Public funds for religious institutions?

[bjs1]

The background:
In the state where I live the law is that no public funds can be used to support religious institutions. Generally, I agree with this but a recent circumstance caused me to question the wisdom.

My church runs a grief program to help those who have lost a loved one. It is, of course, religious in nature. We have been asked by the local prison to run a similar program for inmates. The prison is large enough that, according the chaplin, at least one inmate loses a loved one every week - sometimes three or four in a single week.

We have the volunteers to run the program. To run the program effectively there is a cost for materials. The cost is not excessive, but it is enough that to run this program we have to consider what other ministry we will cut or scale back.

There is state money set aside for programs like this, but since this is a religious program the law prevents the state from paying for the materials. There is not a secular group willing to volunteer to run the program in our place.

For Debater: Is it best for states to outlaw any funds going to religious groups, or should the law allow local administrators more freedom in how to best do their jobs?

[William]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #1]

Are no atheist orgs which can be funded by the state and share the burden of these type of social requirements?

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #1]

Are no atheist orgs which can be funded by the state and share the burden of these type of social requirements?

None of the five states I have worked in provided these services to any inmates. In the few prisons that had grief programs, the programs were run by outside volunteers.

The volunteers I have available know how to run a religious program. They do not know how to run a secular program. No atheists are currently volunteering to do the work.

[Difflugia]

For Debate: Is it best for states to outlaw any funds going to religious groups, or should the law allow local administrators more freedom in how to best do their jobs?

If "more freedom in how to best do their jobs" didn't at least sometimes end up with an unacceptable level of religious involvement in government affairs, the rules wouldn't exist in the first place.

The problem is that grief counseling is important, but the State isn't supplying it. If the State has enough money to pay for services that don't meet the requirements, but not services that do, that's a budget problem. It's the same as the difference between housing for the poor that does or doesn't meet safety codes. Do we allow housing that's less safe in order to meet budget constraints? Even though there's not a clear-cut answer (Is it safer to be homeless or live in an unsafe house? Is it better to have no grief counseling or have religious couseling?), I'll side with maintaining standards while lobbying for the allocation of more resources.

[bjs1]

For Debate: Is it best for states to outlaw any funds going to religious groups, or should the law allow local administrators more freedom in how to best do their jobs?

If "more freedom in how to best do their jobs" didn't at least sometimes end up with an unacceptable level of religious involvement in government affairs, the rules wouldn't exist in the first place.

The problem is that grief counseling is important, but the State isn't supplying it. If the State has enough money to pay for services that don't meet the requirements, but not services that do, that's a budget problem. It's the same as the difference between housing for the poor that does or doesn't meet safety codes. Do we allow housing that's less safe in order to meet budget constraints? Even though there's not a clear-cut answer (Is it safer to be homeless or live in an unsafe house? Is it better to have no grief counseling or have religious couseling?), I'll side with maintaining standards while lobbying for the allocation of more resources.

Okay. What if a synagogue offers housing that meets safety codes? Should the state support that? States which have laws against money going to religious institutions would not do so. Which is more important: The welfare of the homeless or not sending public funds to religious institutions?


Edit: While I support improved funding, history has shown that is extremely unlikely to happen. If we make the reasonable assumption that there will never be state funding for prison grief programs, is the current law against public funds going to religious institutions still best?

[Purple Knight]

The problem is that grief counseling is important, but the State isn't supplying it. If the State has enough money to pay for services that don't meet the requirements, but not services that do, that's a budget problem. It's the same as the difference between housing for the poor that does or doesn't meet safety codes. Do we allow housing that's less safe in order to meet budget constraints? Even though there's not a clear-cut answer (Is it safer to be homeless or live in an unsafe house? Is it better to have no grief counseling or have religious couseling?), I'll side with maintaining standards while lobbying for the allocation of more resources.

It's because of government bloat. I'm not a free enterprise person at all, but I can admit it's a problem. The religious people can do it cheaper because their organisations are leaner.

The solution is probably to lower standards, too. That way, the government organisations can be lean also. If they've got to give enormous pensions to their employees and pay them highly, it's no mystery that they can't provide the same service at the same price.

And the choice should be down to the person. Maybe this kind of cruddy maybe slightly unsafe house is the best we can do for this homeless man. We know that because people are still homeless!!! The choice to live there - whether he is better off in there or out - should be his own, not some bureaucrat's. If it's an upgrade from living on the street, and this is a resource we have and can give him, nobody should prevent him from taking it.

[Difflugia]

Okay. What if a synagogue offers housing that meets safety codes? Should the state support that?

A synagogue qua synagogue? No. One of the standards is to avoid the appearance of endorsing a particular religious view. If all of the members of the synagogue form a house-building group that isn't specifically affiliated with the synagogue or otherwise proselytize and they meet the other standards, then there's no problem. Similarly, if the members of the religious group offer grief support in a way that is independent of religion, then, again, I have no problem with it. Since you already claimed that they don't know how to offer secular grief support, then I'd suggest that in itself, that means that the support isn't up to reasonable standards. It may meet the other standards, but a lack of religiosity is important on its own for the use of government funds.

Which is more important: The welfare of the homeless or not sending public funds to religious institutions?

If those are genuinely the only options anywhere, it might be a more difficult decision. As it is, though, even if one place only has religious options, then I think allowing them government funds creates a larger problem everywhere than is solved by easing the restriction.

Given the number of people even within government itself that are actively trying to subvert restrictions on endorsing any particular religious view, I don't think the danger is hypothetical.

[Difflugia]

If they've got to give enormous pensions to their employees and pay them highly, it's no mystery that they can't provide the same service at the same price.

I'd personally argue that other organizations should be required to pay well and offer good retirement benefits.

And the choice should be down to the person. Maybe this kind of cruddy maybe slightly unsafe house is the best we can do for this homeless man. We know that because people are still homeless!!! The choice to live there - whether he is better off in there or out - should be his own, not some bureaucrat's. If it's an upgrade from living on the street, and this is a resource we have and can give him, nobody should prevent him from taking it.

Though that's a different argument than what we allow the government to spend money on, I still see the same overall problems. Allowing certain housing to be less safe than a standard may create less safety overall, even when including those that aren't homeless to begin with. What are the restrictions on which type of housing may be unsafe? Must it be offered to the tenants at no cost? In what ways could unscrupulous landlords abuse the reduced standards to the detriment of the public?

Bringing the metaphor back around, would offering government funds to well-meaning, but religious grief counselors open the door to unscrupulous religious organizations to subvert church and state separation? I think it would and I think that's as important as grief counseling. It's definitely difficult because the same humanitarian urge to protect people from a religious government moves me to protect their mental health even at the cost of some religious indoctrination, but I think the overall cost is still potentially too great.

[Purple Knight]

What are the restrictions on which type of housing may be unsafe? Must it be offered to the tenants at no cost? In what ways could unscrupulous landlords abuse the reduced standards to the detriment of the public?

I would have it where it has to be cost-free, yes. The government could compensate landlords by allowing the property not to accumulate property taxes if they are assisting a homeless person. If no actual money changes hands, that minimises the potential for exploitation.

Bringing the metaphor back around, would offering government funds to well-meaning, but religious grief counselors open the door to unscrupulous religious organizations to subvert church and state separation? I think it would and I think that's as important as grief counseling. It's definitely difficult because the same humanitarian urge to protect people from a religious government moves me to protect their mental health even at the cost of some religious indoctrination, but I think the overall cost is still potentially too great.

If you're worried about this, the target should not be religious people sniping people in grief, because they might actually benefit from being indoctrinated. The target should be Alcoholics Anonymous. They indoctrinate people and kind of... hurt them. They literally teach people that they're powerless and must call upon God to stop them from drinking. This seems really unhealthy.

[Difflugia]

They literally teach people that they're powerless and must call upon God to stop them from drinking. This seems really unhealthy.

Emphasis mine. I'm pretty sure that's just Christianity writ large.