Blurring The Lines
The wall that is supposed to separate church and state turns out not be much of a wall at all. In fact, the wall has become so porous when it comes to federal funding of church projects that churches have hired Washington lobbyists to help in getting tax dollars. From today's NY Times:
Religious organizations have long competed for federal contracts to provide social services, and they have tried to influence Congress on matters of moral and social policy — indeed, most major denominations have a presence in Washington to monitor such legislation. But an analysis of federal records shows that some religious organizations are also hiring professional lobbyists to pursue the narrowly tailored individual appropriations known as earmarks.
A New York Times analysis shows that the number of earmarks for religious organizations, while small compared with the overall number, have increased sharply in recent years. From 1989 to January 2007, Congress approved almost 900 earmarks for religious groups, totaling more than $318 million, with more than half of them granted in the Congressional session that included the 2004 presidential election. By contrast, the same analysis showed fewer than 60 earmarks for faith-based groups in the Congressional session that covered 1997 and 1998. ...
As the number of faith-based earmarks grew, the period from 1998 to 2005 saw a tripling in the number of religious organizations listed as clients of Washington lobbying firms and a doubling in the amount they paid for services, according to an analysis by The Times. [Emphasis added]
The situation is quite a torturous twist on Jesus' "render unto Caesar" comment. Just how extensive the use of earmarks (which are not reviewed under the normal budgetary process, merely slipped into pending legislation at the last minute) is detailed in a chart put together by the Times here. The list is staggering. Lest we liberals get too sanctimonious about the GOP's abuse of the process, the Times article leads with an example of a religious college getting funds for a highway leading into the school courtesy of Rep. John Murtha. What is so distressing about the use of the earmark process (itself a travesty) is just what the requests frequently involve:
...many of the earmarks address the prosaic institutional needs of some specific religious group, like the ones giving the Mormon Church control over two parcels of federal land of historic significance to the church, transferring 10 acres of federal forest land to a small church in Florida, allowing a historic church surrounded by a federal park in Ohio to use public land to expand its parking space, and handing several acres of government land over to a Catholic college in New Hampshire. [Emphasis added]
Hello? We're giving away federal property to churches for bigger parking lots?
Even if the federal monies were being given to the churches for charitable works, however, it still is a questionable constitutional practice. First of all, many of these projects involve nothing more than government outsourcing its responsibilities for providing for the common weal. That's why we pay taxes. More importantly, however, the separation of church and state was designed to keep the church, any church, from meddling in governmental affairs and to keep the government from meddling in church affairs. They are different spheres.
Look, I'm a Christian. I know what Jesus said about feeding the hungry and, by extension, sheltering the homeless. That's why I contribute my own money (and not my neighbor's) to those projects that do so. I do not contribute to "abstinence only" galas, and I don't want my government doing so either.
I think those churches so affluent they can afford to hire lobbyists might find a better way to spend their money.
Religious organizations have long competed for federal contracts to provide social services, and they have tried to influence Congress on matters of moral and social policy — indeed, most major denominations have a presence in Washington to monitor such legislation. But an analysis of federal records shows that some religious organizations are also hiring professional lobbyists to pursue the narrowly tailored individual appropriations known as earmarks.
A New York Times analysis shows that the number of earmarks for religious organizations, while small compared with the overall number, have increased sharply in recent years. From 1989 to January 2007, Congress approved almost 900 earmarks for religious groups, totaling more than $318 million, with more than half of them granted in the Congressional session that included the 2004 presidential election. By contrast, the same analysis showed fewer than 60 earmarks for faith-based groups in the Congressional session that covered 1997 and 1998. ...
As the number of faith-based earmarks grew, the period from 1998 to 2005 saw a tripling in the number of religious organizations listed as clients of Washington lobbying firms and a doubling in the amount they paid for services, according to an analysis by The Times. [Emphasis added]
The situation is quite a torturous twist on Jesus' "render unto Caesar" comment. Just how extensive the use of earmarks (which are not reviewed under the normal budgetary process, merely slipped into pending legislation at the last minute) is detailed in a chart put together by the Times here. The list is staggering. Lest we liberals get too sanctimonious about the GOP's abuse of the process, the Times article leads with an example of a religious college getting funds for a highway leading into the school courtesy of Rep. John Murtha. What is so distressing about the use of the earmark process (itself a travesty) is just what the requests frequently involve:
...many of the earmarks address the prosaic institutional needs of some specific religious group, like the ones giving the Mormon Church control over two parcels of federal land of historic significance to the church, transferring 10 acres of federal forest land to a small church in Florida, allowing a historic church surrounded by a federal park in Ohio to use public land to expand its parking space, and handing several acres of government land over to a Catholic college in New Hampshire. [Emphasis added]
Hello? We're giving away federal property to churches for bigger parking lots?
Even if the federal monies were being given to the churches for charitable works, however, it still is a questionable constitutional practice. First of all, many of these projects involve nothing more than government outsourcing its responsibilities for providing for the common weal. That's why we pay taxes. More importantly, however, the separation of church and state was designed to keep the church, any church, from meddling in governmental affairs and to keep the government from meddling in church affairs. They are different spheres.
Look, I'm a Christian. I know what Jesus said about feeding the hungry and, by extension, sheltering the homeless. That's why I contribute my own money (and not my neighbor's) to those projects that do so. I do not contribute to "abstinence only" galas, and I don't want my government doing so either.
I think those churches so affluent they can afford to hire lobbyists might find a better way to spend their money.
Labels: Separation of Church and State
posted by Diane at 3:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home