I'm not convinced it's legal for our tax dollars to go for this. I'm a fan of government sponsored health care for those who cannot afford insurance, but isn't there a law about the separation between church and state?
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
I guess I don't understand how paying money to provide people explicitly with prayer is "secular." Is there a fine-grained legal argument or language I don't understand? I haven't seen much commentary on this from legal scholars; if someone reading this knows of any or can provide a perspective, I would be grateful if they could point it out.
I also don't understand how paying for prayer for Christian Scientists is not "advancing religion." I suppose that not paying for prayer for Christian Scientists would be viewed by some as "inhibiting religion," but I simply don't understand that argument: as I understand it, the Christian Scientists' idea is that the effectiveness of the healing relies entirely on God. That wouldn't be any more or less spiritually effective with government money behind it; how could it be?
I mean, I spend $20 to get some canned goods to give to the food bank, and would spend $20 on my cellphone bill to talk to someone who called me and said, "hey, my friend is sick; let me tell you about it; can you pray for them?" Often people choose to give something--time, money, or both--to a cause they believe in, but aren't reimbursed, which is the whole point. It's called a donation; I hear God's into those big-time.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
24/11/09 02:16 (UTC)(no subject)
24/11/09 02:27 (UTC)There's a joke somewhere in here about non-prophet organizations, but I don't know enough about Mary Baker Eddy to make it work.
Also: what?
(no subject)
24/11/09 03:08 (UTC)I'm with you on this.
"WHUT?!"
(no subject)
24/11/09 16:31 (UTC)(no subject)
24/11/09 19:22 (UTC)2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
I guess I don't understand how paying money to provide people explicitly with prayer is "secular." Is there a fine-grained legal argument or language I don't understand? I haven't seen much commentary on this from legal scholars; if someone reading this knows of any or can provide a perspective, I would be grateful if they could point it out.
I also don't understand how paying for prayer for Christian Scientists is not "advancing religion." I suppose that not paying for prayer for Christian Scientists would be viewed by some as "inhibiting religion," but I simply don't understand that argument: as I understand it, the Christian Scientists' idea is that the effectiveness of the healing relies entirely on God. That wouldn't be any more or less spiritually effective with government money behind it; how could it be?
I mean, I spend $20 to get some canned goods to give to the food bank, and would spend $20 on my cellphone bill to talk to someone who called me and said, "hey, my friend is sick; let me tell you about it; can you pray for them?" Often people choose to give something--time, money, or both--to a cause they believe in, but aren't reimbursed, which is the whole point. It's called a donation; I hear God's into those big-time.
(no subject)
24/11/09 17:01 (UTC)