what are the positive and negative point of having relegious institutions helping or replacing goverment
2006-11-15 04:36:21 · 7 answers · asked by Aleksey T 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You would hope the positive side would be actually caring about the people it helps or teaches.(but that has to be questioned when the religious institution involved if it is too political or money orientated).
The negatives to me are a lot more obvious in the fact that all religions are sectarian and exclusive so in some form (small or large) they will always persecute people of other faiths and especially atheists.
2006-11-15 04:45:39 · answer #1 · answered by ??? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those that are answering that there are no positives to religious institutions helping of replacing government are choosing to ignore the great contributions of religious organizations.
1. Healthcare - If you compare government run healthcare to that of religous based healthcare systems, the government falls far short. The quality of healthcare given globally by religious institutions is far superior in quality and lower in price. The overhead associated with healthcare is much lower.
2. Foriegn Aid - Organizations like "Feed the Children", "Habitat for Humanity", and "Compassion International" are faith based charities. Although the government sends a larger dollar amount to other countries, these charities spend less in administrative costs than the government. What that means is that more of your dollar gets to the people that need it than the money sent my the US government.
The government should play a limited role in our lives. In other words, the government should protect the borders (which they currently fail at), manage the economy, and enforce the laws. They should not be in the business of social programs. Social programs are where faith based organizations excel.
2006-11-15 13:10:46 · answer #2 · answered by erictompkins1970 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are only negatives. Instead of having a gonvernment chosen by the poeple, you'll have one run by fundamentalists who will contantly interpret whatever religion they claim to be in a way that secures their power over the will of everyone else, passing laws on the basis of what their chosen few believe and not on what the people believe. This coupled with the fact that none of them can even prove the underlying validity of their particular religion will only lead to a government that persecutes others for "religious" regions.
positives = misery and death (see the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
2006-11-15 12:52:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'm a rational atheist but have to say many religious organisations do good charitable and political work. however, there are others that enforce certain rules as conditions to their work. all in all, they are a mixed bag.
The problem is not the work they do, but the idea that they would take over governmental roles. i believe that tax raised from the people should be used to support those who need it, and if it were so then there should not really be a need for religious groups.
2006-11-15 14:22:54 · answer #4 · answered by Boring 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ruling by Religious Institutions will be absolute to the book. As it will be God's rules on earth to mankind.
However Man made rules are fallible and open to corruption
2006-11-15 13:51:47 · answer #5 · answered by Sonoran Grill 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no positives that i can think of, negatives would be the fundies passing laws that hinder our freedoms because they view certain activities as immoral, i.e. gambling, drinking, smoking, sex before marriage, etc.
2006-11-15 12:42:04 · answer #6 · answered by valleybrook515 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Negatives... we may get the Ayatollahs or the Fundalmentalist Christians
Positives... no can't think of any!
2006-11-15 12:38:43 · answer #7 · answered by Boring Old Fart 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋