McGentrix wrote:
What exactly has Bush done to "force his version of Christianity on the American public"?
Maybe I should put more emphasis on exactly?
http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0408/18/politics-245649.htm
Bush's faith-based changes scrutinized
By Don Lattin / San Francisco Chronicle
President Bush has gone "under the radar" and around Congress to spread his faith-based initiative throughout the federal government, according to a new study.
The study, compiled by researchers at the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, N.Y., is one of the first comprehensive looks at administration efforts to redirect government grants to churches and other faith-based groups.
"Religious organizations are now involved in government-encouraged activities ranging from building strip malls for economic improvement to promoting child car seats," the study states.
Taken together, the report finds that the Bush programs "mark a major shift in the constitutional separation of church and state."
"Few if any presidents in recent history have reached as deeply into or as broadly across the government to implement a presidential initiative administratively," said institute director Richard Nathan.
The study focuses on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which has set up faith-based branch offices in 10 federal agencies ranging from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Administration officials say the faith-based initiative is meant to merely "level the playing field" so churches and other religious groups can compete for billions of dollars the federal government hands out each year through government social service contracts.
Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said Monday that he hadn't had time to read the entire study.
"But parts of it that I have read seem to lay out dark motives for what is happening," Towey said in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. "What it shows is that the president is taking the steps he promised he would take to end discrimination against faith-based groups."
Towey questioned the institute's motives and said it had not interviewed him about the program he runs. "They have a point of view," he said.
Religious groups such as Catholic Charities USA and Lutheran Social Services have long gotten government funding to feed the poor, heal the sick and house the homeless. But they were required to set up separate nonprofit agencies to run those programs and to operate under strict rules that forbid them to proselytize or limit hiring to employees of a particular faith or religious denomination.
So far, Congress has resisted administration proposals to rewrite the rules and loosen long-standing restrictions against preaching in publicly funded poverty programs.
What the new study by the Rockefeller Institute's Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy shows is how the administration has pushed its agenda through presidential fiat.
Most of the report relies on the government's own statistics and Bush administration statements about expanding church involvement in social welfare programs.
Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, called the new study "very alarming."
"This administration seems obsessed with faith-based solutions for everything," Conn said. "What they don't seem to worry about is the Constitution."
Even the Department of Agriculture now has its own office of faith-based initiatives, Conn noted.
"Maybe they're going to pray for rain," he said.
http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Faith_Based_Initiatives.htm
Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives Violate Religious Freedom
By providing federal funds to religious groups performing social services, President George W. Bush is trampling the American principle of religious freedom. He either does not understand the principle or has little respect for it.
Democracy and separation of powers have also taken hits from Bush's faith-based initiatives. Congress declined to enact his proposal for nearly two years, mainly because federal dollars would be going to groups practicing religious discrimination in hiring.
While the people's representatives debated, Bush grew tired of waiting and decided in December 2002 to act alone. He began issuing executive orders making pervasively religious groups eligible to receive billions of dollars from the federal government in exchange for providing public services.
Bush similarly disregarded numerous judicial decisions indicating that church-state separation is violated by his scheme to fund religious organizations. He arrogantly and recklessly plowed ahead by usurping the functions of both Congress and the courts.
If it ain't broke . . .
For many years, groups affiliated with religion have received government funds to perform social services. But they were required to keep the services separate from religious activities.
The separation was usually done by setting up a nonprofit corporation to provide the government-funded services. The nonprofit entity was distinct from the religious organization, had an independent board, and did not engage in religious discrimination in hiring employees or providing services.
Additionally, the services were delivered in accordance with widely accepted professional standards and free from religious proselytizing. Because the organization operated in a nonsectarian and nondiscriminatory manner - neither promoting nor opposing religion - government funding and regulation of its operations did not violate church-state separation.
Although this system worked well for many years and provided substantial funding to religiously affiliated groups, it was not good enough for Bush. He viewed the refusal to fund pervasively religious organizations not as respect for church-state separation but as discrimination against religion.
Bush's bosh
Bush therefore declared an end to "the days of discriminating against religious groups just because they are religious." He argued that "governments can and should support effective social services provided by religious people, so long as they work and as long as those services go to anyone in need, regardless of their faith."
Bush sees no problem with government-funded social services being delivered in religious settings. He asserts that "when government gives that support, it is equally important that faith-based institutions should not be forced to change [their] character or compromise their prophetic role. . . . It should not matter if there is a rabbi on the board, or a cross on the wall, or crescent on the wall, or religious commitment in the charter."
In fact, Bush believes that social programs are more effective when religion is added. He touts his proposal by saying: "No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives. That is done when someone, some good soul, puts an arm around a neighbor and says, 'God loves you, and I love you, and you can count on us both.'" He also argues: "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith."
Proclaiming that "faith-based charities work daily miracles," Bush apparently thinks religious conversion is the answer to crime, drug addiction, homelessness, teen pregnancy, and other social problems - as long as religious groups are given enough federal dollars.
Thus, Bush's faith-based initiatives allow pervasively religious groups to receive grants from the federal government to perform public services. The services can be performed in churches and similar places where scriptures, icons, and other religious symbols permeate the environment. And the groups can practice religious discrimination in hiring employees to provide the services.
Bush has even proposed using federal dollars to build and renovate churches and other religious structures - if part of the building is used for social services. Supposedly, the funding could not exceed the cost of that part and could not finance the principal room used for prayer.
Federal guidelines issued for the faith-based initiatives do prohibit public funds from supporting inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization. But few expect the prohibitions to be enforced, particularly in light of Bush's incessant claims about the power of faith to change lives.
Moreover, attempting to distinguish between religious and nonreligious activities is virtually meaningless in regard to operations of pervasively religious organizations. Credibility is strained to the breaking point by calling any activity nonreligious when performed by a religious organization, in a pervasively religious environment, and by persons who had to meet a religious test before being hired.
And the fact is that if government finances any portion of a religious group's operations, that leaves just so much other revenue for the group to use in directly promoting religion. For instance, providing funds to help build a temple frees up money for the church to use in religious advertising and evangelizing. Any public funding of religious organizations is, therefore, government support of religion.
A smaller part of Bush's proposal involves the use of vouchers in an attempt to avoid the prohibitions on funding inherently religious activities. His administration believes that if government gives people vouchers that they can redeem at a faith-based organization of their choice, the organization is free to include as much religion as it wants in providing public services.
Bush clearly appears more interested in the religious aspects of social service programs than in whether the counselors are licensed and the procedures have a proven record of effectiveness. He extols programs that make religious conversion the primary goal, and points to the drug treatment program at the Healing Place Church, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as an example of what he wants to support. According to its website, the program relies "solely on . . . the Word of God to break the bands of addiction" and believes "that recovery begins at the Cross."
After hearing Bush crow about the life-changing powers of faith, and seeing his proposals to fund religious groups, columnist Robyn Blumner warned: "Make no mistake, Bush's plan is to have taxpayers underwrite conversion."
Religious freedom dissed
Bush's faith-based initiatives contravene religious liberty in several ways. Any one of them should be sufficient to sink the policy as a violation of church-state separation.
Forcing people to support religion is incompatible with religious liberty
Bush has promoted his proposal by saying "we must not worry about people of faith receiving taxpayers' money." And he declares: "We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time."
But requiring citizens to fund religion is one of the most blatant and offensive violations of religious freedom. Integral to religious liberty is the right to choose whether to support religion and which one to support.
It should be too obvious to state that people lack religious liberty when the government takes their money and gives it to religions they have not freely chosen to assist. Bush, however, is denying Americans the right to choose and sending their tax dollars to religions picked by the government - no matter how strongly some taxpayers may oppose those religions.
The Founders of the U.S. believed that tax support of religion is an egregious violation of religious liberty. In the Virginia Assembly in 1779, Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill opposing a proposal to provide tax revenue for Christian education. His "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" said it is "sinful and tyrannical to compel a man to furnish contributions for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors."
James Madison was equally vehement in denouncing government aid to religion. Joining Jefferson's fight against tax funding of religion, he wrote and distributed his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments."
The Remonstrance contains numerous arguments for religious liberty and church-state separation. On the right of the individual to choose whether to support religion, Madison wrote: "The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. . . . It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him."
Madison's Remonstrance was instrumental not only in defeating the proposed tax support of religion in Virginia, but in securing passage of Jefferson's bill in 1785. A few years later, Jefferson's bill was the prototype for the guarantees of religious freedom placed in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which was authored primarily by Madison.
Essential to the Founders' concept of religious liberty, then, was that there would be no public funding of religion. The same view was implemented at the state level. Among the original 13 states, the ones that allowed tax support of religion eventually followed the lead of Virginia and the national government by eliminating it. And virtually all the states that joined the Union in the nineteenth century adopted the principle that public funds would not be used for religion.
It is deeply troubling that although the Founders were extremely concerned about the freedom to choose whether to support religion, Bush doesn't seem concerned about this right at all.
Religious freedom prohibits government from promoting religious conversion
Another way Bush's faith-based initiatives violate religious freedom is by pressuring people to attend religious environments to obtain government benefits. Making matters worse, a reason the government leads them there is to promote religious conversion.
Although federal guidelines prohibit direct proselytizing of recipients while the social services are being rendered, Bush has made clear that the services can be delivered in settings where religious scriptures, icons, and art pervade the environment. The locations can include churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places used primarily for religious worship.
The guidelines also permit religious groups to "invite participants to join in your organization's religious services or events." But the groups cannot require participation in religious activities or condition the receipt of government-funded assistance upon it.
Undoubtedly, Bush hopes the recipients will express interest in the religious messages surrounding them while receiving public services. They can then be referred for religious counseling in a separate room used for that purpose, or in the same room but at a time when government services are not being provided. There, someone can put an arm around them and say, "God loves you, and I love you, and you can count on us both."
In effect, the government-funded social programs function as bait to lure recipients into religious environments. Once there, they are induced into inquiring about religion so that attempts can be made to convert them. And with Bush as president, it's unlikely federal agents will be monitoring the situations to ensure that no overt attempts at conversion are made while public services are being delivered.
Adding to the problem is that recipients of government aid are often in positions of need and dependency, making them more susceptible to religious influences while receiving assistance. They are under pressure to conform to avoid jeopardizing their lifelines to aid, even if conformity means violating their own religious principles.
Their predicament illustrates that whenever government promotes religion, citizens feel coerced to submit to the government's theology instead of following their own beliefs. The pressure is strong and inescapable because of the enormous power government wields over people's lives.
Whether the proselytizing is subtle or blatant, Jefferson and Madison would have objected to this arrangement. Jefferson stated in his "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" that no one should "be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." He and the other Founders saw religious freedom as encompassing the right not to attend religious places.
Madison added that using "religion as an engine of civil policy" constitutes "an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation." The Founders knew from history that government misuses religion for its own purposes and is incompetent to judge competing religious claims.
Religious discrimination in employment is outrageous and harmful
By providing tax funds enabling religious groups to hire based on religious criteria, Bush's faith-based initiatives are responsible for the resulting discrimination.
Religious discrimination could not be more inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits government from interfering with religious freedom. But this is exactly what government does by putting people in a position of having to choose between their religious beliefs and getting a job.
The Framers of the Constitution also specified in Article VI, Clause 3 that there shall be no religious test for any public office. They viewed religious beliefs as being irrelevant to whether a person is qualified to perform governmental functions. They knew that effective public servants could come from all religions and also from the nonreligious.
For example, George Washington said the U.S. government "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, [and] requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. . . ." In hiring workers for his own estate, he explained, "If they be good workmen, they may be . . . Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."
George Bush is no George Washington. Without a twinge of conscience, Bush sanctions bigotry by funding public services performed by workers who have to meet religious tests before being hired.
In addition to disqualifying many applicants for job openings, this discrimination reduces the efficacy of the public services. Faith-based groups reject highly qualified candidates having the wrong religion and hire less-qualified personnel who meet religious standards.
But if the services funded by government are not religious in nature, as Bush claims, there's no justification for using religion as a criterion in hiring. U.S. Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) objected to the religious tests by saying, "Cooking soup and giving it to the poor can be done equally well by persons of all religious beliefs."
Only if the employees are to perform religious functions would there be a reason for allowing religious discrimination in hiring. This fact belies Bush's claim that religion won't be funded.
The discrimination also exposes as untruthful Bush's contention that he is only seeking equal treatment for faith-based organizations. Other social service providers receiving federal funds are not permitted to practice religious discrimination in hiring. Allowing faith-based groups to do so is not equal treatment but favoritism for religion.
Additional problems with the proposal
A number of other problems make faith-based initiatives a bad bargain for both the religious and nonreligious.
In the first place, members donate less to religion when their tax dollars are already going there. Some conclude that because they have given through taxes, they need not contribute as much voluntarily. The influx of government funding thus means decreased support from members and more reliance on government
As the groups become increasingly dependent on public funding, they are vulnerable to losing control of their operations to the government. History teaches that government controls what it funds. For instance, government assistance to religious colleges caused a secularization of many of them and a watering down of their religious message - in some cases virtually to the vanishing point.
Religious colleges found that government attaches strings to funding in order to further its purposes, which are not necessarily consistent with religious purposes. Recipients also must agree to government mandates, oversight, and audits so that public dollars are not misappropriated or used for providing substandard services.
The problem is that when government waves substantial amounts of money in front of religious groups, they often find the temptation irresistible and cave to whatever the government wants, regardless of the impact on their religion. In essence, they betray their principles in exchange for the government's 30 pieces of silver, allowing government to crucify their religious mission.
Accepting public funds also makes religious groups reluctant to criticize government, because they want to avoid biting the hand that feeds them. But by turning a blind eye to government's wrongdoing, the moral integrity of religious organizations is damaged and society loses what can be an important critic of government. Martin Luther King Jr. said: "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state."
And when religious groups start ignoring violations of the public trust, it's just a short step from there to actively participating in, covering up, or making excuses for the malfeasance of public officials. These actions are easy to rationalize when millions of dollars and the survival of a group's programs are at stake.
In fact, according to New York Observer columnist Joe Conason, Bush's faith-based initiatives have already "been transformed into a patronage operation" to further the political designs of government officials.
In his book Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, Conason relates: "During the 2002 midterm election campaign, administration officials suddenly showed up at inner-city churches, seeking to entice African-American ministers politically with federal funding."
Likewise, Church & State magazine reports that Republican leaders used a similar tactic in trying to stem African-American protests of the racially inflammatory comments made by U.S. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott in December 2002.
Even if religion does not actively assist government's wrongdoing, a close relation between the two causes religion to be tainted by public corruption. Thomas Paine described government as a necessary evil. By partnering with a government that sometimes is evil, religion receives from the public the same criticisms and antipathy as are directed at government.
Relying on government support also makes religious organizations lazy and ineffective. Instead of concentrating on developing and marketing an attractive message, the focus shifts to lobbying for government aid. When those efforts prove successful, riding the government's gravy train renders the groups even less inclined to do the hard work of motivating people to become involved and donate voluntarily.
Moreover, when government picks and chooses between religious groups seeking support, an ugly and acrimonious competition between religions ensues. The Religious Right has emphasized that certain "undesirable" religions should be excluded from Bush's program. In this atmosphere, claims of favoritism arise and ecumenical relationships are difficult to attain. Religious groups losing out in the quest for public funding develop resentment toward the winners and against the government that slighted them.
And as Susan Jacoby notes in her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism: "On what basis do we decide which religions - and which factions within religions - are 'moderate' enough to be eligible for tax money? That is precisely the question that the framers of the Constitution never wanted to fall within the authority of any government agency or official."
Further, many people lose respect for religions that need government support. An inherent contradiction exists in claiming to have an omnipotent God on one's side while simultaneously alleging a need for government assistance. Government should aid the sick and the needy rather than waste resources trying to strengthen the Almighty. And if the alleged Omnipotence is not really so strong, government should not assist a fraud.
Finally, contrary to what Bush and other supporters of faith-based initiatives suggest, there's no proof that religious groups provide social services better than secular organizations. Stephen Goldsmith, a Bush administration official hired to oversee part of the initiatives, admitted on National Public Radio on January 29, 2001 he lacks "hard proof" of their superiority.
Bush nevertheless wants to cut funds from secular programs having strong records of effectiveness, when those programs already possess insufficient resources. He would redirect the funds to religious groups using unproven, unaccredited, and unregulated methods.
Conclusion
Bush's faith-based initiatives make substantial and perilous assaults on the principle of religious freedom. He would force taxpayers to support religious doctrines they disagree with, impose religious proselytizing on recipients of government aid, and promote religious discrimination in employment.
The Framers vigorously condemned all those acts when they spoke of religious liberty and the rights of conscience. They separated church and state to prevent government from ever implementing such offensive, intolerant, divisive, and harmful policies.
Additionally, government's purported helping-hands will, after getting a firm grip on religious groups, put them in a chokehold that will enable public officials to control their operations and manipulate them for political purposes.
As U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in opposing Bush's proposal: "The day will come when, having permitted excessive entanglement between religious institutions and the government, there will be no protection for religion when government flexes its muscles."
The Framers foresaw those results, too, when they separated church and state. They knew that separation helps both religion and government.
Many supporters of faith-based initiatives have good intentions. But by displaying a cavalier or oblivious attitude toward violations of religious liberty, they are pursuing an extremely dangerous course.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis's warning is relevant: "Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Federal and state judges are likely to have more appreciation for church-state separation than Bush is displaying. If they do, the courts will declare his entire program to be a patent violation of the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom.
Thank you, let me read these and get back to you.
While the people's representatives debated, Bush grew tired of waiting and decided in December 2002 to act alone. He began issuing executive orders making pervasively religious groups eligible to receive billions of dollars from the federal government in exchange for providing public services.
Bush similarly disregarded numerous judicial decisions indicating that church-state separation is violated by his scheme to fund religious organizations. He arrogantly and recklessly plowed ahead by usurping the functions of both Congress and the courts.
Towey said Conn and the Rockefeller Institute are overreacting to White House efforts.
"President Bush does not want to proselytize or fund religion,'' he said. "We're talking about things like job training and substance abuse prevention, and opening up to small groups that have been shut by the ACLU and a radical fringe that wants an extreme separation of church and state.''
Ok, so you see Bush's faith based inititiatives
Senator Santorum: Candidly Contemptuous of Church-State Separation
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum has big plans for the wall of separation between church and state - mainly, to demolish it.
In a recent New York Times Magazine profile, Santorum was frank in outlining his wall-bashing scheme for writer Michael Sokolove.[/i] As one of the Senate's leading proponents of President George W. Bush's "faith-based" initiative[/i], Santorum plays a key role in the effort to win Congressional approval for bills that would funnel tax dollars to religious groups that offer social services.
The administration argues that religious groups should be allowed to use the federal grants in nearly any way they see fit, including hiring individuals to operate the programs on the basis of religion. Santorum agrees and explained why he would continue to fight for passage of the administration's faith-based scheme.
Santorum may have been too honest. He admitted there is a religious goal behind the initiative, telling Sokolove, "The whole idea of funding people of faith is not just to provide good human services. It's also to provide good human services with that additional touch, if you will, with that aspect of healing that comes through that spiritual intersection."
Beyond subverting federal civil rights laws, which prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, among other factors, the faith-based initiative would provide little or no oversight on how religious groups operate their programs. Indeed, the administration argues that religious groups can operate federally funded social service programs in pervasively sectarian settings.
Again, Santorum says that's the way it should be. He told the newspaper's magazine that faith-based social service providers should in fact be permitted to proselytize by reading religious passages from the Bible during those services.
"Here you have a book that's been pretty well tested over time," Santorum said. "So to say, here are some passages from the Bible that may help you, I don't necessarily see that as a negative."
The story quoted Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn, who accused Santorum of seeking to impose his "religious dogma through law and legislation on everybody in America."
Several of the nation's Founding Fathers on numerous occasions asserted that the First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state. They insisted that religious groups should pay for their own projects and not turn to the taxpayer for help. Santorum wants to change that.
The senator's contempt for the fundamental American principle of church-state separation, of course, has endeared him to the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. Those two, including a slew of other Religious Right leaders, doggedly and disingenuously argue that the nation's founders actually intended America to be a "Christian nation" - even though that sentiment appears nowhere in the Constitution.
Those Americans not longing to live under a Christian theocracy are becoming increasingly alarmed about the musings and actions of Santorum and his supporters. Polling showed that many Americans viewed as offensive the government-led effort to intrude into the tragic family matter involving Terri Schiavo.
In the Senate that ignoble effort, as noted the Times piece noted, was led by Santorum.
In fact, Bush believes that social programs are more effective when religion is added. He touts his proposal by saying: "No government policy can put hope in people's hearts or a sense of purpose in people's lives. That is done when someone, some good soul, puts an arm around a neighbor and says, 'God loves you, and I love you, and you can count on us both.'" He also argues: "Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith."
During his Inaugural Address, Bush signaled his intentions to implement his "faith based initiative" in a fair and equitable way. The critical sentence was this one: "Church and charity, synagogue and mosque lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws." Thus the President was saying in effect that Christians, Jews and Muslims, among others, would be considered as equal partners by his administration.
Pat Robertson was the first prominent cleric to speak up. Offended by the prospect that tax payer dollars might go to groups most Americans could not support, Robertson opined: "The same government grants given to Catholics, Protestants and Jews must also be given to the Hare Krishnas, the Church of Scientology or Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church -- no matter that some may use brainwashing techniques or that the founder of one claims to be the messiah and another that he was Buddha reincarnated. Under the proposed faith-based initiative, all must receive taxpayer funds if they provide ''effective'' service to the poor. In my mind, this creates an intolerable situation."
Jerry Fawell weighed in quickly, suggesting that it would be totally inappropriate, under any circumstances to give federal help to Muslim groups. "The Muslim faith teaches hate," he said flatly. "Islam should be out the door before they knock. They should not be allowed to dip into the pork barrel."
On February 10, a headline in the Sun Myung Moon-owned Washington Times read "Bush continues outreach to Blacks". Bill Sammon reported that President Bush had met in the White House with hundreds of "Black leaders" and told them that his policies "would help Black Americans."
This latest meeting with Black leaders is part of an aggressive strategy by the Republican Party and conservative philanthropy aimed at African American churches and, through them, Black voters -- the Democrat's most loyal constituency.
Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of eve ry circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.
By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given. It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.
I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the oeconomy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.
Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them. Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or wh ich ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.
To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed. And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.
Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
April 30th, 1879
These initiatives well could achieve a pyrrhic victory in which the solution to one problem results in a problem or problems far more serious than the problem solved.
What are my concerns? I want to be specific.
Good try, Candy, but it is just as I said.
A thanks to God, and a public oath to fall underHis will.
Reading comprehension test:
Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people
-------------
What does this passage mean in Candy-speak?
Let's take time out to be honest, shall we?
Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later.
When trying to arrange for workmen in 1784 at Mount Vernon, Washington made clear that he would accept "Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." Washington wrote Lafayette in 1787, "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church that road to heaven which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest and least liable to exception."
Clear evidence of his personal theology is lacking, even on his deathbed when he died a "death of civility" without expressions of Christian hope. His failure to document beliefs in conventional dogma, such as a life after death, is a clue that he may not qualify as a conventional Christian. Instead, Washington may be closer to a "warm deist" than a standard Anglican in colonial Virginia.
He was complimentary to all groups and attended Quaker, German Reformed, and Roman Catholic services. In a world where religious differences often led to war, Washington was quite conscious of religious prejudice. However, he joked about it rather than exacerbated it. Washington once noted that he was unlikely to be affected by the German Reformed service he attended, because he did not understand a word of what was spoken.
Washington was an inclusive, "big tent" political leader seeking support from the large numbers of Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in Virginia, and even more groups on a national level. He did not enhance his standing in some areas by advocating support for a particular theology, and certainly did not identify "wedge issues" based on religious differences. Instead, in late 1775, Washington banned the Protestant celebration of the Pope's Day (a traditional mocking of the Catholic leader) by the Continental Army. He deplored the sectarian strife in Ireland, and wished the debate over Patrick Henry's General Assessment bill would "die an easy death."
Washington was not anti-religion. Washington was not uninterested in religion. He was a military commander who struggled to motivate raw troops in the French and Indian War. He recognized that recruiting the militia in the western part of Virginia required accommodating the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, Baptists, and Dutch Reformed members in officially-Anglican Virginia. He was aware that religious beliefs were a fundamental part of the lives of his peers and of his soldiers. He knew that a moral basis for the American Revolution and the creation of a new society would motivate Americans to support his initiatives - and he knew that he would receive more support if he avoided discriminating against specific religious beliefs.
In the Revolutionary War, Washington supported troops selecting their own chaplains (such as the Universalist John Murray) while trying to avoid the development of factions within the army. Religion offered him moral leverage to instill discipline, reduce theft, deter desertion, and minimize other rambunctious behaviors that upset local residents. It was logical for Washington to invoke the name of the Divine, but it may have been motivated more by a desire for improving life on earth rather than dealing with life after death.
Wahington understood the distinction between morality and religion, and between toleration of differences and full religious liberty. Washington's replies to messages from Jews and Swedenborgians showed he was not merely accepting the differences of religion, tolerating those who had not chosen the correct path. Instead, he endorsed what Jefferson would later define as a "wall of separation between church and state."
Washington used generic terms with his public requests for divine assistance, to the extent that his personal denomination must be classified as "unknown." That vagueness has not stopped Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Unitarian Universalists from claiming him as a member, and has invited others to identity him as a Deist. Washington was a man dedicated to creating national unity, not an exclusionist seeking to identify and select those with correct beliefs for reward in this life or the next. It would have been inconsistent for him to seek to blend the westerners and the Tidewater residents, the Yankees from the north and the slave-owning planters from the South, into one national union - while at the same time supporting narrow religious tests for officeholders, or advocating the superiority of one religious sect over another.
The obelisk we call the Washington Monument is clad in white limestone. When illuminated at night, it glows white. It stands out from the dark background because of the artificial light we project on it; there is no natural light corning from the stone. If we projected a colored light, we'd see the tall Washington Monument as an object glowing with color. Similarly, many writers project onto Washington's life a set of religious beliefs - and see a reflection of what they project.
Mason Locke Weems manufactured stories to establish Washington as a pious Christian, a man who suceeded in part because he prayed for God's blessing. Weems was a parson, and his inaccuracies (including the moralistic "I can not tell a lie" tale aboutcutting down a cherry tree) have shaped the perspective of Washington for two centuries now. Many modern writers still repeat second-hand information of questionable reliability to describe Washington as a traditional Protestant. The individuals who describe Washington's life as one marked by prayer and steady attendance at church are often advocates of a religious perspective, proselytizing the perspective of a particular denomination or at least trying to shape American society so more people attend church regularly.
At times, they cite the generic proclamations issued as a public leader to portray Washington (or even Jefferson!) as a mainstream Christian, and to define the United States as a Christian Nation. Some of those who emphasize the personal faith - or faithlessness - of elected officials use it as a partisan issue. The Moral Majority led by Rev. Jerry Falwell was clearly allied with the Republican Party, and Pat Robertson used religion as part of his campaign for the presidency.
In modern America, many religious leaders consider personal salvation to be fundamental to the strength/survival of American society. The debate about the morality of elected officials has been intense since the realization that Lyndon Johnson lied about the status of war in Vietnam and subsequent Presidents have demonstrated publicly their own lapses, particularly Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
Those who attempt to project a religious theology upon Washington often seek to connect theological beliefs with civic benefits, assuming morality is based on religion. In contrast, Madison and others crafted a government that could succeed even if Americans were not angels, thanks to a balance of powers. Jefferson and other "natural law" theorists assumed that individuals in a mature society would follow a common set of ethical principles, independent of the different religious beliefs held by individuals.
Washington was a man focused throughout his life on gaining honor and respect. He acted in public settings with some personal distance, even coldness, to reduce the likelihood of some informality reducing the respect he sought from others. So it is likely that he would desire political leaders today to also earn respect through moral, virtuous behavior - even at some personal cost to their comfort level.
However, there is little in Washington's life to suggest he would support a political movement based primarily on a moral agenda. To make such a claim requires that we project a light upon the monument of Washington, then look at our own reflected light and claim its source to be Washington. The "myth of Washington" created during his life and shortly thereafter by Parson Weems is not static. Even today, Washington's life can be re-shaped when necessary to fulfill the agenda of a modern mythmaker...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace