While the students of ASU were busy working on their tans this summer, Congress was hard at work passing more “compassionate” legislation which will whittle away at yet another of our many forgotten constitutional freedoms.
The “Community Solutions Act” (H.R. 7), introduced by Reps. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., and Tony Hall, D-Ohio, passed in the House on July 19. The bill is basically the fulfillment of all of President George W’s ill-conceived faith-based initiative fantasies which stand to hand over federal money to churches in order to provide social services.
Many government agencies are covered by the plan and will be involved in dispensing federal grants to religious organizations that wish to expand their role in the community. On Thursday, Sept. 6, it was announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs is adding its name to a list of agencies that already includes the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, among others. So what’s in store for the veterans, schoolchildren, impoverished families and millions of others who expect to receive assistance from these programs?
According to many critics of the bill, the answer is not a very hopeful one. The initiative has been rife with controversy since its inception and Bush’s support is still extremely thin. One would expect that the president’s largest support base would naturally consist of the churches themselves, but surprisingly, this is precisely the source of some of his most vocal critics.
As Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., said in a press release last May, “Bush’s faith based initiative faces major setback; people of faith have little faith in it!”
One example of this lack of faith is Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group. His reason for opposing the funding of church groups is clear: “The president appears to believe that the government should use religion to solve all of the nation’s social problems. This approach strikes at the heart of the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
The issue of the constitutionality of the bill is at the core of the many arguments against its implementation. The First Amendment distinctly conveys the desire of the original framers of the Constitution to maintain the distance between church and state. However, this point is clearly lost on George W. This was a contested issue early on in this country’s history as well, but back then the desire to preserve the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights was obviously stronger, as demonstrated by an example cited by the AU.
Almost 200 years ago, President James Madison was faced with a similar bill that would have provided federal funds to a church that promised to aid the poor. Madison vetoed the bill on the grounds that it “exceed[ed] the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions.” Times certainly have changed.
Issues of constitutional legality aside, the bill should still be opposed purely because we choose to live in a heterogeneous society comprised of a variety of different peoples of a variety of different faiths and beliefs. In this kind of environment, we cannot afford to condone the support of one faith over another. But this is precisely what this kind of legislation will do. Bush is on record in a variety of sources as stating that under his plan, a religious group such as the Nation of Islam would not be eligible for federal funding because “he believes it is a religion that preaches hate.”
In other words, an outspoken conservative Christian and his cabinet, largely selected because they share his views and some even belong to the Religious Right, are now in charge of choosing which religious groups can help themselves to our tax dollars.
Hmm — I can’t imagine which churches will be favored over the others — can you?
Another reason to be concerned is the special status which religious organizations hold in regard to workplace regulations. According to a report by the AU, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has called for the elimination of regulations such as “certification standards for health care, mental health care, and other providers as well as fire and safety codes, health standards, and civil rights protections against hiring discrimination.”
In Missouri, where a recent law was passed exempting church-run day care centers from fire safety and health regulations, a critic remarked that “dog pounds in that state have more regulation than church-run day cares.”
Is this what we have to look forward to? The involuntary funding of agencies that can legally fire someone simply because they do not hold the same views or engage in behavior that violates some religious prohibition? Or, ignore the health and safety of their employees?
In the 225-year history of this country, this level of blatant government subsidization of religion has been strictly verboten. Now that Bush has decided to take us on this unprecedented leap backward, we have to wonder how far he will go in stepping on other rights and liberties in order to further his own agenda.
The question I have is: How long will this nation allow him to continue?
Sean Michael Reed is a history and English literature senior.
Quote: Bush is on record in a variety of sources as stating that under his plan, a religious group such as the Nation of Islam would not be eligible for federal funding because “he believes it is a religion that preaches hate.”
Reach him at seanmichaelr@yahoo.com.
