The Good Kind Of Wall
As a Christian liberal, I'm always amazed that a lot of folks just don't get the concept of religious freedom as guaranteed under our Constitution. In my opinion, the whole point is that government is not supposed to intrude on the citizen's right to practice whatever belief or non-belief system he or she chooses, even if that intrusion is a supportive one. No religion is to be preferred over another by the government. There is to be a complete separation. How hard is that?
Apparently, very hard. The growth of federal funding of "faith-based initiatives" over the past fifteen or so years seems to indicate that the government is perfectly willing to let religious organizations do its work and will even subsidize them for doing so. I think the drafters of the Constitution would be appalled by this trend. So does Brooke Allen, who wrote about the issue in an op-ed piece in today's LA Times.
RELIGIOUS organizations throughout the country are accorded countless exemptions from taxes and federal regulations. A New York Times article this month claimed that since 1989, more than 200 such special arrangements, protections and exemptions have been included in congressional legislation and endorsed by politicians of both major parties. The practice of regulatory exemptions and tax breaks for churches and religious groups gained momentum under President Clinton and has greatly accelerated under President Bush, who has tried through his faith-based initiative to create new legal precedents for such advantages and to make religious groups eligible for numerous state and federal grants and contracts.
...The people who really did build this nation most definitely did not define "religious freedom" as the right of churches or other religious groups to benefit from taxpayer dollars. In fact, James Madison, the thinker who probably contributed more than any other to the legal foundations of our nation and who is frequently referred to as the father of the Constitution, was unambiguous on the subject.
...in a direct swipe at what people today would call faith-based initiatives, Madison stated his objection even to governmental sanction and support of a church's charitable activities. "Because the Bill vests in the said incorporated Church," he said, "an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority, which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precident [sic] for giving to religious Societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
He did not approve, in other words, of churches and religious societies being given a "legal agency" (including taxpayer funds) to carry into effect "a public and civil duty." The public weal is the responsibility of the government itself, funded through taxation. Any charitable work churches might undertake is "pious charity," and as such a voluntary act on the part of church members.
Supporters of the faith-based initiative point out, with justice, the many wonderful charitable programs religious groups have provided, and some of them accuse separationists of waging a war against religion. This distorts the argument severely.
Separationists are not attacking religion. They are merely reminding us that religion and church membership, under our Constitution, are defined as voluntary — the general population cannot be compelled to underwrite any particular church. That is what freedom of religion means. [Emphasis added]
That religious organizations have provided charitable services to those in need is a laudable activity. However, it is a voluntary act, much as church attendance is. Government has no business underwriting that charitable service, because to do so is to indicate a preference in a very concrete way. That's the first part of the equation.
The second part is that the government is charged with the duty to provide for the public well-being: safe streets, clean air and water, an economy that enables workers to find jobs. Government needs to do its job, not outsource it to favored religious organizations.
Apparently, very hard. The growth of federal funding of "faith-based initiatives" over the past fifteen or so years seems to indicate that the government is perfectly willing to let religious organizations do its work and will even subsidize them for doing so. I think the drafters of the Constitution would be appalled by this trend. So does Brooke Allen, who wrote about the issue in an op-ed piece in today's LA Times.
RELIGIOUS organizations throughout the country are accorded countless exemptions from taxes and federal regulations. A New York Times article this month claimed that since 1989, more than 200 such special arrangements, protections and exemptions have been included in congressional legislation and endorsed by politicians of both major parties. The practice of regulatory exemptions and tax breaks for churches and religious groups gained momentum under President Clinton and has greatly accelerated under President Bush, who has tried through his faith-based initiative to create new legal precedents for such advantages and to make religious groups eligible for numerous state and federal grants and contracts.
...The people who really did build this nation most definitely did not define "religious freedom" as the right of churches or other religious groups to benefit from taxpayer dollars. In fact, James Madison, the thinker who probably contributed more than any other to the legal foundations of our nation and who is frequently referred to as the father of the Constitution, was unambiguous on the subject.
...in a direct swipe at what people today would call faith-based initiatives, Madison stated his objection even to governmental sanction and support of a church's charitable activities. "Because the Bill vests in the said incorporated Church," he said, "an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority, which being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precident [sic] for giving to religious Societies as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."
He did not approve, in other words, of churches and religious societies being given a "legal agency" (including taxpayer funds) to carry into effect "a public and civil duty." The public weal is the responsibility of the government itself, funded through taxation. Any charitable work churches might undertake is "pious charity," and as such a voluntary act on the part of church members.
Supporters of the faith-based initiative point out, with justice, the many wonderful charitable programs religious groups have provided, and some of them accuse separationists of waging a war against religion. This distorts the argument severely.
Separationists are not attacking religion. They are merely reminding us that religion and church membership, under our Constitution, are defined as voluntary — the general population cannot be compelled to underwrite any particular church. That is what freedom of religion means. [Emphasis added]
That religious organizations have provided charitable services to those in need is a laudable activity. However, it is a voluntary act, much as church attendance is. Government has no business underwriting that charitable service, because to do so is to indicate a preference in a very concrete way. That's the first part of the equation.
The second part is that the government is charged with the duty to provide for the public well-being: safe streets, clean air and water, an economy that enables workers to find jobs. Government needs to do its job, not outsource it to favored religious organizations.
posted by Diane at 4:30 AM
1 Comments:
Sadly, too many political practitioners who used just to wrap themselves in the flad and accuse the opponent of being unpatriotic to disagree with them, are playing that game with religion. It really ought to revolt even the most dimwitted to have any political figure act in partisan self-interest, as is happening with the wordy commitment to 'faith-based charities' which has been unsupported by funds.
The Kuo book which weighs in on these crimes [masquerading as Christian values] mentions an event that points out the unquestioning bias of his peers; 'Kuo tells a story about meeting a member of the review panel at a party. He says she giggled as she recalled, "when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero." '
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601101.html
Bad enuff that being part of the Group means judging the Others as just not Christian. But use of public funds for the support of purely political, one-sided measures is a return to the bad old days of Nixon and Ollie North. And it is misuse of public funds, a crime.
From Ruth, who Diane has kindly says may continue guestblogging but it was the post she made that I'm agreeing with, this way, since I never can remember passwords.
Post a Comment
<< Home