Leslie Rosenblood and Justin Trottier contend that religious groups have no claim on tax dollars. Since tax dollars come from a common pool of monies, provided by all citizens, they should be available only to groups and projects open to all without distinction. This is how they put it:
Some have argued that public money is not secular money. But we do not accept that argument. Public money consists of a large common pool of contributions from citizens of every persuasion and so for that reason it should be spent on programs that are available to every constituent. It makes no more sense to publicly subsidize programs only available to citizens of a specific belief system than it does spend public money on programs that benefit only left-handed citizens or those with red hair.
Their contention begs the question as to what particular group, regardless of its persuasion, would actually be open to every citizen without distinction. Indeed, Fred_001, commenting on the Rosenblood-Trottier blog speaks specifically to the paragraph cited above:
Then you won’t mind that we immediately cease all funding of ethnic cultural centres, women’s programs, programs for the disabled, and a host of other targeted tax-funding? Strange, I don’t recall the secularists getting all hot and bothered about any of these kinds of highly targeted expenditures. Why not just admit that this is a lot of polite justification for anti-religious hatred.
One could, I suppose, believe Rosenblood and Trottier are simply seeking to ensure that government does not, by means of granting public funds to faith-based groups, appear to promote one religious group over another, but it is difficult to reach that conclusion in light of their own closing remarks.
Religious groups should also favour keeping government at a distance. Government subsidies of religious activities leads to politicians defining what constitutes proper religious practices, if no other reason then to determine which religiously inspired programs should be funded. This could easily be construed as an unwarranted intrusion on religious freedom; therefore, a secular state benefits all citizens, religious or otherwise.
But there is more to this argument than mere finance.
Any honest observer of human behaviour will grant that religion has been and continues to be a source of division between people. It is true that religion is not the only source of friction between human beings — but why should government perpetuate and subsidize a fractious and anti-social force?
Ah, there we have it. The tired and threadbare charge that religion is the root of all evil in this world. To think otherwise, in the opinion of Rosenblood and Trottier, is to be dishonest.
One wonders why they chose not to name other sources of division since the point of their column seems to be that government has no business perpetuating and subsidizing a fractious and anti-social force? For example, following their argument, why would tax dollars be used to support organizations involved in any of the areas mentioned below?
- Economic – free market capitalism vs. government guided socialism
Racial
Cultural
Pro-life vs. Pro-choice
Gay vs. Straight
Politics – is anything more fractious than Canadian parliament?
Environmental issues
And of course there is nothing fractious and anti-social about labeling and denigrating all people of faith in this way.
