Wednesday, 5 December 2007

Should the State fund political parties or religious bodies?

IMHO, definitely NOT!

Political parties, churches, and other 'faith-based' institutions are all special interest groups ideologically supported by some members of the larger society who should be prepared to support them financially also, and should not expect those who do not share their political or religious beliefs to contribute to their upkeep.

As a taxpayer, I submit - sometimes grudgingly - to my taxes being used for purposes which the government conceives to be in the national interest, such as education, health care, and defence. Even though I strenuously disagree with some of the policies being pursued in these areas I recognise that they affect the entire population, and therefore cannot be funded privately.

However, where political doctrines or religious dogmas are concerned, I think it is utterly immoral for the State, or those who subscribe to such notions, to expect me and other taxpayers who disagree with them to fork out public money - OUR money - to bail out organisations which can't drum up enough support from their own adherents to keep going. They should cut their coat according to their cloth, or go out of business.


Jose said...

I annot be more in agreement with you, Anticant. Using people's money to enhance religious beliefs should never be the responsibility of the state. Faith is individual and someone's faith may not be another's, then why the latter must pay for the former or viceversa.

The ironic side of it is that that with no faith must pay for those with. But it does not happen all the way round.

Emmett said...

ONE Expects that the 'faithful' in some quarters likely whinge about /their/ taxes going for 'godless homophilia' and so forth. The optimum scale for a really democratic whoredom of one sort or another is probably no more than a few hundred thousands. That way, the electorate really do have even odds of knowing personally, each and severally, who up for office really is an ass. Meanwhile, I do think that both private donations and government subsidy of creeds, cults and parties, election-campaigns, Feng Shui consultants & allopathic medical doctors, all should be severely curtailed; although I know this proposal inhibits the right of a private person to give money away as they may choose, at least in te elections-case. If only it were simply the minorly excessive donations of the privately wealthy and not these hellish multinationals trading in -- governments.

Merkin said...

Think of all the money we paid Cherie Blair's hairdresser and be pretty damn sure that Gordon's teeth were done on expenses.
It's enough to make you.....become a politician.

pela68 said...

Ahh- We have the same situation here in Sweden. Political partys is given tax financed support according to their latest election results. This means that the social democrates- aswell as the communists indirectly gets funding from me! Shudder...

This and the press support! (Of which almost all are leaning to the left) is an abolimation (?).

I can't see why I should support- via my tax money- any organisation or religion/churches that's not up to my standards- but still- that's the way it is.

For example: I was born a christian. I had no choise in the matter. It was not until a couple of years ago that the state and the church was separated and we got truly secularised. You can get out of the protestant church (and stop paying DIRECT taxes) but it's a so byrochratic procedure that most of the people here don't bother.

If you are a member of a workers union- the better part of your fee goes to the social democrates!

And on and on and on...

For a while, the social democrates had an estimated 12 milion members (with a population of only 8m) and they were getting tax support for everyone. It's not true anymore- the center- right government in the 70:s legislated against this kind of collective membership were if you were a union member or if you had a membership in ANY cooperative buissness, wether it be grocery stoors or petrol stations, and so on. It ment that even if you weren't a supporter of the social democrates, you still could be counted as one eight to ten times (or more). And for every time of those "memberships" they got tax support.

We have a word for this here "skendemokrati" I'm not shure how to translate it but it is something like "bogus demochracy" (something that at a first glance looks like the real thing, but is not).

zola a social thing said...

Interesting this.
Karl Marx said the same thing when trying to hassle with Hegel.

zola a social thing said...

Sorry I did not mean to be the last comment.
But there it is. There we have it.