THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

It is my contention that the modern demagogues of the religious right are attempting to tear down the wall of separation, as Jefferson put it, and so many others after have called it. I am sceptical of the motives of the leadership of the charismatic christians, although i hold no brief to denigrate the membership of those confessions--i simply consider them misguided. Their leaders, i believe, seek personal power, for however much any of them might claim a higher moral mission--some few might be sincere in this, although i doubt if that describes many. The laity of these religions i doubt not are sincere, and their belief in a moral system which ought to be imposed makes them easily the tools of their leadership. I believe this to be unconstitutional, as well as opposed to the traditions of our nation's finest leaders throughout our political history. I would like to know your thoughts on the issue.

All the federal government needs to do is not espouse a specific religion, and avoid grey areas where it might appear that they are doing so. Should you have to swear on a Bible in a federal court? No. Should "In God We Trust" be on our money? No. Should ALL comers be allowed to compete for federal aid dollars whether secular or faith-based, so long as all faiths are permitted equal access? Yes.

Take Didion's chapter on Christian journalist and would-be social policy expert Marvin Olasky. A journalism professor at the University of Texas, Olasky authored the book, Compassionate Conservatism, the title of which became a central theme of George W. Bush's 2000 campaign.

Didion notes that the conservative Christian magazine Olasky edits, World, has run articles featuring headlines such as "Homosexuals take the offensive," "Abortion Speech Police," "Texas students fight for pre-game prayers," and "Darwinists circle wagons against science teacher."

In one issue, the World agonized over the dilemma of whether or not music fans should buy the CD's of divorced Christian singers. "How credible can evangelicals be in condemning such sins as homosexuality and extramarital sex when so many seem so tolerant of the sin of divorce?"

This is all cute and funny, until one realizes that Newt Gingrich, upon taking over leadership of the House of Representatives in 1995, said this: "Our models are Alexis de Tocqueville and Marvin Olasky."

Cute and funny until you realize that Olasky served as an early advisor to candidate George W. Bush, who then drew upon Olasky for a key campaign speech in 1999, calling for federal funding to religious groups for social programs. Mind you, this proposed funding is not for religious groups like Catholic Charities, which serve a broad clientele, and bring in their religion around the edges. Catholic Charities and other groups already receive federal funding. The Olasky-Bush plan was to give federal money to social service groups in which religion is the method of treatment, in which religion is essential to the program's mission.

"Sometimes our greatest hope is not found in reform. It is found in redemption," then-candidate Bush said in a key 1999 speech in Indianapolis, a speech that drew little derision from the mainstream news media. The then-candidate promised that his administration would fund the religious social service groups "without changing or corrupting them."

Hello, Didion quietly screams. Why is this blatantly conservative religious talk being allowed into the public sphere without so much as a murmur of objection on the part of the mainstream news media, the Democrats or the broad national political class?

The point is not that the mainstream media failed to cover Olasky. The mainstream newspapers ran several articles on him. Rather, the point is that Bush got away with affiliating with such a man at a time when he was calling for the Republican Party to "reach out" to non-traditional Republican voters.

In the first place, religious organizations receiving federal dollars would do so without regard to their proportionate representation within the populace--it would be impossible to guarantee equality of this access which you always tout, and this would lead to recrimination and resentments.

In the next, religious organizations always have and always will discriminate in hiring based upon professed religious belief, and that would amount to government participation in unfair labor practice at whatever point such a group received a "secular contract."

In the next, there would ever be a justifiable suspicion that the organization in question had prosletizing as its primary goal rather than the stated purpose of the "secular contract," leading once again to the recrimination and resentments i earlier made mention of.

Finally, there is no reason to assume that a religious organization has the necessary expertise to carry out the contract. Quite the contrary, religious organizatons are headed by those who studies are in a field for which the government currently has no applicable use, and the membership who would perform such activties are not assuredly qualified to do so. The government does not contract with persons or organizations to do environmental studies because of their professed good will, but because of their demonstrable expertise--and the same applies to any other area in which the government lets contracts. There is no area in public life in which religious organizations can by their nature be said to possess an expertise which warrants spending government revenues to employ them.

Quite apart from all of this, anyone who would claim that the Shrub's plan for "faith-based initiatives" is intended to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck is either playing fast and loose with the truth, or is hopelessly naive.

I think what Setanta is addressing is the notion that church volunteers will have the necessary credentials to adminster all that is needed in the existing programs. I don't believe they do. I didn't see any insult in the final statement unless someone is volunteering to fit the profile.