Should a religion be self-sufficient?

A discussion that crops up from time to time is about the financing of religions. Today, the day before Easter, Gwendolyne Rutten, chairwoman of Open-VLD, spoke out:

Personally, I don't think the question is wrong. A government must dare to evaluate historical agreements. As logical as the choice was for young Belgium to finance the Catholic church in exchange for peace between church and state, it is equally logical today to assess whether this is still necessary.

Belgium finances the recognized religions not only in terms of infrastructure [footnote]Municipalities pay for church buildings through the church council[/footnote] but also by financing the ministers through the Ministry of Justice. Priests (and equivalents in other recognized religions) are paid their salary by the state.

Now that so few people go to church, it is much more logical that this is questioned than before, although I think numbers have little to do with it. There are more than enough examples of things subsidized by the government precisely because they are not self-sufficient.

The argument that we pay through our taxes for something we don't enjoy is the worst argument you can find. I don't play soccer, so why do I pay for the soccer field in our municipality or for the police at big matches... by way of example. Why does the opera receive subsidies? Because I like it, but the majority doesn't? I could go on and on.

I therefore find it logical that the question arises, so we must look for an answer, but the answer cannot come because a minority enjoys it. Then many things must be abolished.

Why finance religions, or not?

We must answer the question by considering the pros and cons. The big advantage of paying for something is that you can demand value for your money. If the government finances religions, it can impose certain requirements. This is like walking a tightrope, because one of the characteristics of a democracy that respects human rights is adhering to the separation of church and state and allowing freedom of religion. Interference in faith can therefore only be general and limited.

In my opinion, one can perfectly demand that a religion must respect democracy and not be used to incite. One can also demand that a religion grant the freedom it receives to another religion. This includes the freedom not to belong to that religion. A religion may well state that it is the only true one, but it may not condemn anyone for not belonging to that one.

In the current discussion, it also emerges as an advantage that religions will not be made dependent on foreign and/or shady financing or financiers. 'One preaches the word of whose bread one eats' or something like that.

On the other hand, the argument of numbers is certainly not a counter-argument. Especially in light of the aforementioned control, it is irrelevant not to look at numbers.

The other arguments are then either purely financial (we cannot finance everything – not every artist receives subsidies) or in the fundamental discussion about the separation of church and state.

In the latter case, it might be better to opt for total separation. From the perspective of religion, one could rather opt for that and say 'don't interfere with us, we don't need your money'. From the perspective of the state, one would say that this way one chooses for total freedom of religion.

Mormons take care of themselves

I cannot give the answer for others, I can only give my opinion, without wanting to impose it.

Firstly, I want to point out that as a Mormon, I know that a church sustaining itself is difficult but achievable. Mormons donate 10% of their income to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as tithes. With that, they sustain their own church activities.

At the same time, I want to point out that this self-sustainability only applies to the church as a whole. Countries like Belgium, which have few members, are de facto net-financed from the tithes of countries where there are many Mormons (de facto mostly the US). I mention this because some today propose that financing from outside the EU should be stopped as a solution.

From this personal experience, I am mainly inclined to state that government funding should stop. I am for equality: either you fund all religions or none. 

Actually, I am curious about your opinions…