In my country (Australia), the federal government uses a great deal of money gathered from public taxpayers to finance religious institutions. Is it right that in a country that is largely secular money that could be used to enhance community welfare is used as a crutch to prop up religious intitutions.
I am sure people of different religions and athiests alike would resent their taxes being spent on something they do not believe in. Perhaps it would be better for governments to support non-theistic institutions and let those with religous convictions rely on private donations from their believers?
2006-12-07 12:41:49 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
While humanitarian works of the churches should always be supported, if the state were to fund such programs, like the homeless shelter mentioned, should representatives be allowed to preach in exchange for helping others? Or if using government grants should such agencies be restricted to only offering the services they are being sponsored for?
2006-12-07 13:08:03 · update #1
No, I believe that religion should not be funded by taxpayers. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.
2006-12-07 12:50:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a Christian but I do not agree that tax money should be used to support religion. If church's were to start accepting money from this worlds corrupt governments, it would mean that those same governments would have a say in the direction and doctrine of that church. Besides, religion is supposed to be supported by the followers of that religion. If it were not so then why have faith (in the case of Christians) in God?
2006-12-07 12:47:51 · answer #2 · answered by CHARLA W 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on what religious institutions are being funded... for instance: churches should not be funded, but if a local food bank or homeless shelter is being supported by a religion, I don't see why a government grant should be refused... many private individuals motivated by humanism (also a religion) are funded, and no one questions that...
2006-12-07 12:46:41 · answer #3 · answered by dingwallplayer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree that believers should fund their own religious institutions. Let taxpayer money go to non-theistic institutions.
2006-12-07 12:44:20 · answer #4 · answered by swordarkeereon 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
lol. in basic terms because of fact some human beings don't think in God? there are loads of tax payers who decide for to check it. in line with probability we would desire to consistently no longer pay for scientists the two when you consider which will disillusioned each and all the religious lot? what's the factor of investment activities with government money. It does not produce something. in line with probability women human beings might desire to settle for his or her place back interior the homestead. they're those that supply delivery, they are able to settle for the duty. What a severe high quality worldwide it would be!?
2016-10-14 05:56:50 · answer #5 · answered by pape 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not, and I am a Christian. You are right, the congregation of the church has the responsibility of supporting the church , not the government.
2006-12-07 12:46:48 · answer #6 · answered by jim h 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No to funding any religion by taxpayers.
2006-12-07 12:49:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
All churches should have to pay their fair share of taxes.
Tammi Dee
2006-12-07 12:46:32 · answer #8 · answered by tammidee10 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. My opinion of Australia has just dropped.
2006-12-07 12:44:41 · answer #9 · answered by Bibel-Reeder 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In my country the government spends enourmous amounts funding the lunacy of atheists..abortionist... and feminatzies and anti-God fools.
So count your blessings.
2006-12-07 12:45:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋