Subsidizing Religions is Un-American

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Subsidizing Religions is Un-American

from Article

By Scott Holleran

February 11, 2001

With his proposal to use government to pay for religious activities, President Bush has established the connection between government and religion as a central goal of his presidency. The fog has finally lifted on President Bush's ambiguous campaign theme -- compassionate conservatism -- and its meaning would leave the Founding Fathers in a fury.

Applying the founders' radical ideas about liberty to religion is usually surprising to those who claim America is based on Judeo-Christianity and the belief in God. The founders, who created America partly to escape state-sanctioned religion, defiantly opposed the mixture of religion and government. Some doubted the existence of God, and others, including Thomas Paine, were openly hostile to religion -- any religion.

The founders created America as a republic based primarily on individual rights -- a society in which the freedom of religion means freedom from religion.

As John Adams, America's second president, wrote in Article 11 of his Treaty of Tripoli: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

James Madison, America's fourth president, stated: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

As Bush has failed to grasp the principles of a free republic, so he has failed to grasp the distinct nature of religion. There are striking differences between the 43rd president, who regularly discusses his religious views in public, and America's third president, who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, "Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god . . . 1/8and 3/8 I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." Jefferson's stirring words provided the standard by which religion has been kept out of government for years.

Besides giving away billions of federal funds through a newly minted Compassion Capital Fund, which will pay religious groups to compete for federal subsidies, Bush's plan includes the establishment of an Office of Faith-Based Organizations inside the White House, an edict Bush already instituted by executive order. It's the mother of all establishments of religion.

According to Bush aides, all religions will be tolerated and subsidized, including the Church of Scientology and the Nation of Islam. The idea of the only nation founded on the concept of individual liberty financing the Church of Scientology is a reminder that there are also practical reasons to reject Bush's religious doctrine. The list is as long as the Bible.

Will the Office of Faith-Based Organizations decide which spiritual beliefs are acceptable? Acceptable to whom, by whom and by what standards -- Judeo-Christian standards? Will Islamic tenets be instituted? Will the Office of Faith-Based Organizations be dictated according to the religious views of the sitting president?

Even President Bush's visit to a place called The Fishing School, a Washington, D.C., facility founded by a former policeman, which was designed to highlight the religious doctrine, raises fundamental questions.

Fishing School founder Tom Lewis, one of 15 children, quit the police force after securing his pension and pledged his life to prayer. While on his knees at church, Lewis claims he had a holy vision to open the school -- and so he did, in one of Washington's roughest areas. Lewis has been pleading for government subsidies ever since. The assistant pastor admitted during one speech that, during a three-month period, three Fishing School staffers were robbed, two were shot and one man was "walking around with a bullet in his head."

Contrary to his pleas for subsidies, Lewis named The Fishing School after the famous adage: "If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day; if you teach him how to fish, he'll feed himself for a lifetime."

The adage is true -- the school's name is a fraud. Fishing for a handout does not teach the virtue of self-reliance. That Lewis' Fishing School is held as the best argument for the mixture of church and state underscores the fundamental contradictions between Bush's plan and America's basic ideals.

The Founding Fathers fought for the creation of a nation based on individual rights -- which means the right to not believe in God, and the right to not participate in -- and pay for -- religion. It is in this sense that Bush's proposal to subsidize religious-based programs is profoundly anti-American and ought to be opposed by even the most devout believer.

As Jefferson once said: "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

Scott Holleran is a free-lance writer and a regular contributor to the Daily News. Write to him by e-mail at sholleran@earthlink.net.



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001

Answers

I find it especially ironic that the religious right has been making the argument for decades that no tax money should be spent in connection with abortion (including denying funds to organizations that even mention abortion), because it would force some taxpayers to subsidize an activity that ran counter to their religious beliefs.

Now that they think they can get some cookies out of that tax-funded cookie jar, suddenly the whole principle they stood on is reversed and it doesn't matter if atheists are forced to subsidize Baptist churchs, or if Catholics are forced to subsidize Pentecostal churchs, or if Orthodox Jews are forced to subsidize Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.

Who could possibly object if a soup kitchen serves pork or if, to get the meal, you're required to worship a man as a god? Aren't principles wonderfully stretchy things?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 13, 2001.


I'm torn between protesting this move by Bush and starting my own church so I can apply for funds.

:)

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 13, 2001.


watch out everyone, here comes eve with her conical star and moon hat.

looking to bilk some more people out of their silver eve?

you never did comment on my correct prediction of the DOW....MONTHS before it happened.

I do wish people like you would get educated before you spout off....it would help you look less foolish.

-- (un@be.lievable), February 13, 2001.


un@be.lievable,

What's that on your conical hat?

-- flora (***@__._), February 13, 2001.


un@be.lievable,

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about. I think you've confused me with someone else.

The hat sounds kinda cool, though, if you know where I could get one - - maybe one with a cute chin strap on it -- it's been kinda windy around here lately.

And, of course -- shades to match. :)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.



I agree with the article, Bush has opened up a real can of worms. Mebbe he is dumb afterall.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

Unc, my hunch is that most of Junior's policy proposals (like the tax cut) were saddled on him by his handlers and advisors, but that this one is really Junior's own original gem of an idea - his pet idea - and he will love it and cherish it no matter how much it rolls around in the pasture or how bad it stinks when it comes back in the house.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 13, 2001.

Link

A Faith-Based Recipe for Disaster by Douglas Newman

Liberals, predictably, oppose President Bush's newly created White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, on separation of church and state grounds. Christians and conservatives should likewise stand foursquare against it on biblical, constitutional and historical grounds.

The details of the Bush program, otherwise known as "Armies of Compassion" (AOC), will become increasingly clear in the weeks ahead. However, Bush's campaign web site spelled out the general philosophy. It stated that: "Resources should be devolved, not just to the states, but to the charities and neighborhood healers who need them most, and should be available on a competitive basis to all organizations -- including religious groups -- that produce results.

At first, Bush's proposal seems harmless. He wants to make it easier for us to write charitable donations off our income taxes. I'll take any tax relief I can get, but I have a better idea: implement substantial tax cuts now, and stop micromanaging how Americans live their lives and spend their money. Truly compassionate people will give more to organizations that help those who are legitimately suffering.

The problem lies with providing taxpayer dollars to religious institutions. II Corinthians 9:7 states that, "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." God does not want stolen money, although many pastors do. Tax money is, by definition, given under compulsion. Giving tax dollars to churches and other religious institutions goes against God's word. (Are we talking about armies of compassion or compulsion?)

The "general welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution is not a grant of unlimited federal authority to tweak with society and its institutions until arriving at some optimal arrangement. Article I, Section 8 spells out those things the federal government can proactively do. The Tenth Amendment strictly limits Uncle Sam to these enumerated functions. Helping those in need is not a Constitutional duty of the federal government. It is a responsibility, which the churches long ago abdicated, in large part to the federal government. Under constitutional government, people could keep what they earned and donate it however they pleased, without fear of federal interference or need of federal approval.

(If I might digress, the real outrage of the Linda Chavez episode was the failure of anyone to ask the following question: what kind of government criminalizes simple acts of humanitarianism such as that which derailed Ms. Chavez' nomination? Moreover, will the Bush administration stop criminalizing such acts?)

The relevant golden rule here states that he who has the gold makes the rule. If religious organizations wish to qualify for federal dollars they will have to subject themselves to federal regulations. This is not mere speculation. It would be instructive to look at the history of federal aid to colleges.

In the 1960s, when Congress launched aid to college and university students, everyone was assured that this money would not lead to federal control of higher education. Before long, colleges and universities learned that, in order to keep receiving this aid, they would have to comply with federal affirmative action regulations, racial hiring quotas, and numerous other requirements. It is not an overstatement to say that dependency on federal aid has poisoned higher education in America.

Any university, corporation, or other organization receiving federal monies or contracting with the federal government must now comply with a seemingly endless labyrinth of federal regulations on everything from racial hiring quotas to drug testing. For states to receive federal funding for education, highways, and numerous other purposes, they must likewise surrender a measure of their autonomy to that district from whence all blessings flow. A common conservative argument against school vouchers is that tax dollars for private schools will in turn increase state and federal regulation.

The same dynamic will apply to churches. Accepting federal money always leads to federal control. It is bad enough that for decades churches have been faced with the choice of curtailing their political activity or losing their tax-exempt status. Churches, for the most part, no longer seriously question the modern megastate. The result has been dumbed-down churches, which are more dangerous than dumbed-down schools.

Can you imagine your church being faced with the choice of having to perform homosexual marriages or otherwise losing federal subsidies? Can you imagine having sermons subject to federal scrutiny if your church wishes to keep receiving federal money for a day care center? Can you imagine your church losing federal money because one of its alcohol counselors violated church-state separation by telling the story of the Prodigal Son to an alcoholic in desperate need of help?

Based on the history of federal funding of education, this is what awaits us under AOC. If Caesar has the gold, Caesar makes the rule. Do you want to risk the possibility of a president Hillary Clinton, or a house speaker Dick Gephardt manipulating the purse strings of your church? If President Bush's agenda truly departs from that of the last eight years, why is he so enthusiastic about something as fraught with peril as AOC?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus instructs His followers that, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." This is the choice facing churches under AOC. The question is: how many will have the fortitude to choose the right master? If few do, then AOC will be a faith-based recipe for disaster.

-- nonehere (none@to.give.net), February 13, 2001.


You guys are overthinking it way big time. If we're gonna do charity (which we've all decided to do) would you rather help a gizzilion church based volunteers (all faiths mind you) fulfill their hope of helping out or would you rather the check in the mail approach or a widened bureau of crats?

Churchy types ain't that scary. Lighten up.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 14, 2001.


Corinthians 9:7 would be a good read for any union member wondering where his dues go. Thanks 'nowhere', had forgotten that one.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 14, 2001.


nonehere, nowhere, what the hell

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 14, 2001.

Carlos you seem like a smart guy, can ya help me? See just the other day I found me little self bored(ya hard to believe I know). So I switched on that there TV thing, and what did I see? but 3 or 4 teletubbies. Cute little guys they are.

Anyhow I'm a watching and all of a sudden it dawned on me, these guys would make great cabinet appointments for GW! I mean they are adorable, who wouldn't back their plans? I would, and I bet you would too good buddy, don't ya agree? None of the overthinking which burdens us human folk. Hell these little guys even come with their own TVs on their bellys! does it get anymore kewl?

So how do we get these guys the j-o-b? I know GW watches, so he knows what we know. Maybe it is Cheney who doesn't understand like "we" do, maybe, what ya think?

Think of the wonderul world we could have if the tubbies ran things. No more hand-outs, churchs, just legs to lift and letters to learn. While I await your advice, I take comfort in knowing it but hours away that we can all return once again to teletubbyland.

-- (doc_paulie@hotmail.com), February 14, 2001.


????? Was that supposed to make sense?

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), February 14, 2001.

Carlos: "Churchy types ain't that scary."

Yeah. Most aren't. But use a little imagination. You are thinking in terms of little congregations, probably because you grew up with one or attend one now. Trouble is, those little congregations can barely keep the church heated and the pastor paid. They aren't going to get ambitious and set up some charity that will serve hundreds in their communities.

Think what happened to mom and pop grocery stores in most places. Some big chain store came in and knocked them off. Then that chain was swallowed by a bigger chain.

You want to know who is going to go for the big government bucks, and get them? It is easy to figure out. The folks who have strong, central organizations pulling in millions of dollars in donations.

Even though I am not "scared" of religious types, I DON'T WANT TO SUBSIDIZE PAT ROBERTSON, you got that??? I object DEEPLY to that. I should not be FORCED TO SUBSIDIZE HIM!!!!

Call it overthinking if you want, but if you can't see I have a legitimate beef here, you are (no offense) a pinhead.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 14, 2001.


Call it overthinking if you want, but if you can't see I have a legitimate beef here, you are (no offense) a pinhead.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 14, 2001.

Well, because we dont see it your way we are pinheads.

Okay, no offense taken....yeah right.

-- member me (old@forum.member), February 15, 2001.



Thanks for a great response, guys. Although I don't have much time right now to throw in my own 2 cents (it's pretty much along the lines of the opening article), here's a little somethin' from the other side (from the 2/14/00 Wall St. Journal)...

Know Us by Our Works

Give faith a chance to solve society's problems.

BY JOHN J. DIIULIO JR.

Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

President Bush has created a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As the first director of this new office, I am heartened by the support that is pouring in from all quarters.

Not all reaction has been sympathetic, however, and some sharp questions have been asked about our agenda. I would like to address these concerns, and to allay some unfounded fears.

First, nobody has suggested that federal social programs should be run by religious or charitable organizations or that government should fund programs that make religious profession a condition of receiving services. To put it bluntly, government is not going to “fund religion.” Rather, my office’s work will revolve around concrete objectives.

These are: to augment charitable giving, to end discrimination against religious providers of social services, and to mobilize support for grassroots groups, both religious and secular, that tackle our toughest social problems through public/private partnerships.

To increase charitable giving, the president proposes specific measures, including expanding the federal charitable deduction to the 80 million taxpayers (70% of all filers) who don’t itemize and thus can’t claim this benefit. He also advocates the creation of a “compassion capital fund” that will match private giving with federal dollars. To eliminate discrimination and create opportunities, my office will work through centers in five departments (Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Justice) to reduce regulatory obstacles to the full participation of faith-based and community organizations in the provision of social services.

The fear most frequently expressed by our critics is that my office blurs the line between church and state. I have taught basic American government for nearly two decades, and I love James Madison, the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment as much as anyone does. But the church-state concerns that surround, and might well hound, our initiatives are not well founded.

Some religious leaders posit that almost any interface between government and congregations willy-nilly creates a slippery slope. They aver that mixing the sacred with the secular, even where Caesar has only a dime in the church dollar, will enervate their organizations’ spiritual character, drain the faith from “faith- based” groups and transform them into wards of the welfare state.

Comprehensive data on how hundreds of urban congregations serve needy neighbors should relax such fears. According to University of Pennsylvania researcher Ram A. Cnaan, the primary beneficiaries of the congregations’ good works are needy children who aren’t themselves members of the congregation that serves them. In Philadelphia, for example, a city with some 2,000 community-serving congregations, you can count on your fingers and toes the churches, synagogues and mosques that make services contingent on an expression of religious commitment.

Nationally, countless community-serving ministries have had partnerships with secular organizations and public agencies without losing their way. The “charitable choice” provision of the 1996 welfare reform law changed the federal government’s procurement and performance-based contracting rules so that religious organizations that provide social services could compete for support on the same basis as other any nongovernmental providers of these services, and do so without having to hide their religious basis.

Besides, just because somebody levels a playing field doesn’t mean that it will become obligatory for everyone to suit up and play. If the Rev. Wilson Goode in Philadelphia or the Rev. Floyd Flake in New York or any other community-based religious leader wishes to enter in partnership with government, why should the concerns of those who would opt out keep such leaders from participating? Likewise, why shouldn’t a substance-abuser, ordered by a court to obtain treatment, be given a list of state-approved providers that includes faith-based programs?

Some strict civil libertarians prophesy that almost any government/religious partnerships will corrupt the state and embolden religious bigots by degenerating into tax-subsidized proselytizing. They insist there’s no way to keep federal funds from spilling over into collection plates, and no way to prevent money from flowing to groups representing malevolent traditions.

Well, look at where we are right now: Only about 4% of federal domestic spending is administered directly by federal employees. Instead, Washington’s programs are administered by vast networks of government agencies, for-profit firms and nonprofit organizations. Most of the participating nonprofits are secular, and most are OK. But do none legally perform work and advocate ideas that are offensive to many Americans? C’mon.

Likewise, it’s true that if, say, a church spends $10 on Bibles and $10 on soup, and you give the church $10 more, it can now spend $20 on Bibles and the same $10 on soup. But as anyone who has ever actually worked in the secular nonprofit administration of government grants and programs knows, money is equally fungible (and reprogrammable) where no priests or other religious people are found. Also, we should give federal civil servants their due. Four decades of government-by-proxy have led them to develop mostly reliable procedures for segregating program accounts and enforcing compliance with antidiscrimination policies.

Supposing, however, that, despite the benevolent traditions and just plain good people behind the vast majority of religious social service providers; despite the fact that malicious intentions and characters are probably no more (and arguably rather less) common in community-serving ministries than they are in other organizations; and regardless of how faithfully all relevant funding and antidiscrimination rules are followed by all concerned, some federal money—say a penny out of every $10,000—nonetheless finds its way to a group whose nonnegligible nastiness has a religious-theological bent as opposed to a political-ideological one.

What then?

If you shout “stop” to charitable choice because, despite all the secular options and safeguards, there is a tiny probability of funding nasty people who call themselves religious, then you ought also to shut down the extant government-by-proxy system; it has its nasty people, too. While you’re at it, avoid unplugging toasters (you could catch fire) and crossing the street (you could get run over).

Libertarians are usually resistant to risk-aversion arguments, but on this issue some have already succumbed, driven there in part by the notion that federal faith-based and community initiatives will further delay the withering away of the welfare state. I can only refer them to the unmistakable lessons of 1994-96—when sweeping efforts were made to slash government programs—and submit that the grunt work at hand involves devolving federal programs, where appropriate, to the grassroots level. This should not only yield major, cost-saving improvements in government performance, but also strengthen civil society, restrain government growth and make it possible for all Americans to grasp economic opportunity and avoid public dependence.

My office’s third main task is to work with local leaders to identify and support faith-based and community programs that address social needs. These include expanding effective literacy programs, mentoring millions more at-risk youth, reducing prisoner recidivism, supplying sound drug treatment, closing the digital divide and expanding home eldercare programs. We are on the prowl for best-practices programs that are designed to operate on a citywide scale and make it easy to track their performance.

There are, as yet, no suitably scientific studies that “prove” the efficacy or cost-effectiveness of faith-based approaches to social ills, or that support the success claims of certain well-known national faith-based programs. But we already know more of a scientific nature about the extent and efficacy of these programs than the architects of the Great Society did when they launched their big-government initiatives in the 1960s. Such studies as we have are generally encouraging. More research is under way, and we look forward to generating not only more initiatives, but more reliable data on how faith-based and community initiatives have fared both in absolute and relative terms.

Facts, not faith; performance, not politics; results, not religion; and, we pray, humility, not hubris, will guide my office in advising President Bush and in helping the administration put flesh on the bone of compassionate conservatism. From the results of literacy and other programs to the riches of racial reconciliation, we will be happy to fight for our ideas, delighted to battle on behalf of grassroots healers, and grateful to be judged by our works.

Mr. DiIulio is director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.


"Well, because we dont see it your way we are pinheads."

Nope. You rushed a couple of furlongs past what I said, or what I meant. You could disagree with me and not be a pinhead, simply by hefting my judgment and noticing it had some weight, however puny.

I reserve pinhead status to those who can't even catch what I am driving at, or understand that there might be something to it. The sort who just gape at you as if you were speaking random words. Or those who believe that when they close their eyes, you go away.

Disagreement I can take. Total incomprehension is a bit much.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 15, 2001.


Mr. DiIulio's piece has failed to convince me of the wisdom of this "faith-based" program.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), February 15, 2001.

Some of these faith-based programs have been in place for a while now, particularly in Texas. I'm sure that SOME of them do some good, while others are shoddily run. It's really up to the folks who need the services to look into them before they submit loved ones to possible abuse. I'd suggest the same type of appraisal some of us have used before entering our children in day-care or our elderly parents into assisted-living facilities. Drop in on them unannounced. If they refuse to show you the facilities and allow you to speak to the folks who spend time there, cross them off your list.

One program

There were always "hitches" to these programs. I remember many years back attending counseling with my oldest, who I thought was chosing the wrong path in life. I did the "joint" counseling because...well...she WAS my oldest, and they didn't come with a manual, so I figured *I* could be as much to fault as she.

We did some time with the counselor together, and we did some time with the counselor separately. One day after HER session, my daughter said, "Mom. Bill asked me if I had a problem with alcohol. I told him about the time that you let me have a sip of wine at dinner and he said, "Can I write down, then, that you have a problem with alcohol? We get more money if you do." My daughter said, "Will my mom pay less for this if I say, "Yes"? He said, "No."

I can't really say we got much out of this counseling, but I DID enjoy the group meetings with other parents. Much like watching Roseanne, I went away thinking, "and I thought MY kid had problems."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), February 15, 2001.


We are coming for you!

-- Jimmy and Roselyn Carter (Xtian_Xtremists@Habitat.forHumanity), February 15, 2001.

I found DiIulio's article to be a compound of misleading or vague statements. Almost any paragraph could supply an example. How about this one:

"Only about 4% of federal domestic spending is administered directly by federal employees."

Notice the word "directly". Also, did he include Social Security in this 4% figure? If not, why not?

DiIulio goes on to state:

"Most of the participating nonprofits are secular, and most are OK. But do none legally perform work and advocate ideas that are offensive to many Americans? C'mon."

Where have I heard this argument before... oh, yeah, I know... "Jimmy's mother lets HIM burp at the table, so why can't I?"

But what is most offensive about this article (to me) is when he tells us that our fears are groundless. Now, the only way to know this would be to know the specifics about how it would work. And if DiIulio knows the specifics, he didn't share them with us. Instead he tut-tuts at us, chides us, and throws out a smokescreen of statistics and jargon to hide behind.

I HATE IT when there are hard questions that need answers and I am handed a bunch of soft soap and evasion.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), February 15, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ