|
|
New Initiatives May Be Unconstitutional "President Bush, giving teeth to his father's decade-old "Thousand Points of Light" initiative, launched a broad governmental effort yesterday to invigorate religious charities and other nonprofit organizations in the battle against the nation's social problems. In the first step of what could be an unprecedented collaboration between the government and nonprofits, the president created offices in five Cabinet agencies and the White House with a charge to ease regulations and boost government funding of charities, many of them with religious ties." He also "moved to enhance AmeriCorps and the other national service programs developed in the Clinton administration." In the face of criticism that the new initiatives may be unconstitutional, the Bush camp emphasizes the goal of the program: "boosting communities and civil society." The new measures will also include tax proposals to allow for easier deductions for charitable giving. There has been criticism of the proposals as a dangerous entanglement of government in religion, but support has also come from both sides of the aisle. Part of the program will likely include an agency to solicit private donations to support activities which the government cannot fund because of constitutional issues. The program will also work with AmeriCorps to make better use of its volunteer force, a type of aid which helps avoid the constitutional problems of providing funding to religious institutions. (1)
The Thousand Points of Light We have heard the statement: "Thousand Points of Light", from governor Jeb Bush as well as Rev. Franklin Graham. All we knew is that it had something to do with Freemasonry. Taking a shot in the dark we asked our favorite search engine to find something.
It came up with the "Tranquility Lodge 2000" at http://www.tranquilitylodge2000,org.
We discovered the reason for the thousand points of light. The slogan describes the sky at night with all the stars. The Tranquility Lodge was chartered in outer space on the Moon, by the Grand Lodge of Texas. In 1969 Texas Grandmaster of Ancient and Free and Accepted Masons, Guy Smith, declared and authorized to claim territorial jurisdiction on the Moon. Eagle was the name of the modular which housed Freemason Edwin Aldrin among others. There are 100 members in the Tranquility Lodge. It represents "Global Education." (2)
There is probably not much in the United States that has not been dedicated to the Masonic Lodge. The Denver International Airport received a Masonic Dedication by Mayor Webb. It was made public when a small group of Masons performed a ritual and buried tokens in the ground for future generations.
"Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I bring thee down, saith the Lord." (Obadiah 1:4)
Religious Programs Are Nervous About the Plan "Flanked by an array of religious leaders, President Bush today signed two executive orders that throw open the doors of government to religious and community groups as part of a broad effort to refashion the way government delivers social services...The move is likely to be applauded by many religious leaders and Americans who believe that faith has long been the missing ingredient in government programs for the homeless, drug addicts, prisoners, the mentally ill and the unemployed." But there will doubtless be much debate about whether the new measures are constitutional and about the relationship between the government and religious institutions. Even representatives of some religious programs are nervous about the plan, fearing that in choosing which programs to fund, the government could end up favoring certain programs, and thus certain religions. The White House argues that programs will be evaluated based on their record of success, with money being awarded to the most successful programs.
Religious representatives present at the signing of the new legislation included "five prominent black preachers and a Muslim imam... a Catholic nun...an Orthodox Jew... [and] about 20 Christian leaders and pastors, many of them evangelicals. The heads of most of the largest religious charitable agencies, including those run by Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists and Jews, were noticeably absent." The question of how to deal with the religious diversity of the United States in an equitable way is a sticky one. "'If faith is that important, then you have to provide everybody with the services that correspond to their own particular faith,' said Marc Stern, a lawyer with the American Jewish Congress. 'But that's not how these programs work. The government one way or another picks its favorite provider. You can expect a lot of Baptist programs in Texas and few Mormon ones, and the opposite in Utah. So what does equality mean under those circumstances?'" Another problem is whether the program violates the constitutional separation of church and state; even Stephen Goldsmith, one of the newly appointed leaders of the program, admits that it would be difficult to catch any institution which shifted government funds provided strictly for social services into its religious endeavors. Another potential problem is that religious institutions funded by the government are allowed to discriminate in hiring and firing based on their religion. (3)
Lieberman Says Nation of Islam's Social Programs Are Eligible for Government Funds
"Senator Joseph I. Lieberman...said yesterday that he would not rule out Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam from receiving federal funds through President Bush's new faith-based initiative. 'If the Nation of Islam established a separate corporation (for delivering social services), there is not a basis to deny them, presuming they are living within the civil rights laws,' Lieberman said." This position shocked many leaders who see the Nation as "a racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic organization." (4)
An Intensive Two-Year Indoctrination in Biblical Teachings Jim VandeHei of Wall Street Journal, wrote, "In many ways, these moves simply advance a trend, visible in both parties and on display in Bush's early days in office, toward a more open acknowledgment of the role religion plays in public life." VandeHei described the InnerChange program in Texas, which Bush sees "as a model of the sort of thing he would like to see spread across the country...It attempts to rehabilitate [prison inmates] with an intensive two-year indoctrination in biblical teachings and proper Christian behavior. Nearly 200 inmates, mostly drug dealers and thieves, are enrolled...In a state where nearly 40 percent of parolees return to prison within three years of their release, only two of InnerChange's 73 graduates are back behind bars." Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "worries that program officials will discriminate against atheists and Jews, for instance, in the selection process...He also worries that government would be subsidizing a particular religion to convert followers with public funds. And some people worry that such programs actually could harm religious groups themselves" because the federal government is then likely to "become involved in the practice of religion." (5)
InnerChange Freedom Initiative Charles W. Colson defended Bush's faith-based initiative. Colson is chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries and he served time in prison for Watergate-related offenses. He spoke about the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Houston, which was started by his ministry. "For 18 hours a day, prisoners who volunteer for the program are immersed in intensive life-skills training and Bible study. After 18 months, they are released, matched with a mentor, given a job and welcomed in a local church...Of the 80 prisoners who have completed the program, only three are back in custody." The national recidivism rate is 40% to 60%. According to Colson, the experts have shown "that crime is caused by the lack of moral training during the morally formative years...I have seen nothing apart from the life-changing power of Jesus Christ that can lift a person out of a life of crime. The most effective volunteers," Colson says, "are those motivated by their faith." Colson cites a mentoring program called Transition of Prisoners, or TOP, in Detroit. "Less than 16% of TOP's graduates have gone back to prison, compared with 57% from a control group." Religious organizations providing nonprofit social services, he says, "should be allowed to compete for government funding and assistance on the same footing as other nonprofits and without having to sacrifice their faith identities...Programs like ours, after all, are voluntary. They are open to all. The participants can leave at any time." (6)
Jerry Falwell Counseling Center for Gays and Lesbians Sally Kalson raised concerns about Bush's faith-based initiative. "If the government says 'no' to the Branch Davidians but 'yes' to the Southern Baptists who are proposing to do the same thing, is that religious favoritism, discrimination or an invitation to litigation?" Will people, she asks, want to support with their taxes the program of a fundamentalist church whose members believe "the more women submit to their husbands, the more peaceful and happy their homes will be? How about a Jerry Falwell counseling center for gays and lesbians based on the notion of 'reparative therapy' that purports to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals through faith in Jesus? Or a drug and alcohol treatment center run by the Church of Scientology, where addicts not only receive standard therapy but also are encouraged to study the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?"
According to Kalson, government funding for faith-based social services has been going on for years, but with certain rules. "You had to serve everyone on a nonsectarian basis; you had to eschew proselytizing; you had to follow nondiscriminatory hiring practices that don't otherwise apply to religious institutions." But Bush, she says, "intends for something else to happen with federal money than has been happening already...Faith in the power of God to change the human heart is, in fact, at the core of some of the programs Bush touted in Texas...Furthermore, this plan will allow religious organizations receiving public funds to hire only those people who share their beliefs." She pointed to a Bush comment that particularly struck her: "When we see social needs in America, my administration will look first at faith-based programs and community groups, which have proven their power to save and change lives," he said. Kalson concludes by saying, "I'd much rather see my tax dollars placing children in permanent homes than defending a barrage of religious discrimination lawsuits." (7)
Ashcroft Mentions Religion in Speech at Installation Ceremony At John Ashcroft's ceremonial installation as attorney general. "Ashcroft, who is a devout Christian, made only passing religious references in his speech" and "repeatedly called for reaching out to people of all races, religions, ethnic backgrounds and economic means." (8)
Op-Ed Articles Respond to Bush's Faith-Based Initiative Jane Eisner wrote that, "with a great deal of sophistication and smarts, the new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives can navigate the fault lines while upholding" the values of "tolerance, civil rights, free speech, [and] respect for the integrity of religion." Because of all the discrimination that the new initiative is likely to lead to, it's implementation will be "a serious test of the administration's professed belief in a tolerant America." (9)
The initiative would create generic forms of civil religion Donald E. Miller criticized Bush's faith-based initiatives for making religion nothing more than an extension of government. This is a problem because "one of the essential roles of the church, temple or synagogue is not just to serve the poor but to work toward eliminating the structural forces that create poverty...It is also the task of religion to be a judge and critic." The initiative, he said, would create generic forms of civil religion. Plus, he argued, "the service delivery system is already in place" among America's 300,000 congregations. "So, let's get on with the experiment, and while we are at it, don't forget that corporations and foundations have an important role to play." (10)
Inititative Could Ignore The Achievements of Secular Ones Benjamin Soskis says that social scientists have done no empirical research yet that supports the claim that "faith-based programs work best...The unquestioning faith in faith's instrumentality is also compromised by the fact that studies [that support the claim of religious programs' superiority] define religion institutionally...and thus fail to differentiate between religion's social and doctrinal components...Given that much of the evidence suggests that community, not religion, is the critical factor in successful anti-poverty efforts, the administration's emphasis on faith may lead it not only to exaggerate the claims of religious groups but to ignore the achievements of secular ones." Soskis also cites a study that found that all but 10 percent of American congregations "are involved in merely short-term emergency remedies to poverty." (11)
He Defends Religious Organizations' Right "to Discriminate Jeffrey Rosen supported charitable choice legislation. He defends religious organizations' right "to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring and firing staff [and] the right to define their organizational mission," as long as they do not discriminate against beneficiaries. He also defends religious organizations' right to discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation when hiring and firing, as long as churches "own up to the beliefs and practices that, in their view, prevent them from complying with the civil rights laws." If this right is not respected, he says, the government would be forcing religious organizations "into something they are not." (12)
Government Will "Throttle the Faith-based Programs with Regulations Kate O'Beirne brings up that the government will "throttle the faith-based programs with regulations," or try to "to distort the mission of faith-based groups receiving public money." Another is that most religious-sounding social-welfare programs are actually not "devoted to spiritual renewal and character transformation," which many of the initiative's supporters see as the unique strength of religious groups' programs. She sums up by pointing out the difficulty of finding "balance between impermissibly promoting sectarian interests and irreparably damaging the independence of religious charities." (13)
May End Up Looking a Lot Like Welfare as we Knew it." Mark Silk points out that although many faith-based service-providing nonprofits already receive government funds, Bush's plan is more complex because it calls for the mobilization of religious congregations, and because it calls for funding groups that believe clients can only be helped by faith. He warns that "enabling religious congregations to create new social services with government funds without increasing the total amount available will mean, by the law of zero sum, that existing providers, including experienced faith-based providers, will get less." He asserts that "studies have not yet been done to determine whether faith-based providers do the job any better than secular ones." The result of this initiative, he said, may end "up looking a lot like welfare as we knew it." (14)
Administration Will Face Excommunication from the Political Ranks Judith F. Daar, a professor of law at Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, California she criticized Bush's new faith-based proposal. Daar writes, "I am concerned that no longer will separation of church and state mean the government cannot fund religious organizations' missions to preach the tenets of their faith. Instead, separation could merely require that in so proselytizing, religious groups must also lend a helping hand to the downtrodden. To say that the government is not funding the establishment of religion is to ignore the realities of faith-based social action." Daar says she is especially worried because "Bush's own brand of faith has gained the imprimatur of the federal government. There is reason for concern that those whose faith, or lack thereof, strays from that embraced by the administration will face excommunication from the political ranks.
Daar sees a trend in the Bush administration of disregarding the First Amendment regarding the separation of church and state. "From the multiple utterances of God and Jesus in the inaugural ceremonies to removing funding for international family planning organizations, we have seen President Bush's own faith dictate the direction of our nation's public policy." Plus, "there is reason for concern that those whose faith, or lack thereof, strays from that embraced by the administration will face excommunication from the political ranks." (15)
Bush Will Look First to Faith-based Programs and Community Groups' to Solve Social Programs Ellen Goodman about the debate over Bush's faith-based initiative writes that, when ministers invoked Jesus Christ the savior at Bush's inauguration, "millions of Americans - from Buddhists to Unitarians - had to chose between saying 'amen' or feeling excluded." When Bush introduced his new faith-based initiative, "talk about public funding of faith-based organizations was polarized between forces we have come to label the religious right and the secular left...Many on both sides seem to have forgotten the time when our most prominent religious leaders, like Martin Luther King, were not a threat to civil liberties or social justice, but a force for them." She points out that the Rev. Jim Wallis, head of Call to Renewal, defines faith as "'believing that change is possible, even before it's possible.'...That's why faith can be at the heart of the programs that revive the lives of drug addicts or neighborhoods."
Goodman concedes, though, that "when George Bush says that he 'will look first to faith-based programs and community groups' to solve social programs, it's worth worrying that the conservative agenda is to privatize the responsibilities of government and shunt the homeless under a leaky church roof." She brought up other concerns: "how will the government know if there's a sermon with the soup? Do churches want those limits?...And can you imagine a Bush administration funding an after-school program run by the Nation of Islam or supporting a drug rehab program of the Church of Scientology on the grounds that they work?...What happens if a taxpayer funds programs that refuse to hire her on religious grounds?" Goodman concludes by saying that "for all the nervous reservations, there is quite simply an overriding need to help transform lives. Sometimes that takes a leap of faith." (16)
Government Funds Will Not Subsidize Proselytizing. Stephen Goldsmith, a special advisor to the president for faith-based and not-for-profit initiatives, outlines the principles that he thinks Bush is following in his faith-based initiative. These are the principles: the faith-based programs will serve as an addition to, not a replacement for, government action. Government funds will not subsidize proselytizing. Secular alternatives will be available. Bush also intends to use the tax laws to encourage more charitable giving. Goldsmith concludes by saying that "those most in need [require] support from someone who truly cares about them." (17)
Bush Administration Responds to Criticism of Initiative from Christian Right "To repair the rift with the Christian right, White House officials privately have repudiated critical remarks that the director of the office of faith-based initiatives made about evangelicals, and have assured conservative leaders their concerns will be addressed." Some of these leaders asked for DiIulio's resignation, while others merely see him as a political liability for Bush. In a recent speech DiIulio "accused conservative Christian leaders of lacking commitment to the poor." (18)
Francisco Chronicle reported that "John DiIulio, the director of the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, made his plea for Christian support at the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Dallas." In response to opposition toward the initiative from the Christian right, DiIulio insisted hate-mongering groups would not be eligible for government funding. Christian leaders also "fear that any government money comes with too many strings attached." (19)
John DiIulio, "lashed out at critics on the religious right who oppose President Bush's plan to provide government funds to religious charities, deepening a rare rift between the new administration and once-loyal social conservatives... Many religious conservatives have criticized the Bush 'faith-based initiative' because they believe government interference would compromise churches' spirituality." (20)
Interfaith Council, New Hindu Temple Response to Religious Diversity "'Affirming Common Values in the Midst of Religious Diversity.' Sponsored by the Milwaukee Association for Interfaith Relations, it is at the new Hindu Temple of Wisconsin in the City of Pewaukee." Anant Rambachan, a global expert on interfaith dialogue and a speaker at the conference, says that Americans now have no choice but to learn to live, work with, and understand people of other faiths. The new Hindu temple is "itself a symbol of the growing religious diversity in the United States as Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and people of other Asian faiths continue to immigrate here." (21)
Mixed Reactions to Funding of Faith-Based Organizations "The American Muslim Council hosted a forum Monday, at Georgetown University, geared toward helping formulate a policy position and consensus among the community regarding President Bush’s Faith-based Initiative." A lot of the talk focused on American Muslim involvement "in the selection process when it comes to determining eligibility. The community called on the White House to ensure balanced representation and objectivity in the Office." The AMC Executive Director sees the initiative as "the seeds, that if properly cultivated could help us effectively continue our dedication to social service. (22)
"Houston religious leaders from faiths as diverse as the Unification Church, The Nation of Islam and the Church of God in Christ banded together Friday to support President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and to make sure they get a piece of the action...By banding together... they hoped to ensure they were not discriminated against when seeking federal grants." (23)
Jews Already Feel like Outsiders in a Pluralistic-Faith Society "Jewish groups are expressing strong reservations about President Bush's" new faith-based initiative. Their biggest concern is that the government will compromise the separation between church and state by funding social services with religious content. "Many Jews already feel like outsiders in a pluralistic-faith society, and they don't want Bush's initiative to encourage Southern Baptists, for example, in their stated mission to convert Jews to Christianity...Other concerns with the initiative [include] whether the government would be forced to fund ministries that preach a message of hate or discrimination; who in government would make the decisions about awarding federal grants to religious groups; and whether alternatives to faith-based providers would be available to all clients." (24)
Conflict That Will Only Grow "The state cannot be in the business of deciding which faiths pass muster and which do not. If they are law-abiding and their programs are effective, it would seem you have to take them all or take none. You allow proselytizing in all or in none." For example, the Salvation Army "injects its Christian philosophy deep into its programs." If the Salvation Army can do this, the article asked, then won't the same treatment have to be given to other faiths, such as the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Church of Scientology, and Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, which has a history of anti-Semitism? This "conflict that will only grow as Bush pursues his concept of faith-based social services." (25)
Jewish Leaders Remain Guarded Many Jewish leaders "remain guarded with Bush, who has...made his Christian faith a prominent part of his political platform. Both the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress oppose the president's plan... Yet, there is a growing minority of American Jews who... are 'pleased that President Bush is committed to increasing the partnership between government and faith and community-based institutions.'...These Jewish leaders ...are calling on the federal government to ease the Jewish agencies' secular responsibilities so that their co-religionists could devote more attention to preserving Jewish education, tradition and continuity." Secular responsibilities like running welfare programs would presumably be facilitated by government funds. (26)
The Rev. Jesse Jackson "issued warnings about faith-based social service programs funded by the government...[He said the] 'church must not...compromise its independence.'" (27)
Groups Predict 20 to 30 Lawsuits "Social-service leaders and the legal watchdogs who monitor them" are threatening to sue "faith-based groups that take the federal dollars President Bush is touting...Civil-liberties groups would be most likely to sue over allegations of religious coercion of social-service clients or over discriminatory hiring practices among those agencies that seek employees from their own faith." A leader from one of these groups predicts 20 to 30 lawsuits across the country, which will cost religious groups dearly, regardless of the rulings. Another cause for concern about the faith-based initiative is that, in the competition for federal funds, "minority religions will inevitably lose out" to the "religious preference of those in authority." (28)
They Can Put up Signs Saying "no Catholics need apply, no Jews need apply" "The day after President Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, John J. DiIulio Jr., its first director, attended a public discussion of his new office at the National Press Club in Washington...The discussion (a full transcript is available at http://pewforum.org/events/0130/) revealed some of the fundamental differences in perspective dividing supporters and opponents of 'faith-based initiatives'...Proponents see opportunities being lost, the potential of religious groups to rescue the needy and suffering being ignored or stultified, and they are consequently ready to tread into unfamiliar waters.
Opponents see an existing framework of cooperation between government and religious charities that has worked well -- and if it ain't broke, why fix it?" Richard T. Foltin, legislative director of the American Jewish Committee, spoke about the danger of religious institutions' continuing to hire on the basis of religion under the new plan: "When they start to carry out government-funded programs," he said, and put up signs saying "no Catholics need apply, no Jews need apply,...we really are seeing a terrible precedent." In support of the plan, Mr. DiIulio asserted that the most comprehensive study available, "which examined 'community-serving activities of churches, synagogues and mosques in the city of Philadelphia,' found that, despite theologies ranging from the most to the least 'evangelical or proselytizing,' almost none made 'any kind of religious conversion or ritual' a condition for participation." (29)
Wary of Anything that Appears to Tamper with the First Amendment. "Many Americans are indeed enthusiastic about stepping up government support to religious programs...But, as polls indicate, across the political spectrum Americans are wary of anything that appears to tamper with the First Amendment... [Americans] are instinctively uncomfortable when their government appears to promote one religion over another, or allows discrimination based on religion, or interferes in the freedom of a church or synagogue or mosque," or when religious institutions are the only choice. One Democratic pollster sums up the public opinion polls as saying "'Yes, but don't go too far.'...President Bush is betting that most Americans care more about helping poor people than they do about the First Amendment," and that only aggressive civil libertarians, some agnostic Ivy League professors and liberal editorial writers will oppose his plan. Bush insists he is not trying to impose any single religion. "A poll conducted in November by Public Agenda, a nonprofit research group, asked more than 1,500 Americans whether it was a good idea to increase government financing for religious groups that help the homeless and drug addicts. Forty-four percent said it was a good idea, even if the programs promoted religious messages; 23 percent said it was a good idea, but only if programs avoided religious messages; and 31 percent said it was a bad idea. The cornerstone of the president's plan is that religious programs will not be required to censor their religious teachings in order to receive government contracts." (30)
Catholic Charities, USA. In 1999, 2/3 of its $2.3 billion Budget from Government "To its proponents, this is nothing less than a new way to help the poor." Religious groups have the advantage that "they are prepared to insist that recipients change their behaviour, which is the best way of getting out of poverty...Opponents of the idea focus on a different aspect: it is, they think, an affront to the religious liberties enshrined in the constitution." The article says the basic idea of the plan is "modest and intriguing rather than radical...Religious groups have distributed taxpayer-financed social services for decades. America's largest charity is Catholic Charities, USA. In 1999, two-thirds of its $2.3 billion budget came from the government...Moreover, churches, mosques and so on (henceforth congregations) get some federal money already, from the welfare reform bill of 1996."
According to the article, the new proposal rests on [two] assumptions. The first is that "there is a huge amount of social activity by churches just waiting to be organized properly...America has 300,000 congregations." Mark Chaves of the University of Arizona, however, found that fewer than 10% of congregations had programmes for the persistent problems of poverty. The article interprets this to mean "that small congregations are only ever likely to do what they are doing now: running soup kitchens and giving away old clothes. The hard social work can be done only by big congregations--and they are already doing a lot."
A second assumption is that "religious organizations are better at social work because they have a distinctive approach: personal, intensive, focused on lasting solutions. [But] Mr Chaves's research finds that the majority of congregations are engaged in short-term emergency programmes, such as soup kitchens, not the sort of long-term personal efforts they are especially praised for." A third assumption is that "the new initiative is primarily a bottom-up process driven by congregations. [But] Mississippi tried a similar programme at state level, and had to scrap it because so few congregations got involved." (31)
1996 Welfare Reform Act by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo "Charitable Choice" "One leading critic of Bush's plan is the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Another critic, Jim Harrington, of the Austin-based Texas Civil Rights Project, said Bush 'wants to almost constitutionalize religion.'" The program also has many supporters, including Carl Esbeck, a lawyer and director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom. Esbeck concedes, though, that many people "need to be reassured that they are not selling their souls for a bit of government money." Bush insists "he has no intentions of forcing his beliefs on anyone else." Bush's plan is not without precedent. Similar legislation "was inserted into the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., and was adopted in other bills signed by former President Clinton. Former Vice President Al Gore...also has touted the concept of involving religious organizations in government work." Other Democrats, including Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston, "also have embraced the idea," although they caution "against using the funds for proselytizing...Still,...many are uncomfortable with what they consider a too-cozy relationship between the Bush administration and religious conservatives...Bush in private linked his faith-based social services initiative to his goal of reducing abortions...'Whether the president is some sort of Trojan horse for the religious right, only time will tell,' said one observer." (32)
Designed to Send as Much as $10 Billion a year to Faith-Based Organizations "As President Bush delivers his faith-based initiative to Capitol Hill today, his proposal to give religious groups greater access to federal funds is already dividing the nonprofit community. Bush signed an executive order Monday creating the nation's first White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives." The program is designed to send as much as $10 billion a year to faith-based organizations, so these institutions can perform social services formerly administered by the government, including drug treatment and welfare-to-work programs.
Some argue that this program violates the separation of church and state. Secular social aid programs are concerned that their efforts may take a backseat to religious programs under the new plan. The President argues that the provisions are constitutional because no funding will go to religious activities. Rather, he says, the program will allow religious and secular groups to compete for government money. "We will not fund the religious activities of any group, but when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them," Bush said. "Sara Melendez, president and chief executive of the Independent Sector, a nonprofit coalition of 700 voluntary organizations, foundations and corporations, said she was pleased to hear Bush say his plan would be an 'initiative of inclusion.'" Melendez explained, "'I think it could be a shot in the arm if it means that more people will give and volunteer and if the federal government sees these agencies as partners in designing policy.'" Some foundations worry that they may be expected to make up the difference in the social services available today and the level of need. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) wants to be sure the measures do not become a way for the federal government to avoid having a direct role in providing government services. (33)
The Interfaith Alliance Worried About Excessive Government Entanglement The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) based in Washington, D.C. issued a news release on their "concerns about Bush's faith-based proposals to fund religious ministries...Clergy from across the ideological spectrum are raising concerns about...excessive government entanglement in the affairs of religious institutions, and [the temptation to] manipulate faith to achieve political power." Religious leaders with TIA are concerned "with the immediate impact on the autonomy of religious ministries to remain faithful to their missions." TIA's executive director said the plan "will turn our nation's religious leaders into competitors for a limited pool of money, inevitably placing the bulk of responsibility for the nation's disadvantaged on the already burdened shoulders of the faith community." Others in the organization wonder how Bush is going to ensure that funds are distributed equally among the more than 2000 religious traditions practiced in the United States. One rabbi stated that "religion can also be used to exclude, demonize and discriminate. The government should not be in the business of financing that exclusion." Bush's statements on the plan were contradictory: he said that the government "will not fund religious activities of any group," but he also does not want the plan to cause religious groups "to sacrifice their mission." TIA plans continue to monitor and offer analysis of Bush's initiative, as well as to engage religious leaders in a national dialogue on the issue. (34)
The Anti-Defamation League Applauds The Anti-Defamation League wrote a letter to President Bush applauding his faith-based initiative, and asking him to "maintain essential constitutional safeguards for protecting both religious organizations and beneficiaries." The safeguards should protect beneficiaries from unwanted proselytizing, protect against government funding of discrimination in hiring and firing practices, ensure that secular alternatives are available, protect against government funding of the religious activities of sectarian organizations, ensure that program recipients comply with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and ensure that hate mongering groups are not able to receive government funds.(35)
Initiative Will Connect 300 Mentors in Inner-City Churches Baltimore's "Mayor Martin O'Malley called on religious leaders yesterday to support his faith-based initiative, Baltimore Rising, which will connect 300 mentors in inner-city churches with 100 youths deemed most likely to kill or be killed by violent crime...Solving the crime, violence and drug addiction in the inner city 'requires a spiritual element...,' O'Malley said." (36)
The First Successful Effort I Have Seen to Penetrate the Black Mind-Set that has Worked "The White House believes President Bush will pick up significant support for his faith-based initiatives" from "black churches -- despite opposition from some African-American leaders." GOP pollster Frank Luntz calls the faith-based initiative "the first successful effort I have seen to penetrate the black mind-set that has worked...They are the most faith-based segment of the population there is." Some African-American leaders and denominations, however, are trying to demonstrate to black churches the problems with the initiative. (37)
Bibliography
1) The Washington Post, January 30, 2001, A Section; Pg. A01
2) http://www.tranquilitylodge2000,org
3) The New York Times, January 30, 2001, Section A; Page 18; Column 1; National Desk
4) The Boston Globe, National/Foreign, March 9, 2001, p. A19
5) The San Diego Union-Tribune, February 2, 2001, Lifestyle, p. E-4
6) Los Angeles Times, Metro, January 31, 2001, Part B, p. 9
7) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Lifestyle,January 31, 2001, p. D-1
8) The Kansas City Star, National,March 19, 2001 p. A5
9) The San Diego Union-Tribune, Opinion,March 17, 2001, p. B-8:2,7; B-6:1; B-10:6
10) March 5, 2001, Star Tribune, News, p. 13A
11) The New Republic, February 26, 2001, p. 20
12) The New Republic, p. 16,February 26, 2001
13) National Review, Article,February 19, 2001 Vol. liii, No. 3
14) The Washington Post, February 18, 2001, Outlook, p. B03
15) Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2001, Metro, Part B, p. 15
16) The Boston Globe,February 1, 2001, Op-ed, p. A15
17) The Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2001, Section A, p. 22
18) The Boston Globe, March 17, 2001, National/Foreign, p. A1
19) The San Francisco Chronicle, March 8, 2001 News, p. A4
20) The Washington Post, March 8, 2001, A Section, P. A8
21) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 17, 2001, News, p. 5B
22) The American Muslim Council, March 13, 2001, AMC-NET
23) The Houston Chronicle, March 3, 2001, A, p. 31
24) The Boston Globe, February 28, 2001, National/Foreign, p. A2
25) Star Tribune,February 21, 2001, News, p. 16A
26) Los Angeles Times, Opinion, February 18, 2001, Part M, p. 1
27) Chicago Sun-Times, February 12, 2001 News, p. 10.
28) The Houston Chronicle, February 11, 2001, A, p. 22
29) The New York Times, February 10, 2001, Section B, p. 6
30) The New York Times, February 4, 2001, Section 4, p. 3
31) The Economist, February 3, 2001 United States
32) The Houston Chronicle, February 2, 2001, Section A, p. 1
33) The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, January 30, 2001, News; Pg. 1A
34) The Interfaith Alliance, January 30, 2001
35) Anti-Defamation League, January 29, 2001
36) The Baltimore Sun, Local, March 13, 2001, p. 3B
37) The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Reader, March 11, 2001 P. 7CBACK