Subsidizing Religion
July 3, 2008In pointing out that proponents on the right and critics on the left are overstating their cases with respect to Barack Obama’s announcement that he would increase funds to faith-based groups providing community social services, Tom S directs us to pay mind to a much larger issue with respect to government subsidies to US churches (of course, his comments apply to Canada as well in this case):
One last church-state point. The U.S. government already provides a massive subsidy to churches, one that dwarfs any amount of money that an Obama administration will provide to faith-based initiatives. That is, of course, the U.S. tax code, which exempts religious organizations from paying taxes and which allows private contributions to churches to be tax deductible. This federal tax expenditure channels billions of dollars into proselytizing efforts, creationism, anti-gay and lesbian programs, and religious fanaticism of every variety. Other than the loosely-enforced IRS provision that churches can lose their tax-exempt status if they engage in political campaigning, there are no checks on what, in effect, you and I are subsidizing through our tax policies. This is a far more problematic aspect of church-state relations than well-regulated, carefully monitored, non-discriminatory religious-based social services like those Obama proposes.
I cannot agree with any scheme that puts funds for social services in private hands, however, I do believe that the issue being raised here with respect to the huge tax subsidies provided for religious institutions is the more important money, both in terms of dollars AND in terms of the principle of the separation of church and state, as he says.
I must admit that even as an Obama supporter, his whole speech on faith rubbed me the wrong way. This does help put it context though.
And I must also add that there are some organizations that have faith-based roots, but provide services in a way the government never could. This is because they are able to reach people in the community on a personal level, they rely on people to guide what services will be most helpful to them, they can make decisions and take action quicker than even local government, people trust these organizations in a way they don’t trust (or are even aware of) local government, etc.
That said, I still think people should be much more engaged in local government. That’s the only way they can truly serve us and we shouldn’t complain about being ignored until we give it a try.
Yes, I’ve thought about the issue of delivery of services. But I do think community centres could do the job. It doesn’t have to be faith-based. People might be more inclined to be active at the local level if they thought they actually had a bit of power to get something done for themselves and their neighbours.
Thanks for stopping by and taking the trouble to leave your comment.