|
First, let me assure everyone that this is not a post AGAINST faith-based charities, or against faith in general. I attend faith services, have volunteered (lots) for faith-based charities, and have raised money (lots) for faith-based charities. This is important to understand, because I believe the RW has framed the discussion in such a way that everyone who opposes tax funding of faith-based charities is ANTI-FAITH, and this just isn't so.
Those who support the tax funding of faith-based charities may not have thought the issue through carefully. There are numerous potential pitfalls.
The primary mission of faith-based charities is faith, not charity. Those who participate see themselves as responding to a religious call. In many faiths, one of the primary expectations is that members draw others, not of the faith, into the fold (prosletyzing). But tax funding asks that the faith-based charity members forgo this primary part of their own faith. Undoubtedly, most charities perceive themselves as treating all (even those of other faith traditions) equally and fairly. Yet tax funding essentially asks these religious persons to choose between one primary component of their faith (prosletyzing) and another (charity). Some, no doubt will choose prosletyzing. The government should not subsidize these activities. Others may choose to supress prosletyzing in favor of charity. The government should not be in the business of forcing religious institutions to make such choices. Both of these, the government funding of prosletyzing and government interference in people's faith choices, are activities forbidden by our constitution.
And that isn't the only problem. How will the government decide, for instance, in a time of shrinking tax revenues, WHICH charity to fund? Say there is a Muslim charity and a Catholic charity both applying for funding for similar activities. How will it be decided who gets the money? Will it be based on religion? How will anyone avoid the APPEARANCE that the decision is based on religion? These sorts of potential scenarios could threaten to increase religious intolerance in our country.
Further, let's imagine the situation, if the trend toward tax funding of faith-based charities continues, in a decade or two from now. Charity A, run by X religious organization, has been successful in obtaining funding over the years. This means the congregation's donations have been freed up to pay for other faith-based activities. The organization has thrived. Charity B, run by Y religous organization, however, has not been so successful in obtaining funding for it's efforts. It has continued to run the charity funded only by donations from the congregation. This has placed a burden on the Y congregation that X religous organization does not share. Some of the members of Y religious organization leave to join Congregation X, which in the community becomes seen as generally more successful. In the meanwhile, the physical structures of Y congregation have deteriorated. The congregation is now unable to pay for needed repairs and so must sell their property and disband. In this scenario, the government funding of Charity A provides a major reason for the failure of Charity B. This amounts to the governmental regulation of religion, albeit indirectly, and is not allowed by our constitution. Not to mention that while criticising the "dependency" of individuals who are in the welfare system, the RW is now essentially creating the same situation, but with charities as the new dependent class.
Finally, there is one more reason to oppose tax funding of charities. In sociology there is a concept called "over-manning and undermanning." In any social group, there are tasks that need completion. In an under-manned situation, there are few people to do the required tasks. Each person therefore percieves him/herself crucially needed in the completion of the tasks, and so is more likely to pitch in to help complete them. More work gets done.
In an over-manned situation, however, there are many people in relation to the tasks that need to be completed. Each person is aware of how many people there are in relation to the amount of work that needs to be done; each thinks that there will be someone else to do it, and so each is less likely to participate in working to complete the tasks. Less work gets done. The risk is, as the government increasingly funds faith-based charities, that those who in the past have reliably responded to donation drives will be less inclined to do so, because the government will essentially have become that "someone else" who will do it, as in the overmanning example, and the perception will be that the chosen charity does not need help to the degree it once did. As donations decrease, the government will slowly have to take over a larger share of the funding for the charity, or, cease funding.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
