Government spending helps the economy in the shortterm too. Anytime government gets more money into the economy through tax cuts or more spending it stimulates the economy through the multiplier affect. Leaving aside the longterm inflationary and interests problems I think there is a question of who gets the immediate benefit out of any decision made to get more money into the economy.
Why would secularists be concerned about religious considerations being kept out of civil affairs and public education?
Politics is where you believe you make a difference but you don't. Religion is where you don't believe you make a difference but you do.
secularists are concerned about religious considerations being introduced into civil affairs and public education, witness the various lawsuits over the 10 commandments, Creches, moments of silence, etc. I'm not sure the relentless drive to secularize all aspects of society is necessarily a good thing. the hysteria surrounding the President's faith-based initiatives is another example. the institutions provide help to the needy. FB above bemoans cutting programs that benefit the poor, yet i would imagine he would not support tax relief for institutions that are affiliated with churches providing many of the same services. hard to see the logic in that.
Number one, churches are already tax exempt and many do provide services to the poor. However if we are talking about the church taking the place of govt. in anything then I can't believe you woudn't see the harm in that. It is very logical for one who treasures the constitution and speration of powers. If you are talking about other organizations related to churches then it depends on their 501c3 status. If they are paying taxes then it is because they haven't qualified for tax exempt status and are engaged in activities that would require this. If they want tax exempt status that pathway is clear. I don't see a reason for the govt. to be handing out work or benefits to any religious organization beyond that.
Yes I know that which is why they are secularists in the first place. But Rhad's definition was: which you implied would also cause anxiety in the secular community.
Which makes very little sense. Not that I'd expect better from someone arguing that tax cuts for the wealthy somehow help the poor.
you're reading my response too narrowly. i meant the issue of excluding religion from civic affairs is one that vexes both securlarists and spiritualists. btw, i'm a secular humanist spiritualist...
