In Defense of Conditional Funding of Religious Schools

Q2 Social Sciences
S. Macedo
{"title":"In Defense of Conditional Funding of Religious Schools","authors":"S. Macedo","doi":"10.2202/1938-2545.1011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Article defends against various objections, the practice of funding religious schools and other faith-based social service providers, but only on condition that they comply with various public regulations and requirements. Critics of conditional funding—including Moshe Cohen- Eliya—argue that conditional funding is coercive and unfair to poorer religious parents, is often divisive or ineffective, and it threatens the autonomy and integrity of religious communities by putting a price on (or increasing the cost of) some of their religious practices; it would be better simply to prohibit the disfavored educational practices targeted by funding conditionalities. I argue that typical funding conditionalities are not objectionably coercive as long as they are designed to advance defensible public purposes. Unfairness to the poor should be addressed by general redistributive policies. The Article allows that funding conditionalities might undermine religious communities’ integrity, and cause social divisions, but that these concerns are speculative and not an adequate basis for disallowing in advance conditional public funding of faith-based institutions.","PeriodicalId":38947,"journal":{"name":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","volume":"1 1","pages":"382 - 428"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1938-2545.1011","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Ethics of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1938-2545.1011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The Article defends against various objections, the practice of funding religious schools and other faith-based social service providers, but only on condition that they comply with various public regulations and requirements. Critics of conditional funding—including Moshe Cohen- Eliya—argue that conditional funding is coercive and unfair to poorer religious parents, is often divisive or ineffective, and it threatens the autonomy and integrity of religious communities by putting a price on (or increasing the cost of) some of their religious practices; it would be better simply to prohibit the disfavored educational practices targeted by funding conditionalities. I argue that typical funding conditionalities are not objectionably coercive as long as they are designed to advance defensible public purposes. Unfairness to the poor should be addressed by general redistributive policies. The Article allows that funding conditionalities might undermine religious communities’ integrity, and cause social divisions, but that these concerns are speculative and not an adequate basis for disallowing in advance conditional public funding of faith-based institutions.
为宗教学校的有条件资助辩护
该条款反对各种反对意见,反对资助宗教学校和其他以信仰为基础的社会服务提供者的做法,但前提是它们必须遵守各种公共法规和要求。有条件资助的批评者——包括Moshe Cohen- Eliya——认为有条件资助是强制性的,对较贫穷的宗教父母是不公平的,通常是分裂或无效的,它通过对他们的一些宗教活动施加价格(或增加成本)来威胁宗教团体的自治和完整性;最好的办法是直接禁止资助条件所针对的不受欢迎的教育做法。我认为,只要典型的融资条件是为了推进可辩护的公共目的,它们就不是令人反感的强制性条件。对穷人的不公平应该通过一般的再分配政策来解决。该条款承认,资助条件可能会破坏宗教社区的完整性,并造成社会分裂,但这些担忧是推测性的,并不是禁止事先有条件地向宗教机构提供公共资金的充分依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Law and Ethics of Human Rights
Law and Ethics of Human Rights Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信