Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (3 Viewers)

[Name_Taken]

The massive hole in your argument is you're using an example of the non-existence of hospitals, where I'm talking about merely ending public funding for churches. The two are not comparable.

Eurgh, I only brought that up as an example, personally I think there should be government run public hospitals accessable to everyone but anyway....

The withdrawal of public funding isn't the same as non-existence. I am okay with the existence of privately funded churches.

I know, my point is the Church is open to the public though, its a community organisation as well as a religious institution. Its benefits to the community go beyond simply a place to pray or conduct various ceremonies for the religiously inclined.

What if it was made conditional that the money was used to run community run programs only, or something along those lines, would that be more acceptable in your eyes?

A religious service is not essential to anyone in this way. If a religious service does not exist, the individual deprived of religion has the complete capacity to easily create one.

Yes and no. OFC an organisation like the Catholic Church could spend a few million here and there to build new Churches if they wanted, but some communities, particularly rural ones may not have this ability and might benefit from some degree of financial support.

Even if you are privately financing some organisation, like a sporting club or w/e, the government may support you to some extent if they think it will benefit the community at large.

 

[Graney]

Yeah there is - section 116.

In view of Section 116 of Australia's constitution, ("The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance ..."), it is commonly believed that Australia is already a "secular state". This is a gross misconception. In 1981, the High Court determined that there is in fact no constitutional separation of church and state in Australia. Partly as a result, rather than a secular state, Australia now more closely resembles a pluralistic theocracy, where numerous religions have been "established".

The Separation of Church and State

A consecrated bishop was appointed governor general. WYD shows there is no barrier to the appropriation of public funding for religious recruitment. It's nothing like the USA which has actual protection.

 

[Lukybear]

The massive hole in your argument is you're using an example of the non-existence of hospitals, where I'm talking about merely ending public funding for churches. The two are not comparable. The withdrawal of public funding isn't the same as non-existence. I am okay with the existence of privately funded churches.

If you are experiencing a life threatening condition, a hospital is essential to you, in as much as anything can be said to be essential. Only from a nihilist position could you say it is non-essential.

A religious service is not essential to anyone in this way. If a religious service does not exist, the individual deprived of religion has the complete capacity to easily create one.

If an individual considers not being dead essential, they have no alternative without a hospital. If an individuals considers religious service important, they can easily privately fund and organize a service.

So your argument is, that we should NOT PUBLICLY fund anything that is non-essential.

Please do tell us, how you define essentiality? Since that was a huge misunderstanding during last nights discussion.

 

[Lukybear]

A consecrated bishop was appointed governor general. WYD shows there is no barrier to the appropriation of public funding for religious recruitment. It's nothing like the USA which has actual protection.

Beyond your definition of esstianality. I do suppose a event alike WYD, that is without the influence of religion you would support?

Bearing in mind, however, the offical reasoning for funding for that event is not due to religion, but rather for the stimulus to economy, via tourism.

 

[zaxmacks]

In view of Section 116 of Australia's constitution, ("The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance ..."), it is commonly believed that Australia is already a "secular state". This is a gross misconception. In 1981, the High Court determined that there is in fact no constitutional separation of church and state in Australia. Partly as a result, rather than a secular state, Australia now more closely resembles a pluralistic theocracy, where numerous religions have been "established".

The Separation of Church and State

A consecrated bishop was appointed governor general. WYD shows there is no barrier to the appropriation of public funding for religious recruitment. It's nothing like the USA which has actual protection.

How did the High Court come to that conclusion? It seems to me that section 116 clearly creates a separation of church and state... I'm at a loss as to why that happened.

 

[Graney]

So your argument is, that we should NOT PUBLICLY fund anything that is non-essential.

Please do tell us, how you define essentiality? Since that was a huge misunderstanding during last nights discussion.

Not being dead is essential I think. If the consequence of the removal of a service is death, and the privately funded alternative isn't sufficient, it may justify public funding.

Improving the community is a noble aim, however if the government distributes funds to improve the community, this is less efficient than the people themselves being given those funds to invest as they choose. Individuals are the best judge of what brings them greatest happiness, by leaving the money in their possession they will spend it proportionally on things that will bring them the most satisfaction. The government can not possibly make a more accurate judgement than this.

People may spend this money on churches. If churches are so important, why wouldn't they? However if they don't spend it on churches, obviously they had more pressing needs and desires. They will obtain the greatest happiness by being allowed to direct their funding to the area that best meets their preferences.

The greatest satisfaction may be brought to people by allowing them full control over the sweat of their brow.

 

[Name_Taken]

Not being dead is essential I think. If the consequence of the removal of a service is death, and the privately funded alternative isn't sufficient, it may justify public funding.

But most people admitted to hospital are not in a life-threatening condition.

 

[Graney]

Preventive medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

[BlackDragon]

But most people admitted to hospital are not in a life-threatening condition.

Yes but if they didn't get treated they wouldn't be able to function as people and would not be able to support themselves, and or their condition would get worse and they would die. If everyone was walking around completely unwell then society in general and peoples lives would not work properly. However, if people religion was truly important to people then they would spend some of their money to maintain these things. Moreover, you don't need a church to believe in god.

 

[Graney]

Without the availability of antibiotics, even the smallest injury is potentially fatal.

 

[Lukybear]

Not being dead is essential I think. If the consequence of the removal of a service is death, and the privately funded alternative isn't sufficient, it may justify public funding.

Improving the community is a noble aim, however if the government distributes funds to improve the community, this is less efficient than the people themselves being given those funds to invest as they choose. Individuals are the best judge of what brings them greatest happiness, by leaving the money in their possession they will spend it proportionally on things that will bring them the most satisfaction. The government can not possibly make a more accurate judgement than this.

People may spend this money on churches. If churches are so important, why wouldn't they? However if they don't spend it on churches, obviously they had more pressing needs and desires. They will obtain the greatest happiness by being allowed to direct their funding to the area that best meets their preferences.

The greatest satisfaction may be brought to people by allowing them full control over the sweat of their brow.

Hahaha, a true libertarian.

The definition if neccessaity is a vital component to this discussion as we so shall see.

According to you, improving the community is not NECCESSARY, and thus should not be achieved. Where is Health care, that decides life and death is important.

Now, what about education? The gratification of minds of young people who cannot afford to attend private educational institutions, and thus is funded by goverment to attend public schools. Their actions of schooling and education, is unarguable benefiical to community. However, this is not LIFE AND DEATH. They can still earn a decent, living through manual labour, other jobs that certainly do not require education.

So are we then to not fund education? And yes, I do know you attend private schooling, and is full fee paying. Yet I do regret that other people is not as priviliged as you.

Side not:
Also for the health care system. You stated it is neccessary to publicly fund it. Yet health care can be sufficently achieved via the private system. Take America as an example (not a very good one, but one non the less).

 

[Lukybear]

Yes but if they didn't get treated they wouldn't be able to function as people and would not be able to support themselves, and or their condition would get worse and they would die. If everyone was walking around completely unwell then society in general and peoples lives would not work properly. However, if people religion was truly important to people then they would spend some of their money to maintain these things. Moreover, you don't need a church to believe in god.

Can i just state, an interesting thought here. Ofcourse, self support of the Church is neccessary and is happening today. However, lets point out there are people who cannot sufficently support themselves, non the less the Church.

 

[BlackDragon]

Can i just state, an interesting thought here. Ofcourse, self support of the Church is neccessary and is happening today. However, lets point out there are people who cannot sufficently support themselves, non the less the Church.

I know, and the money the government earns should go towards supporting these people in a way that will actually help them. When people are dying of starvation they don't want the government to spend it on extras. Moreover, they don't need a special building to get together with people and pray or anything like that. The government should provide community services to these people, services that they really need like healthcare and basic meals, and if they actually want to they can get together and pray and stuff. Money should be spent on people's basic needs, because there are thousands of people in Australia who need help, instead money is going to the plethora of religious organisations. Some of these help others, but if all the money went into helping others much more benefit would be had.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

I know, and the money the government earns should go towards supporting these people in a way that will actually help them. When people are dying of starvation they don't want the government to spend it on extras. Moreover, they don't need a special building to get together with people and pray or anything like that. The government should provide community services to these people, services that they really need like healthcare and basic meals, and if they actually want to they can get together and pray and stuff. Money should be spent on people's basic needs, because there are thousands of people in Australia who need help, instead money is going to the plethora of religious organisations. Some of these help others, but if all the money went into helping others much more benefit would be had.

who needs all that when we can simply pray to mary mackillop?

 

[Name_Taken]

I know, and the money the government earns should go towards supporting these people in a way that will actually help them. When people are dying of starvation they don't want the government to spend it on extras. Moreover, they don't need a special building to get together with people and pray or anything like that. The government should provide community services to these people, services that they really need like healthcare and basic meals, and if they actually want to they can get together and pray and stuff. Money should be spent on people's basic needs, because there are thousands of people in Australia who need help, instead money is going to the plethora of religious organisations. Some of these help others, but if all the money went into helping others much more benefit would be had.

Wouldn't you cut back on something like the funding of elite sports first as that doesn't benefit anyone really except for the few athletes in the position to compete at that level?

I don't see how spending billions on high tech training equipment etc is helping people who are suffering from starvation. At least Churches spend a great deal of money and effort into helping such disadvantaged people.

 

[BlackDragon]

Wouldn't you cut back on something like the funding of elite sports first as that doesn't benefit anyone really except for the few athletes in the position to compete at that level?

I don't see how spending billions on high tech training equipment etc is helping people who are suffering from starvation. At least Churches spend a great deal of money and effort into helping such disadvantaged people.

Well sure, of course things like that need to be considered. There needs to be marked shift away from pointless spending towards things that truly help people. The point is that the state can't be on the side of any religion by funding them. It is not good, things like this should thoroughly be a part of the private domain.

 

[Graney]

According to you, improving the community is not NECCESSARY, and thus should not be achieved.

No I'm saying it is best to allow individuals to dictate how they spend their own money in order to best pursue their own happiness, which may include community developments.

Also for the health care system. You stated it is neccessary to publicly fund it.

Did I? Where?

The USA has a government funded public health system.

 

[Lukybear]

No I'm saying it is best to allow individuals to dictate how they spend their own money in order to best pursue their own happiness, which may include community developments.

But that arguement isnt acceptable? Thats the old Liberal arguement, less tax, more freedom. Typical of wealthy, priviliged lives. The rich shall experience vast joy funded by their own money whilst the poor experience pain and unhappiness, as they have no money to put forth into recreation.

So now I say to you... some individuals do not have money that they can dicate to puruse their own happiness. Like Uni students, per say. What then?

Did I? Where?

The USA has a government funded public health system.

Did it change with Obama? I though it had been rejected. Are you sure?

I clearly remeber their health system is completely privatised, and that is why there were so many problems with it. With people not getting treatment, as they cannot afford it, as insurance didnt cover it.

 

[Lukybear]

I know, and the money the government earns should go towards supporting these people in a way that will actually help them. When people are dying of starvation they don't want the government to spend it on extras. Moreover, they don't need a special building to get together with people and pray or anything like that. The government should provide community services to these people, services that they really need like healthcare and basic meals, and if they actually want to they can get together and pray and stuff. Money should be spent on people's basic needs, because there are thousands of people in Australia who need help, instead money is going to the plethora of religious organisations. Some of these help others, but if all the money went into helping others much more benefit would be had.

Like I said to Graney. Money is also being poured into Universities. Presumable, one can argue that peoples lives are more important then 2-3 years of education.

And can I point out, Australia is not a 3rd world nation? People's basic needs are being met. There is the welfare system, for those unemployed. It is justly judged by professionals and so forth. I am pretty sure, that most impoverished people are not starving to death. There is no starvation crisis.

If there somehow were, the goverment would make sure those people get enough to eat and drink, even if sarcaficing funding for churches.

This is a quite poor arguement. Most death from nutrient deficency are due to the specific goverment organisation not knowing about certain people... and thus unable to help.

Its infact a arguement for our side. These poor people, are able to acquire the VERY BASICS of living. But thats all the welfare system dicatetes. The VERY MINIMUM. What about for recreation? For joy and society? They can only turn to goverment funded programs, like the PCYC, or for arguments case the Church.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Uni isn't "2-3 years of education", uni is funding for the research that produces... you know, medicine, and technology?