As long as the government follows the establishment clause, they don't favor one religion over another, than I would guess that it is technically legal.
Is it wrong? I don't know, but I lean towards it being questionable but not wrong. I would cautiously wonder about the ethics of forcing a religion to change the way that they worship and then refusing to support that religion in a financial difficulty that the government may have created by a mandate.
Don't get me wrong. I'm a militant atheist. I think that all churches are leaches on society. However I'm also a pragmatist in that I don't trust the government to make value based decisions. I fear the government that would tell me that they know best.
So, as long as there are no favorites I'm sticking with this being questionable, not wrong.
This can be a difficult call. In the United States, many important institutions (hospitals, etc.) are owned by religious entities, and sometimes it is clearly to the benefit of society at large that additional financing be provided to them because that funding benefits the community/communities at large.
In other cases (I am thinking of prominent evangelists here), the "important institutions" may be mostly or entirely existing for the principal purpose of qualifying for government funds.
Figuring out on which side of the line a given situation belongs can be really difficult. I know that in some areas of the country, the "nearest" un-church-affiliated hospital may be hours away....so a local hospital, even if it imposes that faith's beliefs on its patients, may be far better than no hospital at all--certainly in many emergency situations.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 10:35AM by Tevai.
Excellent point. Given the subjectivity of value based decisions, and given the inherent inconsistencies in our local to national government institutions; I'm happy to allow the less than desirable (from my perspective) exist in order to facilitate the almost necessary (from my perspective).
There are many communities where the religious leaders and their local church are poor. Churches are tasked with strengthening their local communities, regardless of whether they actually end up doing a good job of it or not.
There should be an application form for churches to fill out when they apply for the government money. For the poor churches, they could get access to economic relief money quite easily. The form should require the churches to disclose things that the mormon church, the catholic church, and other wealthy churches would likely choose not to disclose. There should be financial cut-offs that would prohibit wealthy churches from qualifying. So if the mormon church were to apply, they would have to open up their books and get some hard numbers to put on to the forms (the Ensign Peak and other secret funds would all add-up to some pretty big disclosures) . Then they wouldn't qualify for any government help because they are far far too wealthy to even come close to actually needing help to maintain their operations. An individual who applies for welfare has to be qualified using similar standards. The standards should be fair and objective and apply equally to all churches and charities, including those who don't believe in god.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 10:53AM by azsteve.
It's a gray area and your question about "why" is valid. My thought is to maintain the communities themselves, in poor areas where the local church is critical to the stability of the community itself. If they can keep young men attending church and maybe staying off of drugs and away from crime, if they can keep young women from having unwed pregnancies early in life, the funds could be well spent.
The mormon church could maintain their status quo for probably a thousand years without needing any outside assistance. The pandemic will be over long before then. Give them and churches like them that do not need the help, zero access to these funds. They will never get any cut of the money and these funds will stop being distributed after the pandemic is over.
Without these types of measures, the pandemic will likely cause the smaller, perhaps more deserving in some cases, churches to shut down permanently. Many of those people who previously attended the poorer churches may then gravitate to the mormon and catholic (and other wealthy) churches as a result. This worship of money isn't good. Regardless of religious affiliation or lack of religious affiliation, if a charity meets its chartered purpose and needs the temporary economic assistance to survive the pandemic, it's in the public's best interests to assist that organization in maintaining its survival. But it's also about need. A charity that hoards hundreds of billions of dollars and provides only a token amount of charity (reletively speaking) is not a real charity.
This post was intended to go right under the post by GNPE, as a response.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 11:23AM by azsteve.
azsteve Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are many communities where the religious > leaders and their local church are poor. Churches > are tasked with strengthening their local > communities, regardless of whether they actually > end up doing a good job of it or not. >
...then there's LDS with its $100 billion (that we know about!) and all those big churches with clergy pulling down 6-figure salaries, some or even much of which is a tax-exempt 'housing allowance' Why should my/our money go to them?!
why would taxpayers WANT their $ to go to people of other faiths, other beliefs?
This smacks of countries like Norway who (once, now = ?) supported the Lutheran church thru their taxes...
Norway has more complete health care for its citizens & one of the highest tax rates, so, To What Purpose? Are the churches there or here of such heavy political influence that they muscle in on the political process to demand a cut of the action? It just doesn't make sense.
The Mormon church is not a church, it’s a business. You can tell by its charity spending, which is lower per member than most Fortune 500 companies. Maybe if there’s a means test, where they open their books and prove that they actually do charity, the government actually should pay religions.
Soup kitchens are run by religions. Would you rather have riots?
There should be a means test. If Bill Gates were to apply for welfare assistance, he would not qualify. Neither would anyone living in his household. Likewise,no mormon-affiliated or controlled business entity should get government assistance. That should include BYU and any other business that is owned or controlled by the Mormon church or its leadership. As soon as you impose means tests and ask them to start opening their books, those who don't qualify will not even bother to ask for the money.
Whether it's BYU, the Kennedy Center, or my favorite political campaign, if it doesn't need the money (especially the political causes which shouldn't qualify anyway), if they do not need the money to survive because they are wealthy to begin with or have wealthy backers, they shouldn't get any government money at all. That's just common sense.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/27/2020 11:38AM by azsteve.
what's wrong is that they are sending too much money too fast without a proper discussion about who they sending it to, what are the conditions of repaying the bill.
Should Americans give back some of the stimulus money after this has passed? yes, but no one is coming up with a plan about how to tax Americans more in the future. Especially poor ones.
macaRomney Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > what's wrong is that they are sending too much > money too fast without a proper discussion about > who they sending it to, what are the conditions of > repaying the bill. > > Should Americans give back some of the stimulus > money after this has passed? yes, but no one is > coming up with a plan about how to tax Americans > more in the future. Especially poor ones.
Somehow the treasury can pull trillions out of their asses for rescuing churches and Billionaires, but when it comes to helping the poor and growing ranks of homeless Americans, that's gonna be a BIIIIG problem. Better just pull yourselves up by the bootstraps fuckin' commies! Merica, Keepin It Great!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2020 05:41PM by schrodingerscat.
Nah, the frequency of some posters' non-sequiturs is completely unrelated to the characteristics of a discussion. It could happen over the flavor of ice cream.
As much as I was harmed by Mormonism, I don't see that all churches are bad. I am not religious either. The poor are all getting checks or direct deposits right now during this pandemic. With some prudent decision making, there is nothing wrong with helping some church's (the poor ones) to survive also. The wealthy churches will do just fine without any government money. Sometimes the religious teachings are harmful. But most of them have a common theme of teaching people to do good things and to be honest and good citizens. That's worth some amount of money to maintain. It's mainly the paid ministry that may end up getting the money. Some churches routinely publish their financial books for review by their membership. They wouldn't have a problem disclosing these same numbers in a government application. Not all churches are led by greedy bastards like the Mormon general authorities who live on 'stipends' that exceed secret amounts that exceed $100K/yr, plus benefits. To pull the religious leaders out of the poor neighborhoods would be a mistake.
I don't think it's about owing them anything. It's more about paying them to continue providing a service that we need in our society and that we will likely lose if we stop paying. They don't have a right to expect it or to demand it. If we pay for better schooling and after-school programs, we get better educated and well behaved adults as a result. If we choose not to make these kinds of investments in our communities, We get something less. It's the same for most charities and churches that are a part of a local community. It's the poorer and immigrent families that will benefit the most in such a case. Most of the ritch kids are likely to be Mormons or Catholics. They don't need the money and won't qualify to get any of it.
I'd be fine, more than fine, giving money to charities and even churches if that money were strictly accounted for and went only to charitable operations like food relief.
But I am not comfortable giving unconditional money to any church. In my view tax exemption alone violates the Establishment Clause--and no supreme court case disputes that--not to mention providing them with taxpayer money in tough times.
My badminton club, or whatever it is, provides public services with community events, free coaching for indigent children, and fundraising efforts in part to help local soup kitchens. But it does not get bailout funds. Churches are no better than badminton clubs and arguably a good deal worse.