The Seperation of Church and State is again under fire. Literally, this time. When a Chicago church burned down in 2006, Gov. Blagojevich promised the church 1 million of the 10 million in damage assessed to the church to help rebuild it.
They say that the money will only be used to build administrative offices and classrooms and therefore doesn't 'potentially conflict with the separation of church and state.'
This is clearly a violation of church and state.
You can't honestly justify giving money directly to a church for reconstruction and absolutely guarantee that none of the money will be used at all for the church. And even if it isn't used to rebuild the 'worship area' it's being used to rebuild classrooms were children are taught about God and their faith. It's the same thing.
How anyone can even remotely justify that this isn't a violation of church and state utterly boggles my mind. And ironically, no one mentioned if the church was insured in the first place.
I know already the ACLU is planning on contesting any grant to the church - we'll see what happens.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Need Money for Jesus? Uncle Sam Tithes!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I see no problem with giving money to burn victims. The church is just another instution providing for the well-being of our children. They should be fully reinbursed for their loss, so that they can continue their good will. I don't see this as a violation of a law. The state has recognized the desparete need of it's children in regards to all forms of education, and maybe the state bent the law a little. But, we all know that both sides are well meaning. No harm, no foul.
Alright,
No, you can't give money to a church from tax-payer dollars without openly admitting that you are ignoring the separation of church and state. In this case, it may seem innocuous, but, with a precedent set, what's to stop an extremist church from getting money for it's own outreach program? They're educating the populace (on the evils of our society) and they deserve the same handouts any other church gets... This is one step towards a bad situation.
I see no problem with education in any of its forms. And honestly, it is not as if people are forced to be members of churches. Those children who are being taught are at the acceptance of their legal and moral guardians. Tax dollars go to far worse than education.
You kidding me? Churches don't educate! Churches are some of the richest institutions the world has. If they burn down, they can re-build on their own, and the government should have nothing to do with it, especially if they are not ensured. Church is not a vital function anyways. Who cares if a few churches burn.
1.) Churches pay no taxes on their revenue. Schools make no revenue (public schools)
2.) Churches are ran privately WITH NO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. Schools are subject to oversight.
So, if Churches paid taxes or allowed the town to vote on what they preached, taught, and did in their church AND they announced and published their budgets for public approval, I may agree with you.
They don't. Ergo, they get no taxpayer money.
All public institutions must answer for the dollars they spend, while they aren't often 'called out on it' you have the ability and the right to look up and see where every taxpayer dollar goes and the OVERWHELMING majority of civic projects, you get to directly vote on their expenditure. This is not the case here.
More over, it was decided to be unconstitutional in the late 70's.
I think that kills the discussion.
Post a Comment