I mentioned this on Universal Hub, but thought I'd mention it here too. I'm fairly sure the first amendment doesn't mean taxpayers can't pay for healing that has any religious content. I use a lot of religion and spirituality in my practice, and I get reimbursed by public and private insurance, but I also don't do anything that's not congruent with the standards of the licensing board and ethics committee and so forth.

The real problem with Christian Science healers is that they aren't practicing anything remotely resembling scientifically informed and/or evidence-based practice, thus can't be licensed by the state boards. Wherever they get their training from isn't approved as sufficient training for any sort of healthcare license.

Sure, people are free to go to them, but slapping "healer" or "practitioner" on your business card doesn't mean insurance should pay for it. I'm fine with public or private insurance paying for a licensed therapist who uses Christian/Jewish/Buddhist material within the context of ethical and evidence-based therapy with clients who share this religious view and find it helpful in increasing their understanding of their world. I'm not OK with someone going to get prayed at (and told to stop taking the meds that make them not psychotic) and this being called professional healing that the public should pay for.

I feel like the licensing boards are fairly generous in terms of what they consider to be professional medical-model healing, and prayer alone certainly doesn't cut it. Personally, I find that prayer helps me with my mental well-being. So does having pets. So does skiing. I think it's fairly obvious to any reasonable person that the government should not pay for my synagogue membership, my pets, or my ski trips. And that the government should pay for me to go to a professional licensed therapist who might share my religious preference or other life interests and who might talk to me about how these are things I can use to increase my satisfaction with life.

I'm fairly sure the first amendment doesn't mean taxpayers can't pay for healing that has any religious content.

No, I agree with you, mostly.

However, it *should* mean we don't pay for healing that has no *medical* content.

Absolutely.

I hate when religion clouds things and makes a debate being about respecting people's religions versus not, when that's so not the issue. If someone's healing practice isn't medically valid, it has nothing to do with respecting religion. A religious quack isn't any higher on the totem pole than any other quack.

There's no way that the intrusion of government into medicine can be religion-neutral. If it doesn't pay for abortions, it's yielding to religious demands. If it does, it's forcing people to pay, through their taxes or otherwise, for an action which they find morally repugnant to their religion.

I suppose people will say that freedom of religion doesn't include the freedom not to be taxed to pay for things which their religion doesn't approve of. Pacifists are forced to pay war taxes. But the act of expanding government into every sphere of life necessarily diminishes freedom.

Kerry's just trying to steer taxpayer's money to hometown business interests. What else is a Senator for?

A major brain fart from Kerry. Surprising too, as I thought he was sharper than that.