Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (3 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

You are arguing against yourself because if so many people do it themselves and it is so important to many people then they should have no trouble funding it themselves. People who do not believe, the aparrent 35%, should not fund the others' belief system.

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

Stop complaining.

 

[Lukybear]

We all know what your views on video games are. But to some people, playing Playstation 3 enhances their lives. It offers escape, optimism, and Gran Turismo 5 to lives all across the nation. By allowing COD:Modern warfare into their lives it does enhance the community.

Replace 'spirituality' in your rant with... absolutely anything, and you've got a retarded justification for publicly funding all sorts of shit.

Hahaha... yes recreation grants happiness. However, PLAYSATAION 3 is a luxury. The goverment funds the most basic forms of recreation, like PCYC clubs, that allows fun, joy and happiness to the most impoverished people.

The Church is a similar allegory.

And no, the goverment should not give grants to people to buy books on spirtuality if thats what your thinking.

 

[BlackDragon]

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.

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.

I know many many caring people who are not religious and they don't get their beliefs funded. Stop demanding special treatment.

 

[Lukybear]

You are arguing against yourself because if so many people do it themselves and it is so important to many people then they should have no trouble funding it themselves. People who do not believe, the aparrent 35%, should not fund the others' belief system.

Now... thats just irrational. I didnt see on that census, that stated 65% of Australi was rich, and had money to fund themselves...

But that being said, the reality is, most churches do fund themselves. Especially in this economic climate.

 

[Lukybear]

I know many many caring people who are not religious and they don't get their beliefs funded. Stop demanding special treatment.

Lol. This has nothing to do with caring or not, and we are not demanding special treatment.

The church is a very basic form of socialisation. It is fundemental to society, (at least ours), granting countless benefits. It is similar in its status to a sports club, the provides for society.

Now, we recognise your athiestic values, but i do argue, from the various studies done, showing that religion, spirituality does offer certain benefits to individuals.

But, again, you should also recognise, that Church goers do pay tax as well.

 

[Name_Taken]

Lol. This has nothing to do with caring or not, and we are not demanding special treatment.

The church is a very basic form of socialisation. It is fundemental to society, (at least ours), granting countless benefits. It is similar in its status to a sports club, the provides for society.

Now, we recognise your athiestic values, but i do argue, from the various studies done, showing that religion, spirituality does offer certain benefits to individuals.

But, again, you should also recognise, that Church goers do pay tax as well.

+1

And its not like the Church is a secret elitest organisation that hordes its wealth, it give back to the community and to those in need who may probably be overlooked by the rest of society. It doesn't just benefit people who attend the Church recieving the funding, or the people who subscribe to that particular denomination, it benefits everyone.

 

[BlackDragon]

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

Stop complaining.

Hey, lets play the numbers game:

The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22).

So in fact an overwhelming majority do not participate in this services that are being funded. And yes, church goers and tax payers, AS ARE NON-CHURCH GOERS. So in fact you are not winning the numbers game either. Not to mention the fact that non-believers don't get their beliefs funded. If it were about giving to the community then we should only be funding those organisations that only give to the community.

 

[Lukybear]

People should be able to do these things by themselves. It is ultimately just funding beliefs, and these beliefs may greatly help those that believe, but to others they mean nothing. Other people have different beliefs and are inspired by those. Not to mention the fact that if we fund religions then we are also funding the many bad views that religions put forth. Just let people be apart of whatever belief and ritual system they want, without government help.

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?

But then secondly, SPORT, also provide "bad views" as you so called them. The induction of violence etc... and must we destroy sport too?

 

[SylviaB]

defense is the worst of all.

If a government is going to exist it's core (only?) function should be to protect the security and rights of it's citizens.

This really only means establishing a nuclear arsenal, which would cost next to nothing for the individual over the long run.

 

[Graney]

Lol, 65% of Australians (2004 census) subscribed to a religious belief. On this basis alone the government has an obligation to spend tax dollars on the upkeep of religious insitutions and their facilities, as it does to maintain public parks and libraries.

This isn't reasoning. Why is the government obligated to publicly fund something because it's popular? Lots of Australians enjoy pornography. However it is often prohibitively expensive for disadvantaged Australians to obtain pornography. Is the government then obligated to provide subsidized pornography?

It's also a non sequitur. The fact that 65% of Australians may have religious view doesn't mean that-
1. 65% of Australians use religious facilities
2. 65% of Australians want religious facilities to be publicly funded
3. 65% of Australians prescribe to the religions that receive the majority of public funding.

The main problem however is whether public funding of non-essential services is morally justified, which I discuss below.

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

You're missing the point that, we consider it morally wrong for one group of individuals (a government in this case) to forcefully take money from others (taxpayers), under the threat of violence, in order to provide unnecessary luxuries to another group of people.

Does the fact the robbers are in the majority make this situation justified?

When else is taking money from people to fund unnecessary lifestyle choices moral?

 

[Name_Taken]

Hey, lets play the numbers game:

The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22).

So in fact an overwhelming majority do not participate in this services that are being funded. And yes, church goers and tax payers, AS ARE NON-CHURCH GOERS. So in fact you are not winning the numbers game either.

Lol as I said so many times, much of the money doesn't go near the Church itself, but is given back to the community, which includes everyone, be it people who are religious but don't go to Church or outright unbelievers.

Not to mention the fact that non-believers don't get their beliefs funded.

I lol'ed at the irony, so you're advocating like the funding of ...nothing?

Lets fund the beliefs of people... who don't believe.

But lets sort this out, if there was a "Church of Athiesm" which had members who subscribed to it, and it operated various programs to assist the community, charity drives, homeless shelters w/e, then it too would recieve government funding.

 

[Lukybear]

Hey, lets play the numbers game:

The National Church Life Survey showed that in 1960 41% of the Australian population attended church at least monthly, but by 1980 this figure had declined to 25% and was heading down to 20% by 2000. (Kaldor, Peter et. al. Build My Church: Trends and Possibilities for Australian Churches. Sydney: Openbook, 1999, p.22).

So in fact an overwhelming majority do not participate in this services that are being funded. And yes, church goers and tax payers, AS ARE NON-CHURCH GOERS. So in fact you are not winning the numbers game either. Not to mention the fact that non-believers don't get their beliefs funded.

O dear... please dont play the no. game. I tell you now, the funding recieved by the Church is WAY WAY WAY LESS then funding given to other organisations. It is far imporportional, considering that almost 20% (was it) attend churches. I do wish, even if 100 million was granted to the church, a 0.01%, (correct me if im wrong) of Australias total GDP, (almost 1 trillion dollars).

Secondly, going by the logic of your arguement, which is absurd. Only less then 5% of the people, i can safely say attend university. Therefore, disregarding the various benefits that it can give to society, we should not give Common Wealth supported place to students, because, they are only a minority? Or because some people dont believe in the institution of Education?

 

[Lukybear]

If a government is going to exist it's core (only?) function should be to protect the security and rights of it's citizens.

This really only means establishing a nuclear arsenal, which would cost next to nothing for the individual over the long run.

Defence is vital, but not for building a nuclear arsenal. (I hope your being sarcastic?) I believe we are at a stage in the world now, that such argressive methods of "protection" is unncessary, due to dipolmacy.

But non the less, defence is vital, for state emergencies. A formidabble example is Hati, who lack a defence force, (dispelled due to constant overthrow of goverment). I do believe that a considerable number of death would of being conserved if urgent action were acted.

 

[SylviaB]

Defence is vital, but not for building a nuclear arsenal. (I hope your being sarcastic?) I believe we are at a stage in the world now, that such argressive methods of "protection" is unncessary, due to dipolmacy.

Why Nukes Are Necessary: To Stop Industrial-Scale War - TIME

 

[Will Shakespear]

O dear... please dont play the no. game. I tell you now, the funding recieved by the Church is WAY WAY WAY LESS then funding given to other organisations. It is far imporportional, considering that almost 20% (was it) attend churches. I do wish, even if 100 million was granted to the church, a 0.01%, (correct me if im wrong) of Australias total GDP, (almost 1 trillion dollars).

Secondly, going by the logic of your arguement, which is absurd. Only less then 5% of the people, i can safely say attend university. Therefore, disregarding the various benefits that it can give to society, we should not give Common Wealth supported place to students, because, they are only a minority? Or because some people dont believe in the institution of Education?

obviously training doctors n engineers is equivalent and comparable to telling people about a talking snake

 

[BlackDragon]

O dear... please dont play the no. game. I tell you now, the funding recieved by the Church is WAY WAY WAY LESS then funding given to other organisations. It is far imporportional, considering that almost 20% (was it) attend churches. I do wish, even if 100 million was granted to the church, a 0.01%, (correct me if im wrong) of Australias total GDP, (almost 1 trillion dollars).

Secondly, going by the logic of your arguement, which is absurd. Only less then 5% of the people, i can safely say attend university. Therefore, disregarding the various benefits that it can give to society, we should not give Common Wealth supported place to students, because, they are only a minority? Or because some people dont believe in the institution of Education?

I was just playing the same game that you were. And no, universities are not organisations of belief, they provide education and thus deserve funding. The only thing that we should NOT be funding is belief , because EVERYONE has a belief.

 

[Lukybear]

The main problem however is whether public funding of non-essential services is morally justified, which I discuss below.

If that is truly your believe, I do feel much better, that it is not a discrimination towards religious institutions. Yet, I argue forth...

You're missing the point that, we consider it morally wrong for one group of individuals (a government in this case) to forcefully take money from others (taxpayers), under the threat of violence, in order to provide unnecessary luxuries to another group of people.

Does the fact the robbers are in the majority make this situation justified?

When else is taking money from people to fund unnecessary lifestyle choices moral?

Recreation allows the derivation of happiness, joy, pleasure, all of which are neccessary for society to thrive. This I do believe is "neccessary".

Now, it comes to your example of Pornography. I laughed at this example, quite simply because it is such a cheap shot... Pornography is not funded, as society view it as immoral, and so do I.

Now, if the community, or some organisation, was to put forth an event providing free entertainment in the form of a movie, (similar and yet dissimilar to pornography) then the goverment will fund it. I believe this has occured various times?

That being stated, however, all is relative. Who are you to judge what organisations are neccessary or not, for the upholding of society, or morally justified?

I can just equally argue that everyone must pay for their own education, since funding for public schools can be given away to Charities to save lifes across the world. This is morally justified, as life > education?? Now this is not what i am proposing but just continuing on your logic.

 

[Will Shakespear]

i view the teachings of xtianity as immoral, so?

 

[Lukybear]

I was just playing the same game that you were. And no, universities are not organisations of belief, they provide education and thus deserve funding. The only thing that we should NOT be funding is belief , because EVERYONE has a belief.

I answer, some post above with this as well.

Well... see everythign is relative. You believe one thing, we believe another. Just as you believe Religious institutions are no benefit to society, SOME PEOPLE (does not reflect my own views) do believe education institutions are no benefit to society.

Now you can point me to logic, proving those people wrong, and use scientific studies.

I too also can do that. Spiritual englitenment is important in society. And there have been scientific studies achieved over such a topic.

All is relative.

 

[SylviaB]

im against university spending, but at least universities are a way in which we can equip with the skills to create wealth, and hence they will pay tax. this tax is more money than the government will ever give an individual at university, so you're getting a net return


church funding is giving money to people to essentially make them happy, without being an investment

"omg so ur against happiness??" No, im against the taxpayer being forced to fund the "happiness" of someone else