Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (1 Viewer)

[FabricLive]

I hate these fucking threads because they show how shallow and bullshit all this rent-seeking actually is

"They deserve your tax dollars" etc.

Get rid of all the fucking spending and cut all rates of tax, IMO.

Fuck WYD, give $100 to each citizen in NSW.

 

[Name_Taken]

But can a society be sustainable without taxpayer funding of religion? Would people actually physically get ill and die? Would there be rioting and looting in the streets?

How tenuous is people's religious faith, and the persuasiveness of religious argument if it requires taxpayer funding to continue it's influence on society?

Society could function well without hopspitals (both private and public).

It's just we'd all have to be a lot more careful and get used to a lower life expectancy. Thats a dodgy arguement.

Religion brings 65% of the population peace and happiness, one in every 5 Australians attends Church, thats more than attends universities or even schools.

Churches role is not restricted to promoting the faith they represent, most do a lot of community work that other private organisations tend to avoid. 'Sif they don't deserve taxation money to stay afloat and to help achieve community-based projects.

The amount of money they recieve from the government is negligible anyway, if anything they all deserve more. Most of the money they go through they raise themselves anyway.

 

[Name_Taken]

because I'd rather help out people actually in need

Yeah but say everyone one the whole has a racist view to a group of poor people or doesn't feel sympathetic to one particular group, such as the homeless for exmaple. That means that while yes money is being donated to those in need, it isn't reaching everyone and many people could miss out altogether.

 

[BlackDragon]

Society could function well without hopspitals (both private and public).

It's just we'd all have to be a lot more careful and get used to a lower life expectancy. Thats a dodgy arguement.

Religion brings 65% of the population peace and happiness, one in every 5 Australians attends Church, thats more than attends universities or even schools.

Churches role is not restricted to promoting the faith they represent, most do a lot of community work that other private organisations tend to avoid. 'Sif they don't deserve taxation money to stay afloat and to help achieve community-based projects.

The amount of money they recieve from the government is negligible anyway, if anything they all deserve more. Most of the money they go through they raise themselves anyway.

Lets not compare the function of a religious church to a hospital or university, because they can't even compare. And if the argument that church about the church doing community work stuck at all we should just give the money straight to organisation that focus only on community work. And the current percentage of people that attend church is 9%, 20% was the figure I quoted for 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, 2008). And besides the number doesn't matter. We'll have to be funding every single organisation of belief if we want to sponsor any at all, and that is regardless of their belief towards a deity.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lets not compare the function of a religious church to a hospital or university, because they can't even compare. And if the argument that church about the church doing community work stuck at all we should just give the money straight to organisation that focus only on community work. And the current percentage of people that attend church is 9%, 20% was the figure I quoted for 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, 2008). And besides the number doesn't matter. We'll have to be funding every single organisation of belief if we want to sponsor any at all, and that is regardless of their belief towards a deity.

Whats wrong with that?

That 9-20% of people pay tax themselves and so the government has an obligation to support their community activities and organisations in the fist place. The governments budget for Churches is so small anyway, it would cvertinely be paid for alone with change to spare from just that 9-20% of people anyway.

 

[Kwayera]

Society could function well without hopspitals (both private and public).

It's just we'd all have to be a lot more careful and get used to a lower life expectancy. Thats a dodgy arguement.

Religion brings 65% of the population peace and happiness, one in every 5 Australians attends Church, thats more than attends universities or even schools. .

So, uh, "peace and happiness" > fixing a broken leg or curing your cancer?

Uh, okay.

 

[BlackDragon]

Whats wrong with that?

That 9-20% of people pay tax themselves and so the government has an obligation to support their community activities and organisations in the fist place. The governments budget for Churches is so small anyway, it would cvertinely be paid for alone with change to spare from just that 9-20% of people anyway.

Because it is a ridiculous notion. Anybody with the ability to make an organisation that professes some belief will have the ability to become funded by the government. It basically means every single person in Australia could be funded for believing in something. Which is utterly ridiculous, it is far better to let people believe that which they want to and leave it out of what the government has to deal with, because it is impossible and would be to the detriment of other more vital services that we fund something as crazy as every single belief and ritual system. It makes no sense to fund me or an organisation for not believing in god, or for believing that there are three gods, or anything like this. Put the money into something better! If we were to fund all beliefs it would be arbitrary and silly, and everyone has a belief.

 

[FabricLive]

TYRRANY OF THE MAJORITYYYYYY

raaarrrrrr

 

[ilikebeeef]

Ok, well, I've been thinking about this lately. Despite the fact that we're supposedly a secular nation, the Church still has quite a bit of sway when it comes to legislation, if not directly, indirectly, through the religious beliefs of the politicians who make them. So, in your opinion, is there enough separation of Church and State? Do we need more? Or do think it's too little? Or just right? Does it even really matter? And if it does, how do we change things?

No there is not enough separation between Church and State. Complete separation would be nice. Then it'll be ALL even.

We can't do anything about it as a whole. Only individuals can, starting off by not voting Abbott.

Do you think it's ever possible to get a complete separation? How?

Yes technically. When the religious people aren't so selfish. But that's really hard, so not really.

Edit: And this question from Graney - Do you agree/disagree that the state should be able to spend taxpayers money on funding religious interests?

I disagree.

Fuck Tony Abbott.

Absolutely.

Get over the stigma that the Church is simply a backward institution that just wants to control every aspect of your life rofls.

How can you do that when it's true?

Churches and other religious groups are all important parts of the community and as such merit government funding, along the same lines of sports clubs and various community organisations.

They don't deserve preferential treatment, but they don't deserve to be totally ignored. Churches do a lot of beneficial community work, not related directly to the various religions they represent. Charity drives, assisting those in need, especially the homeless and orphaned children etc.

If communities need help in building a Church (or Mosque etc) I think they should get it (though obviously on a case-by-case basis etc). I could see why you'd object if the money was just going to St Mary's Cathedral to buy some extra bling for the clergy, but in reality Churchs spent a lot of their time and resources into giving back to the community (certinly more than other organisations which presently recieve funding or subsidies from the government ATM).

So what do they deserve?

People can be religous endlessly as long as they don't expect all people to abide by their rules. I think a complete separation is desirable. Complete separation in the sense that all ideas have equal standing in the law making process, if some ideas are religious and are agreed to by everyone then that is fine. People can be completely religious in a completely secular society, because secular just means that no one set of ideas is inherently held higher than others.

+1.

We do know what your views on religion are. But to some people, spirituality enhances once life. It offers escape, optimism, truth to lives all across the nation. And by allowing some spark of light, into their lives it does enhance the community.

More solidly speaking, it also transforms one's self, enhancing their civil duties. It not about the church being a redudant charity, but about the creation of new servants of society, as they believe, they are serving the Lord, from previous, not commonly charitable people.

Now, I cant recognise another organisation that transforms the soul, that allow one to live, to become alive. If you havent experience the true joy of salvation, dont ruin it for others.

I have "experienced the true joy of salvation". Later on I realised it was merely a construct. It is not truth. YOU may say it's truth, but it cannot be the truth. There is massively flawed logic in this whole Christian belief. Serving the Lord"? Who is the Lord? You believe that "He" is there because someone told you amirite?

Lol my gosh you guys are so darn tight.

Whatever happened to caring for others? People on this forum tell me I'm an insensitive prick because I oppose gay marriage and tell me to "love thy neighbour" as my religion dictates.

People are just pointing out the flaws in Christianity. There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in one's logic. Through debate, new issues are explored - what's wrong with that? Just because people have a debate doesn't mean that they don't care for each other.

What about some of you? Society can't work unless there is a degree of sacrifice on the part of the individual to support the whole. Money isn't everything in life, get your priorities right.

That's correct. Freedom and fairness is. Supporting the funding of religions violates this.

This is a democracy. If we put it to a vote, you'd lose. Soceity on a whole disagrees with you.

Stop complaining.

Orly? If we put it to a vote in this thread, you will lose.

This in itself is absurd. It is not just funding believes, but as you recognised, benefits to society. There may be people that are impoverished, who desire Spiritual enlightenment? How are we going to provide for them?

The best way to do this is through Centrelink (although really it's still quite shit).

We can fund anything.

Sam receives $5 every week for going to Sunday Church. George on the other hand, receives none because he does not go to Church.

So fair, eh?

 

[Graney]

Society could function well without hopspitals (both private and public).

It's just we'd all have to be a lot more careful and get used to a lower life expectancy. Thats a dodgy arguement.

This is a straw man argument. You didn't address my premise that public funding of religion is non-essential.

So people would live perfectly well and not at all differently in a society without hospitals, except the people living in this society would mostly be dead or seriously ill all the time. But having most people dead or seriously ill wouldn't hinder society at all you say?

Which is completely comparably to the impact of ending the public funding of religion, where people would still be free to practice their own religion and spend their own money to construct places of worship.

That 9-20% of people pay tax themselves and so the government has an obligation to support their community activities and organisations in the fist place. The governments budget for Churches is so small anyway, it would cvertinely be paid for alone with change to spare from just that 9-20% of people anyway.

So why not cut the tax paid by this 9-20% of people, and obviously since they love going to church so much, they will spend their tax cuts on churches anyway?

 

[Name_Taken]

So, uh, "peace and happiness" > fixing a broken leg or curing your cancer?

Uh, okay.

Lol rephrasing it a different way, would you rather die happy or continue living unhappily?

Death is inevitable, no amount of science or medical reasearch will ever prevent it. The only variables to death are when, where and how.

I never said we should actually abolish hospitals, nor do I advocate cutting funding to Churches and other community groups. I don't see the problem with funding both.

 

[ilikebeeef]

Lol rephrasing it a different way, would you rather die happy or continue living unhappily?

I'd rather continue living unhappily. I'll make the most of it.

Death is inevitable, no amount of science or medical reasearch will ever prevent it. The only variables to death are when, where and how.

Please elaborate.

I never said we should actually abolish hospitals, nor do I advocate cutting funding to Churches and other community groups. I don't see the problem with funding both.

Read my post.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I never said we should actually abolish hospitals, nor do I advocate cutting funding to Churches and other community groups. I don't see the problem with funding both.

silly question but what do church need funding for?

 

[Graney]

Lol rephrasing it a different way, would you rather die happy or continue living unhappily?

The point is, if you reduce the tax and stop funding churches and community groups, people will spend their own money on the things that bring them the most happiness. Individuals can determine this far more efficiently than government. If churches and community groups really bring people happiness, people will pay for them to exist.

It's this ridiculous notion that the government knows better than the people about how to spend their own money to bring them happiness.

 

[Name_Taken]

We can't do anything about it as a whole. Only individuals can, starting off by not voting Abbott.

If you're against Abbott just because he's religious then shame on you. If you are against him becuase of his policies (or lack thereof in the case of climate change) then fine, and I know many people are, like I'm Catholic myself and I'm not really a fan.

Kevin Rudd is also religious though (as so are most politicians TBH), it would be pretty stupid if you vote on the basis of whether or not someone believes in God when you should be voting on the basis of individual merit and how much you believe that person can make a difference for the better.

Yes technically. When the religious people aren't so selfish. But that's really hard, so not really.

Most of Australia is religious, its democracy at work.

If most of Australia were not religious and did not favour at least a little connection between Church and State, then surely it would have happened.

So what do they deserve?

Your tax money.

Churches are not simply religious institutions but are also community organisations. They run many programs to assist the disadvantaged. They're available to everyone and just because you may not use them, doesn't mean that others should be inconvenienced if they wish to.

I have "experienced the true joy of salvation". Later on I realised it was merely a construct. It is not truth. YOU may say it's truth, but it cannot be the truth. There is massively flawed logic in this whole Christian belief. Serving the Lord"? Who is the Lord? You believe that "He" is there because someone told you amirite?

Nope you're not.

People are just pointing out the flaws in Christianity. There is nothing wrong with pointing out flaws in one's logic. Through debate, new issues are explored - what's wrong with that? Just because people have a debate doesn't mean that they don't care for each other.

Read some of the posts by Anonymous, lol. But I accept that most people are drastically more reasonable than him.

That's correct. Freedom and fairness is. Supporting the funding of religions violates this.

No it doesn't.

Orly? If we put it to a vote in this thread, you will lose.

Lol yea but public policy isn't decided by like 100 teenagers and university studnets, but by the government and the population at large. When things are put the vote, everyone votes not just those present here, so you would still lose.

Sam receives $5 every week for going to Sunday Church. George on the other hand, receives none because he does not go to Church.

So fair, eh?

Yea it is, because Sam pays tax. And if George breaks his leg, Sam's tax money will contribute to his recovery.

Furthermore, what if Sam uses his $5 to feed the homeless or fund Church-run orphanages? Funding of Churches is hardly the incidious scam you are trying to make it out to be.

Its about looking out for others rather than just yourself.

This is a straw man argument. You didn't address my premise that public funding of religion is non-essential.

Well I just brought up the example of hospitals to show that other government services could be seen as totally non-essential as well.

So people would live perfectly well and not at all differently in a society without hospitals, except the people living in this society would mostly be dead or seriously ill all the time. But having most people dead or seriously ill wouldn't hinder society at all you say?

Mankind got along quite well for most of its history without the assistance of hospitals. I never said they weren't important, but you can't pretend they are truly essential. I think of Churches and various community organisations as the same, they are non-essential true, but they are important, and so merit funding nonetheless.

Which is completely comparably to the impact of ending the public funding of religion, where people would still be free to practice their own religion and spend their own money to construct places of worship.

So why not cut the tax paid by this 9-20% of people, and obviously since they love going to church so much, they will spend their tax cuts on churches anyway?

Most money used by Churches is just that, donations from patrons or raised by the community itself. Taxation is only a small part of Churchs' budgets.

And as I said, because a Church is not a private institution. It is open to everyone. It assists the community, and so everyone should have a role (however small it may be) in the Church's upkeep, just as I pay for hospitals and public transport down in Melbourne despite living in Sydney.

 

[Name_Taken]

Please elaborate.

Everyone dies at some point, the countdown began when you were born. All medicine can do is delay the inevitable.

 

[BlackDragon]

Everyone dies at some point, the countdown began when you were born. All medicine can do is delay the inevitable.

This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

Most of Australia is religious, its democracy at work.

If most of Australia were not religious and did not favour at least a little connection between Church and State, then surely it would have happened.

This is fallacious. There is no logical connection between statistics about peoples' faith and the amount of people that want the church and state separated. Just because most people associate themselves with either a belief in god or some form of religion that doesn't mean that they want religion to be a part of the government. In fact most people would NOT want governmental processes to be dictated to by religion. Moreover, large groups of people that associate with religions would completely disagree on which religious values and beliefs are the right ones because not everyone has the same ritual system. So they wouldn't even agree on what religious values should be a part of government even if they thought this should be the case in the first place.

You really must think stuff through more.

 

[Graney]

Mankind got along quite well for most of its history without the assistance of hospitals. I never said they weren't important, but you can't pretend they are truly essential. I think of Churches and various community organisations as the same, they are non-essential true, but they are important, and so merit funding nonetheless.

The massive hole in your argument is you're using an example of the non-existence of hospitals, where I'm talking about merely ending public funding for churches. The two are not comparable. The withdrawal of public funding isn't the same as non-existence. I am okay with the existence of privately funded churches.

If you are experiencing a life threatening condition, a hospital is essential to you, in as much as anything can be said to be essential. Only from a nihilist position could you say it is non-essential.

A religious service is not essential to anyone in this way. If a religious service does not exist, the individual deprived of religion has the complete capacity to easily create one.

If an individual considers not being dead essential, they have no alternative without a hospital. If an individuals considers religious service important, they can easily privately fund and organize a service.

 

[Name_Taken]

This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

It was to do with something else.

This is fallacious. Just because most people associate themselves with either a belief in god or some form of religion that doesn't mean that they want religion to be a part of the government. In fact most people would NOT want governmental processes to be dictated to by religion. Moreover, large groups of people that associate with a religion would completely disagree on which religious values and beliefs are the right ones because not everyone has the same religion. So they wouldn't even agree on what religious values should be a part of government even if they thought this should be the case in the first place.

I honeslty don't think the Church actually plays that big a role in deciding public policy. Most polticians are Christian, but they're chosen by the voters, so its not like the Church is there behiend the scenes pulling the strings or anything.

I think the government should support (not pay for entirely, but support) community organisations like Churches and charaties with a religious affiliation. Their role in society is not just limited to reciting the Bible, they do make a positive contribution.

You really must think stuff through more.

I don't pretend to be an economist or something lol, but by that same token, I doubt that most others in this thread are any more qualified in that area than myself anyway.

I just think, on a principle basis, that the government does have an obligation to support the community and encourge charity and support of the less fortunate. On this basis, I would be happy to see my money go to secular charaties and organisations as well, or those of religions to which I have no affiliation.

 

[zaxmacks]

There's no constitutional protection of the separation of church and state, which is why we see gay shit like the government funding 'world catholic youth day', which would never ever fly in the USA.

Yeah there is - section 116.