Kosher pork?
As I was flipping through the recently-passed and signed state budget and something begins to nag at me . . . several somethings actually.
Sprinkled in with all the taxing, spending, policy changing and what not, there are grants (usually relatively small ones) like these:
- First Baptist Church of Clinton, $5,000, grant for operational support of a homeless shelter.
- Orange Congregation Mission Inc., $5,000, grant to provide emergency services to residents.
- Cedar Grove Missionary Baptist Association, $5,000, grant for emergency services to poor and needy residents.
- Poplar Grove Missionary Baptist Church, $5,000, sponsor health screening and provide information about health services.
In case you haven't guessed, civics lessons about the separation of church and state and about how state sponsorship of religion is a bad thing started coming back to me.
Not that all the budget's religious pork went to Christian groups. There's a $200,000 grant to the Jewish Community Center of Charlotte to provide a grant for senior programs. (I did a quick search and didn't see any money going to Hindu, Muslim or other non-Christian/Jewish faiths.)
Every one of the groups I listed is doing good things and the amounts involved are far from huge.
But should religious groups of any stripe be getting state money? Should someone who is of a faith or belief that objects to the views of the groups getting funding be forced to send his tax dollars to support those religious groups anyway?
The state constitution doesn't really give a whole lot of guidance on this issue. There are a couple of religious mentions in its declaration of rights:
"Sec. 13. Religious liberty. All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences, and no human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.""Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws. No person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin."
And the constitution goes on to say that property held by religious institutions is exempt from taxation, which I guess one might argue is a pretty big endorsement of religion right there.
So here's your question of the day: am I just loopy or is this something to worry about? Do you think the state ought to be giving even more money to churches, synagogues and the like or none?
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Excellent observations here, Mark. This might be grist for the editorial mill.
My initial response: I'm not against the appropriations just because they're going to religious organizations as long as the services provided don't convey religious objectives.
If they're just plain pork barrel, on the other hand ...
Posted on August 16, 2005 5:56 PM
You are loopy. Public funding of religious organizations for specific services that result in a better community is not endorsing the group's beleif, rather their service.
Religious groups and organizations like Urban Ministry can provide better public services to the poor for less money than the Government.
Posted on August 18, 2005 6:33 PM
Also, you mentioned that only Christians and Jewish ministries were given support. You won't find many other religious groups providing significant services for the general public.
Posted on August 18, 2005 6:38 PM
Doug: it's hard to decipher what's good ol' pork and what maybe has a broader purpose. Although, agencies that need to contract with nonprofits usually do so after the budget process. The agencies that get money in the budget itself usually have some legislative guardian and aren't vetted real thoroughly.
CSpeak: It's fine for government to encourage groups to serve. But I don't remember the budget giving too much money to the local Rotary clubs or Lions clubs, both service organizations.
From a pure good-government standpoint, one might question whether the services provided by these organizations are being provided anywhere else. In fact, that's exactly the argument Republican leaders on the floor of the House and Senate have used to question the pork in the budget. That argument, I would imagaine, would extend to religious groups too.
Posted on August 19, 2005 9:59 AM
I imagine the Rotarians and such have never asked for or applied for funds. As far as duplication of services, I'd be surprised if that was not part of the criterean...
Posted on August 19, 2005 2:02 PM