Lest you think I am being an alarmist, it bears noting that the "Charitable Choice" provision which was the forerunner of Bush's initiative (and which Bush also hopes to expand into areas not covered by his initiative) specifically states that welfare beneficiaries cannot be compelled to partake in religious services and benefits cannot be conditioned on accepting a particular faith. Yet the provision has spawned a number of lawsuits alleging just such pressure by religious organizations.
The state of Texas being sued by the American Jewish Congress and the Texas Civil Rights Project over its grant to the Jobs Partnership of Washington County. The program required participants to study Scripture and taught them that the way to employment was through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The lawsuit alleges that the Jobs Partnership bought Bibles for students, and pressured program participants to join a church or change their beliefs.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Wisconsin-based national organization working to defend separation of church and state, filed a lawsuit challenging public funding of of Milwaukee's "Faith Works" program. This self-described Christian program receives at least two-thirds of its $700,000 yearly budget from tax dollars. Clients are interviewed about their attitudes toward faith, are required to participate in a faith-enhanced version of the 12-step Alcoholics Anonymous program, are evaluated on spirituality, and attend Bible studies, prayer and chapel services.
"State appropriations to Faith Works convey a message that the Christian religion is favored, preferred and promoted over other beliefs and nonbelief, and Faith Works' mission is clothed in traditional indicia of government endorsement," the Foundation's complaint alleges. "The advancement of Christian indoctrination is an integral component of the program provided by Faith Works, which indoctrination is directly funded by appropriations from the State of Wisconsin."
In a private lawsuit, Teresa Calalay has sued a Texas facility for troubled youths for what she says was a substitution of abuse for Christianity. The facility, called Roloff Homes, had a history of abuse allegations, and had been shut down in 1985. It reopened in 1999 under a "faith-based initiative," instituted by then-Governor George W. Bush, that removed church-run children’s homes from direct state oversight. That lack of oversight, Calalay said, made it easier for the Roloff Homes to abuse her son.
Under the Bush initiative, there are no restrictions on how religious organizations incorporate their beliefs in the delivery of social services. A fundamentalist Christian organization running a battered women's shelter might "incorporate" its beliefs by telling an abused woman that she should return to her husband and "submit" to his authority over her, for instance. A Catholic Church running a women's health center might "incorporate" its beliefs by refusing to provide information about contraception to the women receiving its tax-payer funded health services. Or, as noted above, Christian facility for troubled youths that believes in "spare the rod, spoil the child" may "incorporate" its beliefs by disciplining the children in its care far beyond what most people would consider reasonable bounds.
I've limited my examples above to Christian beliefs for good reason: To date, very few non-Christian religious organizations have received funding under the Charitable Choice provisions. This brings up another important question: Who would receive grants under Bush's faith-based initiative? And who would decide? Bush has spoken of a commitment to pluralism, promising that funds could be directed to people of many different faiths, or "good people with no faith at all." But comments during the campaign seem to raise questions about this commitment. When asked whether he thought religions like Wicca should be "banned from recognition by the military," Bush replied unambiguously. "I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it." A question regarding whether tax dollars would be distributed to the Nation of Islam to provide publicly financed services drew a similarly unambiguous response: "I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate."
Christian faiths, in the aggregate, are the dominant religion in this country, so perhaps this potential for proselytizing with taxpayer funds seems innocuous to most readers. However, for this program to have any hope at all of passing constitutional muster, it will have to be an equal opportunity offender. Assuming Bush honors his commitment to pluralism, consider the possibility of a Christian having no choice but to receive social services from a Wiccan organization whose beliefs are "incorporated" into the delivery of those services. Or an organization whose Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Nation of Islam, or any other religious beliefs are "incorporated" into the services. It's clear that, no matter what your religion - or lack of it - Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative" almost guarantees that somebody, somewhere, will be using your tax dollars to promote beliefs antithetical to your own.
First page > Praying for Help > Page 1, 2, 3, 4
