On the contrary; that’s part of the problem. Receiving charity should not be conditioned upon – or even perceived to be conditioned upon – allowing oneself to be exposed to religious proselytizing. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Government shirking its responsibility to provide for the general welfare and thus encouraging religious institutions to take up that slack should be seen as a violation of the separation between church and state.
Actually if you took a look at how many of them are set up, the vast majority of them do not require you to attend church services. And are held at completely separate times service, typically only requireing some form of identification.
It’s still generally provided in a building festooned with religious iconography, and if you are inclined to be grateful for the help then your gratitude is directed towards a religious institution.
In other words, at the very least it makes the recipients more favorably inclined towards that religion than they would have otherwise been, had the charity been performed by an ideologically-neutral entity.
I feel like you’re just trying to come up with a reason why it’s bad because of religious institution is involved, instead of looking at what the institution is providing and judging it based on the quality of the service and how essential it is to impoverished communities.
So what if I am? The reason we have a separation between church and state in the first place is that it is entirely fair to assume that religion is an inherently corrupting influence.
On the contrary; that’s part of the problem. Receiving charity should not be conditioned upon – or even perceived to be conditioned upon – allowing oneself to be exposed to religious proselytizing. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that Government shirking its responsibility to provide for the general welfare and thus encouraging religious institutions to take up that slack should be seen as a violation of the separation between church and state.
Actually if you took a look at how many of them are set up, the vast majority of them do not require you to attend church services. And are held at completely separate times service, typically only requireing some form of identification.
It’s still generally provided in a building festooned with religious iconography, and if you are inclined to be grateful for the help then your gratitude is directed towards a religious institution.
In other words, at the very least it makes the recipients more favorably inclined towards that religion than they would have otherwise been, had the charity been performed by an ideologically-neutral entity.
I feel like you’re just trying to come up with a reason why it’s bad because of religious institution is involved, instead of looking at what the institution is providing and judging it based on the quality of the service and how essential it is to impoverished communities.
So what if I am? The reason we have a separation between church and state in the first place is that it is entirely fair to assume that religion is an inherently corrupting influence.
It is not entirely fair to assume that, and in doing so we alienate our allies