitals are religious media; public funding of religions and their media is morally wrong), it'll be hard to agree on the conclusion (therefore public funding should not be made available to faith-based schools or hospitals).

To accept the fact that, in representative democracies, decisions are based on majorities, whether wisely or not, doesn't ascribe moral value to that fact. It's becoming clearer by the day that some of these decisions in recent decades have been disastrous, and bring into question the moral legitimacy as well the practical effectiveness of democracy as we know it. And my own views appear to have very little traction in political debate, so I would hardly rejoice in the tyranny of the majority.

Perhaps I'm more concerned about the tyranny of minorities. There is no shortage of people, who themselves are a minority, but who combine and campaign rather well to impose their views on the majority. They use politicians to do this, and the result is the enactment of some law that is imposed on the population at large. Sometimes the law may be a good one, e.g. to enforce the wearing of seat belts; at other times the law creates artificial outcomes and actual injustices, e.g. affirmative action laws and targets.

Both majorities and minorities attempt to impose their will on others and intrude on others' spaces. There are times this may be justified, and times when they are an unnecessary encroachment on individual freedom, as well as an obstacle in the way of individual or small group resourcefulness and entrepreneurialism. It's not that everyone endorses the latter kind of regulatory law; it's just that many or most people are unwilling to publicly oppose laws of this kind. They are in fact tyrannized by a vocal and single-minded minority.

Governments have to collect a certain amount of cash to pay for their programmes. If they don't collect any from you they're going to have to collect it from me instead. I'm subsidising you in the same way that taxpayers are subsidising religious institutions.

Nonsense. Why can't government simply reduce some of their program costs?

Please tell me where it is written that governments can and should run based on deficit spending.

What has the cost of government got to do with the fact that they use tax money to subsidise religions? Even if they reduced their spending they'd still be using taxpayer's money to subsidise religions that many of them don't believe in.

I hardly knew which of your posts to respond to so I chose this one.

My point is the government could cut off some of these non-vital programs and would need comsiderably less of our cash to operate. I will ask you the same question that our new found member sirineou attempted to answer.

Please provide some instances where taxpayer money is be used to "subsidize religions that many of them don't believe in."

You may refer to my post immediately before this one as it covers social services and the secular nature of government aid.

I'm sorry buy I don't understand your remarks about 'non-vital' programmes having anything to do with my post.

Let's assume that we're talking about a goverment all of whose programmes you approve of. That government has to raise a specific amount of money to fund those programmes and does so by taxing its constituents. If it allows some people/organisations not to pay tax then the tax that they don't pay has to be paid by the rest of the constituency. Thus the constituents who do pay tax are subsidising those who don't. I can't make it any clearer than that.

At the risk of repeating things which have been said several times in one form or another....

Governments do not subsidise religions; they subsidise social services. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic school, they will have to provide extra school places themselves. If they don't subsidise, say, a Catholic hospital, they will have to provide more hospital places. They do not at the same time buy the right to tell Catholics when and how to practice their religion. That would be curtailing the freedom of religion which most Western countries claim to support.

In 2007 the UK government passed the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations which made it illegal for organisations in receipt of public funds to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. The Catholic Church spent 3 years trying to convince the government and the Charity Commission that this law shouldn't apply to them insofar as their adoption agencies were concerned. Eventually they had to accept the fact that they're subject to the same laws as everyone else. Some of the adoption agencies closed down and the rest disassociated themselves from the church because they believed that children are more important than dogma.