Should the government therefore not allow them to apply for grants for social service initiatives?
Yes. Absolutely. No question. If a church is not willing to abide by public law, it should not accept public money. Or other public benefits, such as tax exemption, which is effectively a subsidy.
You want to split the party? This is the fault line.
The free exercise of religion clause of the Constitution makes it legal for a church to hire in conformity with its beliefs.
On their own nickel, Neo, on their own nickel. Not on mine, not on that of the Chinese couple next door, or the black family's a block away.
What of the Mormon's who at least until recently (and maybe still) considered blacks inferior? That's coating racism in religion. Is therefore practicing racism with public funds OK? Yes?
What you are effectively doing is legalizing Jim Crow again. Doubt it? Take a look at the Church of Scientology.
Sure, if you prefer bureaucracy to the delivery of services through community organizations. I don't, and I do not think the issue is meaningful.
If giving tax money to religious organizations is the alternative, I will gladly take the bureaucracy. No questions asked. If this is what Bush is for, then I want a different President. I'll call about getting that ballot back.
The issue is as meaningful as they come. Europe shed oceans of blood on religious question. What do you mean, "not meaningful"? Is "dead" not meaningful?
It was that European experience that the Founders had in mind when they decided that the best way to handle the matter was to erect a "wall of separation" between church and state.
You want your church to have more money? Give it to them. You take mine, you've got war. |
