by Rick Lowe
The Nassau Guardian reports that Dr. Philip McPhee wants churches to give government "financial donations for national development programs" ("Churches asked to give govt revenue", July 17, 2012), as a fall back position for those churches that do not want a referendum legalising numbers/gambling houses.
Of course gambling is already "legal" as numbers houses operate with business licenses and pay government taxes, like National Insurance, property tax and business licence, and conduct business quite openly.
Dr. McPhee seems to think that having a referendum to legalise gambling is important to raise revenue for government through taxes from the numbers houses, but all this talk about a referendum is basically a charade. Also, an important question is, does government need more revenue or to slow spending down?
But I digress, so back to the main point.
It occurs to me that the church has lost its focus which is assisting the community. To suggest that the churches can donate to government and they can come together to develop a corporate entity with "specific and agreeable goals" is pie in the sky.
Just who does Dr. McPhee think will take the organisation over and do what they like with the funds using their coercive power? You guessed it, the government!
Churches like other civil society participants are to assist the less fortunate among the communities they serve. That is one of their main functions is it not? Getting the government involved in every aspect of our lives is what has helped get us in the trouble we're in.
I can't come up with better words to explain the banality of offering to get government involved in charitable initiatives than Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare Studies, Cato Institute, at a Policy Forum entitled Government Funding of Faith-Based Initiatives: Compassionate Conservatism or Corrupting Charity? (pdf) from back in 2001.
While they were discussing government giving churches tax dollars for charitable programmes, Mr. Tanner's closing point sums it up properly in my not so humble opinion:
"There seems to me to be something wrong in this society, with the way we've now decided that government is the answer to everything, even faith-based charity. It used to be that if there was a need, if in your congregation someone was homeless, the preacher would get up and say: Pass the collection plate, dig into your pocket, give, give till it hurts. Now, the preacher gets up and says: Write your congressman. Lobby Washington. Demand that they raise taxes so that we can have more money for our program. That seems to turn charity on its head. And I think, as we debate, we do have to debate the practical implications. We have to debate the legal implications. But I think we also need to look at the fundamental question of relation of government to individuals and to civil society. And I would submit that what we need is more civil society and less government, even when it has the best of intentions."
Finally, if the church can afford to donate 10% to the govenrment for charitable initiatives, why not use those funds to do more in the community the church serves?
Isn't that the role of the church anyway?
To subordinate charity to political forces is folly.
What McPhee needs to do is stop all of these pastors,bishops & whatever else they call themselves from fooling around with their congregations.Take the plank out of your own eye first.
Careful Bahamas the upcoming Referendum on the legalization of gambling may be like Obamacare full of fine print rules and regulations which the voters are being asked to approve but have no idea what they are actually approving..If you can fool the US Congress, you can surely fool the Bahamian People..
Perhaps a full and comprehensive reading and analysis should be undertaken by non-political community leaders outlining for the public all salient points as set forth in the upcoming Referendum.. The results should be published in the daily press followed by community meetings being held on a question and answer format.. Then there can be no question as to what we are voting for.. Without such open disclosure, the government will always be able to claim at a later date that “the Bahamian electorate gave its approval in the 2012 Referendum”..
As for me I want to know exactly what I am being asked to approve and I hope the public-at-large has the same cautious feelings and attitude.. Bahamians must learn to be accountable to themselves and not to just rely on the government..
What I find peculiar is the Church so happily suggesting who should be taxed to pay for government profligacy. All the while they are exempt from taxation.