by The JHWH 3 Replies latest watchtower scandals
From what I understand is, that the WTBTS isn't funded by (any?) government(s).
This would be very understandable, in order to get money from a government, they would probably need to open their books,
at least regarding their using of money.
What I would like know is: Has the WTBTS appealed for government money? This would too be very understanable as they
need any money they can get. If they have; I'd like to know when and to what country. Thanks in advance.
Most governments already pay churches by giving them tax free status. Those tax savings are real money.
There are still strong laws barring religions (faith based initiatives) from getting money directly from the US government. It has been tested in the Supreme Court.
Financial assistance
The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was to a secular organization—the hospital—and was therefore permissible.
In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,
The "establishment of religion " clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson , the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
The New Jersey law was upheld, for it applied "to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief." After Everson lawsuits in several states sought to disentangle public moneys from religious teaching, the leading case being the 1951 Dixon School Case out of New Mexico. [16]
The Jefferson quotation cited in Black's opinion is from a letter Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Baptists of Danbury , Connecticut , that there should be "a wall of separation between church and state ." Critics of Black's reasoning (most notably, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist ) have argued that the majority of states did have "official" churches at the time of the First Amendment's adoption and that James Madison , not Jefferson, was the principal drafter. However, Madison himself often wrote of "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Adams), and "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches).
In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that government may not "excessively entangle" with religion. The case involved two state laws: one permitting the state to "purchase" services in secular fields from religious schools, and the other permitting the state to pay a percentage of the salaries of private school teachers, including teachers in religious institutions. The Supreme Court found that the government was "excessively entangled" with religion, and invalidated the statutes in question. The excessive entanglement test, together with the secular purpose and primary effect tests thereafter became known as the Lemon test , which judges have often used to test the constitutionality of a statute on establishment clause grounds.
The Supreme Court decided Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist and Sloan v. Lemon in 1973. In both cases, states— New York and Pennsylvania —had enacted laws whereby public tax revenues would be paid to low-income parents so as to permit them to send students to private schools. It was held that in both cases, the state unconstitutionally provided aid to religious organizations. The ruling was partially reversed in Mueller v. Allen (1983). There, the Court upheld a Minnesota statute permitting the use of tax revenues to reimburse parents of students. The Court noted that the Minnesota statute granted such aid to parents of all students, whether they attended public or private schools.
While the Court has prevented states from directly funding parochial schools, it has not stopped them from aiding religious colleges and universities. In Tilton v. Richardson (1971), the Court permitted the use of public funds for the construction of facilities in religious institutions of higher learning. It was found that there was no "excessive entanglement" since the buildings were themselves not religious, unlike teachers in parochial schools, and because the aid came in the form of a one-time grant, rather than continuous assistance. One of the largest recent controversies over the amendment centered on school vouchers —government aid for students to attend private and predominantly religious schools. The Supreme Court, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld the constitutionality of private school vouchers, turning away an Establishment Clause challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause
As to bible examples where "god's" nation accepted money f rom governments, the jews took money from Egypt when they left, King Hiram helped build the first temple. If individual jws can take support from governments; why not the jw organization. It is an arbitrary secular law in the US re religions not paying taxes. It is a secular law that says religions lose their tax tatus by not keeping separate from government Jesus paid taxes to the Roman government.
I do know in Britain they are given 15 pence about 25 cents for every pound (dollar) they take in.
So for a million pounds they get 150000 pounds in help.
If that lasts under current government change remains to be seen.
If they are no part of the world they hould not take it.
