The Problems With State-Subsidized Churches and State-Subsidized Education

Date Written: 1/17/2023

Assignment: Write 500 words on this topic: “Is there a difference between state-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools?”

In the United States churches have not been subsidized since 1833 and for good reason. When the civil government subsidizes churches three things happen:

The state would control the funding.
The state would control the content of the preaching.
Non-members would have to pay.

When the state controls the funding of something it gains power over that thing. This happens because if the recipient of the funding doesn’t follow state standards they will no-longer receive the funding. So if the state subsidies churches they will gain a substantial amount power and influence over the church. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

Additionally, when the state controls funding it also controls the content of the preaching. For example, let’s say a preacher starts preaching revolution against the state. Obviously the state would not approve of that topic, so it would cut off the funding to that church. And without funding that church won’t last very long. So now the state controls the content of the preaching.

The final consequence of state funding of churches is that non-members will have to pay. The state has to get the money somewhere, so it taxes everyone. However everyone is not a member of the church that is being subsidized. So many people who don’t belong to that church will have to pay to support that church. Obviously this is wrong; people shouldn’t have to fund a religion that they don’t support.

Fortunately churches are no-longer subsidized, but it is necessary to understand these concepts in order to understand state-subsidized education. They are essentially the same thing; church is simply religious education.

State-Subsidized Education

To avoid the problems that state-subsidized churches faced, state-subsidized education rests on one key assumption: that it is neutral. If state-subsidized education isn’t neutral, then on what authority does the state get to decide what the children should learn? In order to fund state-subsidized education the state must tax everyone. This only seems legitimate if the education is neutral. If the education isn’t neutral, then we run into the same problems that state-subsidized churches faced.

However is it possible for education to be neutral? The short answer to this question is no. Just like with churches, if the state is funding the education then they control the content. In state-subsidized schools teachers can only teach government approved things. If they don’t the school will lose funding. We all must remember that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

In this system the state gain control over the education of children. The parents lose control because the schools are not dependent on the parent’s money to operate. All the schools need to do is conform to state standards, so they’re guaranteed to get money from the state. And this is what has happened today.

State-subsidized churches and state-subsidized schools are not that different. Whoever controls the income of these institutions controls the content. You could think of our modern public schools as churches with bureaucratic priests that preach the political philosophy of the state. We have recognized this evil with churches. Now we recognize it with education.