Faith-Based
Initiatives
During
the 2000 presidential campaign, Republican candidate
George W. Bush proposed giving federal money to
religious organizations in support of their
charitable community work. While many religious
leaders expressed concern about government
interference, some Christians cheered the idea as
government endorsement of religion—presumably their
religion, since it's the only one with which they are
familiar.
However, once it came
time to put the plan into action, our theocratic
friends discovered to their horror that Christianity
is not the only religion in the United States.
Still, they were confident that government could
choose the "right" religions to receive
federal funding. An Associated Press news
article* illustrates the view:
| The
confusion has its roots in the last year's [2000]
presidential campaign, when Bush was asked
whether the Nation of Islam, led by Louis
Farrakhan, would be eligible for government
contracts. "I do not believe that any
government funding should go to organizations
like the Nation of Islam that spread
hatred," Bush wrote in a letter to the
Anti-Defamation League (AP). |
But
it is nearly impossible to identify any major
religious group which has never spread hatred in some
form. Especially among western religions, the
denigration of "the competition" as immoral
infidels and devil-worshipers is an ancient custom,
dutifully preserved by militant fundamentalists in
the wake of recent mainstream moderation.
Furthermore, the "establishment" provision
in the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids
preferential treatment of religions by government.
| U.S.
Constitution, Amendment I (in part): Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or the free exercise
thereof . . . |
Obviously,
if government funds are to be allocated to religious
groups, those funds must be distributed impartially
among all qualifying religions requesting such
funding. The AP article continues:
"It's
a settled issue of constitutional law," said
John DiIulio, director of the White House Office
of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives.
"The
Constitution requires equal treatment," said
Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the
Separation of Church and State. "If you fund
the Methodists, then you've got to fund the
Muslims and the Mormons, too" (AP). |
Not
to mention Baha'is, Buddhists, Confucians, Daoists,
Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Scientologists,
Shintoists, Unificationists, and Wiccans. Though
habitually excluded by many Christians from their
understandably narrow view of religion, these and
many other groups are recognized as bona fide
religious sects, both in the United States and around
the world.
Consequently, some
long-time advocates of government support for
religion are now having second thoughts. They
evidently suspect that other religious groups
(certainly not their own!) might misuse government
funds intended for public service, subtly employing
those resources for indoctrination and proselytizing
instead.
| Later,
the Rev. Pat Robertson caused a stir when he
expressed concern about giving money to groups
like the Church of Scientology, Hare Krishnas and
the Unification Church. Government's traditional
refusal to fund religious groups may not be
right, he suggested, but it has had the positive
effect of sometimes keeping non-mainstream
religious groups out of the loop (AP). |
Robertson
(whose own views are decidedly
"non-mainstream" from most people's
perspective) expresses a naïve but popular view
reflected in opinion polls: Spending taxpayers'
money on religion is dandy, but only if it's our
religion; we don't want government giving our
money to those filthy heathens across town! The
alleged "heathens," meanwhile, are just as
vehemently opposed to government's giving their
tax money to "wacko bigots."
As an arbiter of which
religions are worthy of public support for charitable
work, Pat Robertson is clearly no less biased than
Louis Farrakhan, L. Ron Hubbard, or Sun Myung
Moon. Each is equally convinced that he has a
direct link to God and a monopoly on Truth.
They and their followers are entitled to their
beliefs, of course, as are we all. But U.S.
government cannot indulge in sectarian discrimination
without violating the Constitution (which, contrary
to popular myth, was not
written by Christian partisans). If contracts
are offered to religious groups, they must be offered
to all faiths; it's either everyone or no
one. As we've said time and again: Be
careful what you wish (pray) for, because you just
might get it!
Related article: Prayer in
Public Schools
*News article source: Associated
Press, Washington. "All Religious Groups Could
Benefit From Faith-Based Funding." 7 May 2001.
CNN Allpolitics. <http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/07/religion.charities.ap/index.html>
|
