…Had not the Roman government permitted free enquiry, Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free enquiry been indulged, at the era of the reformation, the corruptions of Christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

…Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity.

…Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments.
– Thomas Jefferson, 1784

I think the Church has accepted government money because it’s the best they can do in this situation. The problem isn’t with the Church accepting taxpayer money. The problem is with the Church accepting Caesar’s definition of what belongs to Caesar and of what the role of the Church is, instead of telling Caesar what Caesar’s role is and defining what belongs to Caesar. That is part of the liberal (in the sense of classical liberalism) bargain.

But you are right that the Church does not need the government to do the Church’s job; but the government can and does hinder the Church’s mission, and one way is by taxing her for purposes beyond the legitimate scope of government and then refusing to provide funds unless the Church relaxes the least of her Lord’s commandments, just a little bit.

I mean, our primary mission is to spread the gospel, no?
But when we accept government cash, do we not then ramp up our secondary mission to the poor, in order to justify our existence in the eyes of the world and to keep the money flowing?

What does the church need the government for? Well, nothing. Granted, the government does some good things, but none that can really help or hurt our mission.

The government needs to get its paws off of charity work where it does not belong, or it will continue to funnel Christian resources through the State and force Churches to feed at the trough of “taxpayer money” with increasingly tight strings attached.

For once resources are in the hands of the State, we will hear no end to the choruses of “it’s the State’s money, you have to dance to its tune”!

Blue Collar Todd: “We have to view Liberal Theology and Liberalism as standing in antithesis to biblical Christianity.”

I agree with both of you.

Here’s an interesting article titled “What’s Behind America’s Politically Correct ‘Love’ of Islam”.

I don’t think the Gestapo comparison is too far off in terms of what will come, but I do think it’s still a fair way off in terms of actual time. We’ve got a lot of room to maneuver, more than we realize I think, here in the west, before it comes to that.

I agree, it is time for the Christian church to do what it is called to do. We have to view Liberal Theology and Liberalism as standing in antithesis to biblical Christianity. The false social justice gospel of Liberalism is an attempt to undermine Christianity and to replace the Church with the State. Once that happens, all moral and political truth will be grounded on power and one’s ability to wield that power. The we give up to the State the more it will take and then we/Christians will be the only thing standing it the way of tyranny.

In the same way, when the whole issue of tax exemption comes up, and it will, right after some gay pastor sues a church for being fired (although the further this goes, the less likely it seems that a church would take that stand…). At that point churches will need to take the principled stand of refusing tax exempt status and carry on their work while paying taxes.

I don’t think the Gestapo comparison is too far off in terms of what will come, but I do think it’s still a fair way off in terms of actual time. We’ve got a lot of room to maneuver, more than we realize I think, here in the west, before it comes to that.

Elminate the government handout’s to churches and suddenly they’ve got a lot tougher laws to pass to shut them down, and I don’t think there’s any stomach for that in Washington, or Ottawa, or even in Europe for that matter.
What they don’t want is my beliefs spending their money.

And I don’t think that you and I should want that either.

At issue is $18 million to $20 million in city funds for 20 to 25 programs run by Catholic Charities, said Edward J. Orzechowski, the charity’s president and chief executive officer.

Emphasis added. What the city is not mandating CC to do is spend diocese money and then obey secular rules. CC is acting as a civil agency, and as such it will, inevitably, be asked to follow the civil laws regarding benefits and EEOC.

I think CC is right to simply say, “no thanks,” but it’s a little late to the party. Spending taxpayer money is, frankly, not the job of the diocese — even if helping the poor is. It’s more than a little slippery to break out the “religious freedom” banners and polemic when some group has already tread across the barrier by taking the government’s money to do the government’s appointed work.

peace

We should use the least force possible to deal with an problem.

What do we call the Dear Leader if we use overly strong rhetoric on leaders like Obama or Bush who happen to do dangerous things we don’t like?