Remember what I wrote a few weeks back, about how government money going to religious organizations which insist on operating according to the dictates of their religious beliefs was kind of a Bad Idea, because it meant there would be gaps in service and people who couldn't access services that a government-run institution would provide, because the religious institution refused to offer it, meaning people not of a particular religion would be forced to live by the dictates of that particular religion in the absence of non-religious care providers?
Shit like this would be why. Adoption by same-gender couples in civil unions is permitted in Illinois, but the local Catholic adoption groups, which rely on financing from the state, want to be able to continue their exclusionary policy of "not placing children with unmarried couples". This is, of course, their workaround that lets them cover their anti-gay bias in a thin veneer of "it's not about TEH GAYS, it's about ALL unmarried people!" (This is also an excellent example of why civil unions are Not Good Enough as a "compromise" instead of full marriage equality.)
Anyway, the point is, these jerks are actually upset enough at having to treat same-gender couples almost-equally that they are suing the state of Illinois for religious infringement, and have said that they will stop offering their state-funded - state-funded! Taxpayer money! Let that sink in for a moment - foster and adoption placement services entirely if they don't get their Special Snowflake Jesus Said So exemption.
This is why I am leery at best (and actively hostile toward, at worst) when it comes to the idea of Faith-Based Outreach. I didn't like the federal office of faith-based outreach when Bush instituted it, and I like it no better now that Obama has kept and expanded and reworked it. (My ire is bipartisan! Are you willing to treat my objections as reasonable now, Mr. President?) If religious institutions want to offer charity and services, by all means let them do so, but let them do so with their own and their tithers' money. And do not treat them like a substitute for publicly-funded and government-run social services, because they are not. Spend the tax dollars that previously went to religious charities on building the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to provide those services. (Yes, I realize it's a hair's breadth from COMMUNISM! to suggest that the government should spend any money providing any services, much less social services, but we all know I'm a dirty pinko leftist anyway, so.)
Look, if anti-choice extremists can get all huffy about "my tax dollars" going to fund Planned Parenthood, I'm entitled to make a fuss about my tax dollars going to fund religious organizations who would rather abandon their mission to help children in need of families, than be forced to treat same-gender couples as equal to mixed-gender couples.
These Catholic charities apparently need to give back the taxpayer money, find a fainting couch, and lie down to have the vapors quietly for awhile, cause obviously they can't handle the idea of putting the needs of children ahead of their bigotries. And in the meantime, why don't we see about finding those children some loving homes - no matter the genders of the adults providing them.
4 comments:
The one issue I have to say I have with this post is that you being concerned about your tax dollars going to religious orgnizations isn't really the equivalent of righties being all up in a huff about Planned Parenthood. Your concern is reasonable.
Lolsob, well. Mostly I just wanted the parallel of "if they can throw a hissy over how "their" tax dollars are being spent, so can I." Admittedly, having a grounding in fact makes it easier to do.
The whole point of taxes is that they're used to do things you wouldn't do with your money, though: you wouldn't build roads for other towns, given a choice, because you wouldn't use them, et c. The social contract is that I give the government money, they use it to ensure a basic level of agreed services that wouldn't be funded if it were left up to individuals, and which theoretically are for the public good.
The debate in the US has shifted so far to the right that it's almost anathema to say that there are good taxes, which is just...not intelligent. Sigh.
With you completely, though, that no money should EVER be given to religious organizations by the government. For anything. It's a clear violation of freedom of religion to do so.
Of course, I also believe that religious institutions should pay the same taxes as anyone else, given that they tend to engage in politics like anyone else. I find the concept of tax-free status for religions to be utterly abhorrent.
I saw someone on tumblr yesterday actually say "You think taxes are a GOOD thing? Well if you like them so much, why don't you go ahead and pay mine?" To which the person they were haranguing responded, "No, I don't think so. But tell you what: you can stop paying taxes, but you'll have to live without using what my tax dollars are paying for. No driving on the roads, no mailing anything via USPS, no using running water in your home, no buying groceries from industries which benefit from subsidies (that means meat, dairy, corn, etc), no putting gas in your car (because oil companies are heavily subsidized too), etc. Fair?" Strangely enough, the OP didn't reply. ^_^
I do wish we had decent enforcement of no-political-meddling laws wrt religious organizations, though. *sigh* That was a big thing right after Prop H8 passed, trying to get the LDS church to lose their tax-exempt status because of how involved they got, not as individuals, but as an organization. Nothing came of it, as far as I recall, though. :-/
Post a Comment