Florida Wants Tax Dollars to Support Religion
Watch out, Floridians.
Local resident Buzz Kelly wrote in yesterday’s Tampa Tribune about an upcoming November ballot proposal by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission that would change the state constitution so your tax dollars can be given to religious-based programs. Coded ‘CP0020,’ it would be the first state that essentially eliminates the wall between religion and government.
Sure, maybe financially supporting Christian organizations is a good thing, especially if they’re doing something helpful, like feeding the poor. But such a broad change would allow money to be used by religious groups—and we do mean any religious group—for whatever they want:
Although sponsored by Christian crazies, the plan would turn our constitution into a church-state shambles the extent of which they certainly haven’t imagined. Maybe the idea of your tax dollars going to support Christian programs or school vouchers is OK with you, but what if they go to an Islamic madrassas? Or a Hindu school? Or a Buddhist ashram? How about a Shinto shrine? And since Satanism is a religion, is it OK if your tax dollars support that?
I doubt many Christians out there would support federal funding for Satanists. It’s the same reason why Humanists don’t support federal funding for any religion. Let’s continue to work toward keeping religion and government separate. It’s worked just fine for us for the past 231 years.
Subscribe to Feed
Sigh. Is there any way that the rest of us can vote Florida and Texas out of the union?
I agree with the sentiment but I would like to point out that there is nothing unconstitutional about what the Florida law is setting out to do. Strictly speaking, the US Constitution prevents the US Congress from establishing an official religion or promoting one religion over the other. States on the other hand can have official religions and they have had them in the past.
According to the US Constitution the states cannot require religuios tests of anyone to hold a public office such as adhering to an official religion. Neither can a state prevent atheists from holding public ofices.
The smart thing is to lower taxes and allow those people who want to give to religuous groups to do so with the extra money they get from the lower taxes.
States used to require religous test in a way. At one time they wouldn’t let a Jew or an Atheist hold office. There still is an unwritten litmus test in this country, even on the National level as far as that goes.
We often have to look to the spirit of the law and not the practice or the previous behaviors or we’d still have rampant racial discrimination. (Not that we’ve completely cleaned up our act there)
So what I’m trying to say is that while the state may not technically be breaking the law, it is certainly violating the spirit of the law. I don’t feel that past behavior justifies current behavior in this instance.
I however agree with William that if we lowered the taxes (a religious stimulus package?) then people could chose to give the money to the charity of there choice and get government out of it. That would be an infinately wiser thing to do.
“States used to require religous test in a way. At one time they wouldn’t let a Jew or an Atheist hold office. There still is an unwritten litmus test in this country, even on the National level as far as that goes.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that people won’t vote for a Jew or an Atheist that’s true more for the Atheist than the Jew. But the US Supreme court invalidated all religious tests citing the First Amendment. The truth is it isn’t the First Amendment at all but rather it is Article Six which frees all Americans from having to satisfy a religious test to serve in the government.
“We often have to look to the spirit of the law and not the practice or the previous behaviors or we’d still have rampant racial discrimination. (Not that we’ve completely cleaned up our act there)
So what I’m trying to say is that while the state may not technically be breaking the law, it is certainly violating the spirit of the law. I don’t feel that past behavior justifies current behavior in this instance.”
“The Spirit of the law” concept is weak and far too vague to be an effective argument. Since the Founding Fathers did not explicitly prohibit the states from adopting official religions then one could argue, citing the ninth and ten amendments, the constitution allows states to do just that and therefore it is within the spirit of the constitution for states to adopt official religions. Ultimately the “spirit” argument is left open to interpretation. It is better to be definitive in this issue.
Hold on folks. The position that this kind of proposal is Constitutional is one that definitely is held by Justice Thomas, but other opinions about such matters have taken the 14th Amendment (section 1) into account. That section states that the rights of citizens of the U.S. shall not be limited by, or infringed upon, by State laws. James Madison argued that the 1st Amendment “freedom of religion” section was designed, in part, to protect citizens from paying one cent to a religious group whose beliefs were counter to their own. This state proposal would run counter to that right, and therefore, based on 14th Amendment principles, would be unconstitutional.
Alloting state revenues, the great bulk of which are derived from taxation, to religious organizations smacks of an involuntary tithe.
Just keep donations to religious organizations on a voluntary basis. This excludes state funds, which are virtually never “contributed” voluntarily (do you pay your taxes because you want to, or because they’ll bust you if you don’t?).
Church-related charities have done some wonderful good works, but their sources of money are voluntary, via tithing and additional donations. And, they’re not taxed on their income, on the presumption that they’re non-profit and do indeed carry out good works with the money they collect. In general, this is exactly the case. That’s all the support a church ought to get, the voluntary kind. Additional support from sources that rely on compulsion as their collection mechanism, such as a state budget funded by taxes, is beyond what churches should reasonably expect and should be regarded as far beyond what a state should reasonably assert as a legitimate exercise of power, even if a lot of voters think it sounds like a generous idea at first blush.
Finally, if state budgets include an additional line item of expenditure, i.e. those funds that are shifted to religious groups, there will be financial consequences. Money delivered to churches will not be available for other uses by the state government, e.g. schools, infrastructural works, etc. Also, an expansion of bureaucracy will occur, because the state will have to provide staff to oversee how much and for what uses the churches get the money. This will make the governance of the state either more expensive via more taxes, or it will require trimming money from other programs, creating a possible new political issue. Wasteful, coercive, and essentially wrong-headed.
Sounds like a bad idea all around to me.
The problem I am seeing in these posts is that they do not see the real threat. The real threat is taxes. Taxes are the way one’s money gets used in ways one des not agree with.
The fact is that the US Constitution does not forbid states from sending tax money to churches for programs not related to proselytizing. The “wall” between religion and government is in Jefferson’s letters about the US Constitution not in the Constitution itself.
When it was written the US Constitution was seen as a document between the states, not the citizens,(at least that’s how James Madison saw it) and that the states were to have the bulk of the power, not the federal government. This doctrine of states’ rights led to slavery, official religions and religious tests for public office to name a few. The 14th does prohibit states from denying any individual his or her rights as listed under the Constitution. However giving tax money to a church, for secular purposes such as an alcohol rehab program or an AA program housed in a church, does not qualify as an infraction on an individual’s rights under the 14th amendment.
If one were to argue against tax money shouldn’t be used to fund church programs because some individuals may object because they do not want to support churches under any circumstances, then one must apply that standard to all government expenditures. Such programs could include, state welfare programs for the poor, medical plans for uninsured persons and educational programs. Some individuals may object to tax money being spent on these programs for moral resons, they may feel the programs are corrupt, or they may feel there are better and more cost effective ways to accomplish the goals of the programs.
I agree that religion should stay out of government altogether. To do this we mustb lower taxes and tell our citizenry to support the church programs they want with the extra money.
Reading Madison’s “Remonstrance,” it appears that he was arguing that citizens have the right to be free from the “injury” of paying “one pence” to a religious organization which that citizen does not adhere to. And, because of the 14th amendment, I think it can be argued that the states cannot dismiss that right not to be so injured.
There is no question that Madison did take this position. Madison also co-wrote, with Jefferson, the Virginia Declaration of Rights in which freedom of religion is a key idea.
However, nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that taxes cannot be paid to a religious organization for a secular purpose. If a state were to give money to Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu organizations one could hardly claim that the government is “establishing a religion” which is what the First Amendment prohibits.
Madison was a States’ Rights advocate and initially opposed the inclusion of the Bill of Rights to the constitution beliving that the States were soverign over the Federal government. Madison believed, and I think incorrectly, that the US government would not and could not exceed the authorities granted to it by the US Constitution. It was George Mason who advocated for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights becuase he recognized that it was important to limit the government’s power as much as possible.
As to whether the 14th amendment applies I don’t think it does. In this case no right is being denied. If the 14th Amendment did apply in this case as you are arguing then there would be no government spending at all. Anyone could claim 14th Amendment rights and cite objections to any and all government expenditures.
I advocate against government money going to churches for the very reasons Madison argues. I think that there needs to be an amendment to the US Constitution which states that tax money cannot be given to churches for any reason.