Decius wrote:
] Is it moral to use tax payer dollars to fund things that a
] large group of people in a society feel are totally immoral or
] unethical? Stated another way, is it ok to force people to pay
] for something they think is immoral, or should we have a broad
] moral consensus on something before we spend public money on
] it.
]
] Examples:
] On the right:
] Government funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Certainly this should be funded privately. Some people are horrified at the thought of using aborted fetuses for research, and ironically, most people who are against animal testing have no problem using fetuses (feti?) for the same thing.

] Government funding for abortions.

Again, PETA don't give too much of a shit about the unborn, unless it's an unborn eagle. Dissolve and suck the brains out of a nine-month old fetus and the government will pay for it. Smash an eagle egg and you pay a fine. Hmmmm?

] Certain tax benefits for homosexual life partners.

Again, people of most religions consider homosexuality a sin. This may change, but being that we live in a country where most constituents' religions define it as a sin, they probably don't want to give money to sodomites.

] NEA funding of offensive artwork.

Now here we have something interesting and debatable. The first ammendment does allow for freedom of speech, but let's not push our luck. I believe that the only artwork that should receive government funding should be (a) potentially profitable for the artist, since an investor that throws his money away is a beautiful thing in the private sector, but we should worry about a government doing such, (b) of a particular national value (Mount Rushmore being a prime example. We need more of these particular works of art to make us feel proud as a people, or (c) pictures of crosses in urine, paintings of the virgin mary smeared in shit and photos of children's genitals and fags with whips up their asses.
]
] On the left:
] The Iraq war.

A collossal waste of money. I would vote for the guy who would take us out of it and go back to the Monroe Docrtine (whoops! He ain't a choice this November!)

] Government vouchers for private religious schools.

Why not? If the liberals are pro-choice when it comes to whether or not my kid winds up in a biohazard bin, then why can't they be pro-choice when it comes to what happens after that kid is born?

] Government funding for faith based charities.

Why not fund some of these faith-based charities? If that is the only type of charity group being funded, then we have a problem. Non-faith based charities should receive matching funds. I wonder if the Church of Satan has applied for their grant yet?

] Tax credits for large SUVs.

Everyone who drives an SUV should be executed. That would be tax dollars well spent. In fact, abortion should be forced on anyone who has more than two kids, thus rendering SUV's unnecessary.

RE: Question of the day