U.S. Gave $1B in Faith-Based Funds in 2003

I have to go never....keep the government out of religion....I kind of thought we were founded on that principle....of course we've become so unfounded just lately....

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE LAW AND THE RELATED DISTORTION OF WHAT DISCRIMINATION MEANS

by Gene GarmanThe constitutional prohibition against religion institutions getting their hands in the taxpayers' pocketbook is not discrimination, unless it allows some religions to feed out of the taxpayers' purse and not others. The Establishment Clause prohibits government funding of religion. President Bush's misguided action providing tax money for "faith-based" institutions is unconstitutional. Yet, the President proudly proclaimed the fact that, by Executive Order, he directed taxpayer funding of religion organizations. He is in direct violation of the supreme law of the land. Who says so? James Madison.

James Madison, author of the 1785 "Memorial and Remonstrance" against religion assessments (taxes for support of religion institutions and teachers of the Christian religion--the most significant statement ever written in American history on the subject of religion freedom), must have rolled over in his grave.

Such efforts by pandering politicians is nothing new. James Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555). Go to a college library and read it for yourself because obviously I do not see much about the "Father of the Constitution" in most commentaries on this subject. James Madison addressed the issue:

In two February 1811 veto messages President Madison stated his constitutional objections to congressionally passed faith-based initiative bills. On February 21, President Madison wrote:

"I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

"Because the Bill exceeds the rightful authority, to which Governments are limited by the essential distinction between Civil and Religious functions, and violates, in particular, the Article of the Constitution of the United States which declares, that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.' ... This particular [Episcopal] Church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law....

"Because the Bill vests in the said incorporated Church, an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which ... would be a precedent for giving to religious Societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty" (The Papers of James Madison, Presidential Series, 3:176).

On February 28, President Madison wrote:

"Having examined and considered the Bill ... I now return the same to the House of Representatives in which it originated, with the following objection:

"Because the Bill, in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church, comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States, for the use and support of Religious Societies; contrary to the Article of the Constitution which declares that Congress shall make no law respecting a Religious Establishment" (Papers, Presidential Series, 3:193).

In the United States of America, religion is to be supported voluntarily. Taxes are not given voluntarily. Voluntarism is the essence of the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government ("no test," Art. 6., Sec. 3. and "no law," First Amendment). Government is the essence of coercion. Religion, therefore, is not the business of government at any level. Americans should object to President Bush's unconstitutional action because public tax funds are for public institutions which are owned by all taxpayers (theists and atheists) and because what is directly prohibited cannot be indirectly permitted lest the Constitution and the Establishment Clause become a mockery. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"--neither shall Presidents.

Copyright 2004 Gene Garman

The faith-based initiative is part of the Bush agenda to introduce religion wherever he thinks fit, which is a lot of places. Whether this is part of some deeply held belief or a political calculation, well, I'll let others be the judge of that.

But, for the record, I voted no, never. The whole thing makes me sick...

Forcing the taxpayer to tithe is not any better than the alternative of government supported programs such as GS28. Let's put money into the bureaucracy of the church -- perhaps the Catholic church can use it to pay off their debt in defending pedophiles.

Wouldn't she go to planned parenthood? I have no idea what other agency she would go to.

She'd probably open a phone book and pick something from there.

There's also the problem that religious organisations may find government to be intrusive once they begin to accept federal dollars. The might decide that the strings attached are too tight.

McGentrix - Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't. She might not live near a Planned Parenthood. She might not be savvy enough at that age to go to a place where she could get what she wanted.

The point that I am making, is that once religion gets into the picture, whether it is a cross on the wall, or a policy of not discussing abortions, a client is not getting the the type of disinterested service that he/she would get from a secular agency. A religious agency has a particular agenda, and whether it is overt or covert, it is THERE.

To someone who is colour blind, running a red light, thinking it's green, is no problem until there comes a semi that actually has a green light.

I favor the separation of church and state. I also honor the diversity of individual human beings.

I recognize that some taxpayers are churchgoers--and all the money looks the same in the till.

If "finding Jesus" in prison keeps the con out of prison, I'm all for Jesus and the con having a livelong relationship--even in my tax dollar.

If Muslim women, working through a mosque, can explain to recent Muslim immigrants about women's right in the states, they can use my tax dollars.

If members of a Jewish organization go out on frigid nights and talk the homeless into seeking shelter, my tax dollars are available.

The separation of church and state is important to me--and so is seeing my tax money being spent with visible and permanent results.

Would you apply that rule to Israel as well?

McG wrote: "What is the issue with faith-based charities?"

There is no issue with faith based charities; the issue is with public support for such.

And one issue re public support might be : Who decides which faiths are ok, and which are not ? Satanic worshippers believe themselves to be part of a legitimate faith-based organization.

Barry Goldwater, considered by many to be the "Father of Conservatism", said the following fifty years ago:

"There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

Goldwater, in his latter years, was vocal on how he differed with the conservatives who had taken leadership roles in the GOP. It's easy to forget how right he was about certain key issues. This is one of them.

I voted "Yes" but would have added a caveat that the use of federal monies would be adequately monitored and appropriate accountability enforced.

In my past I was executive director of a large YWCA....the "C" stands for "Christian" which would put us on the list of faith-based organizations though we featured no religious activities ourselves (some religious organizations did use our facilities from time to time.) In conjunction with that, I was instrumental in the formation and chartering of a regional domestic violence association and was active with that group for some time. Before we could raise funds and build an adequately secure shelter, we enlisted volunteer "safe houses' where victims could be safe and cared for until something more permanent could be arranged. The safe houses were never sufficient for the need.

So who did I call when the police called me in the middle of the night needing to do something with a battered woman and her two poorly clad children? My own home was too well known to be secure from a drunken crazed husband or boyfriend with an agenda. I called the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, a local noonday ministries group. They never let me down. They always had someplace for the displaced family to go. All three are intensely religious organizations, sometimes requiring exposure to religion along with the very real and necessary services they provide.

Now what is preferable? The taxpayers fund a government-run organization and, as government always does, eat up most of the funding in bureaucratic overhead? Or doesn't it make more sense to help out these very dedicated and useful organizations that have no motive other than to help people in very real and tangible ways?

I work in a city where there are programs for victims of domestic violence, and these programs are government-run. They do not "as government always does, eat up most of the funding in bureaucratic overhead." And they certainly don't expose clients to religion.

How can you say these church organizations have no motive other than to help, if they insist on the religious component? Seems like the motive is more complex.

George
That would be difficult to do since the state of Israel was established as a Jewish state. That said I have no idea how much if any that religion plays in the daily life in Israel. In my visits to Israel I saw nothing that would suggest that it did and the average Israeli seemed to be as secular as I am.
However, since I am not an Israeli it is not for me to make that judgement. In addition I would venture a guess that their constitution does not call for the separation of Church and state as ours does.

I can say it because I was hands on involved in the process and recorded the results myself. I refuse to believe that exposure to a little non-coercive religion is too heavy a price to pay for a good hot meal, a warm bed, and safe shelter. There were no government-run programs or secular groups doing the same work which is why we started our agency in the first place. I'm not saying there are no government run programs that do not have excessive bureaucratic costs when compared to a well-run program in the private sector, but I've never met one and I've been doing this kind of stuff for a long time. The average welfare recipient, for instance, gets about 1/3 on the dollar of government welfare dollars expended. A well-run private sector charity will do much much better than that.

I don't believe all the religious beliefs held by the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities or that noonday ministries program. But I think it very wise and prudent to not allow our personal prejudices get in the way of people getting the help they need.

No one "chooses" anything. Organaizations, both secular and non-secular, now have equal opportunity to gain funds from the US Govt. No one in the govt. is "choosing" which faiths are ok.

Foxy wrote

It damned well is when tax dollars are paying for it.

Okay Au. I'll put you down as one who thinks it better for people to be cold, naked, and hungry on the street than to be exposed to religion of any kind.

I don't really think that's what he said, but if it helps you put things in black and white terms that you can feel comfortable with, feel free...