Don's report archive
Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)
A Full Secular Democracy, Not A Partial Theocracy, Best Serves The National Interest
President Bush recently accomplished by executive order what he was unable to do via legislation, namely, clear the way for channeling tax dollars to religious organizations. This policy change is part of the president's "Faith-Based" (FB) initiative. At both the state and federal levels, Mr. Bush has initiated several changes leading to public funding of religious programs. Specifically, he has:
- Directed government agencies to take specific steps to increase contracting with FB social service providers.
- Eliminated regulations that restricted intermixing of outreach services with religious proselytizing.
- Established an advisory body to support current FB initiatives and brainstorm new ways to fund such programs.
- Established FB liaisons and/or offices within key government agencies to identify regulatory or other barriers for FB partnerships.
- Directed Federal officials to pursue both regulatory and legislative means to facilitate FB funding.
The president's elimination by executive order of longstanding barriers between church and state reflects the president's "soft spot for theocracy," as Paul Krugman put it in a column entitled "Gotta Have Faith" in the New York Times on December 17, 2002. The entire concept of FB funding seems a very bad idea, in my opinion. There are reasons why, for hundreds of years, America's leaders have maintained a strict separation between church and state.
One need only look to the Texas experience to appreciate problems from such infringements on the First Amendment. Then Governor Bush's five-year experiment was called "Charitable Choice." Assessments of the program allege that it was insufficiently regulated (a concern with the current initiatives) and led to lower standards of client health, safety, and quality of care. Abuses occurred frequently, such as instances when people were required under court orders to attend FB programs that included religious services.
Government must never compel worship, at least not in a secular democracy. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocracies, it is the norm. Such compulsion could be unpleasant under any circumstances, even for adherents of the religion being compelled. If that which was required consisted of dogmas or rituals of a different faith (for example, imposing Islam on a Baptist), it could spark civil insurrection! In the Texas FB model, there were instances of health care services provided by unlicensed FB providers, as well as favoritism and the co-mingling of funds between aid activities and religious devotions. Many legislators in Texas who once promoted FB funding have since abandoned it, choosing not to renew their accreditations for successive years. Barry W. Lynn, head of "Americans United for Separation of Church and State," got it right when he said, "Bush is on a crusade to bring about an unprecedented merger of religion and government...taxpayers will be forced to support churches they don't believe in, and workers will be denied publicly funded jobs because they don't conform to religious mandates."
In my view, the government should never fund proselytizing by any religion. Yet, according to Amy Sherman, a scholar at Hudson Institute, "robust faith-based partnerships between governments and religious groups are operating in 15 states, and funnel nearly $124 million to 762 different providers." Wellness promoters care about more than fitness, nutrition, stress management and other physical and mental health matters: they have passionate convictions about democracy, freedom, good government and a duty to speak out for programs that serve the larger order and against programs, policies and/or leaders who jeopardize treasured if not "sacred" principles.
Furthermore, I think it wrong if not unchristian to discriminate. (I admit I'm really not much of an authority on what is or is not Christian -- I was just giving Christianity the benefit by assuming most followers no longer favor discrimination as practiced by Southern congregations prior to the decades since the Civil Rights era of the 60's.) Mr. Bush's directives explicitly permit discrimination by FB groups by allowing them to "take faith into account in making employment decisions." In other words, it's OK to refuse to hire a person for a job paid for by public funds if the applicant does not meet the preferred religious test. AP reporter Laura Meckler noted that the Department of Health and Human Services "will let churches, synagogues and mosques use federal money for programs infused with religion and consider religion in hiring and firing workers."
Fortunately, even religious interests express some concerns about this assault on the Constitution and the drift it represents toward a partial theocratic Republic. In a nationwide, representative study of 567 Protestant ministers conducted by Ellison Research of Phoenix Arizona, 67 percent of the clergy support this program, 32 percent oppose it, and 1percent is undecided. However, only 20 percent support it strongly, while 47 percent say they "somewhat support" the program.
Polls and opinions aside, the President's decision to not just allow but to encourage and enable the expenditure of taxpayer funds for religious outreach programs seems unhealthy for our democracy. To break down the separation of church and state is always a bad idea, but it is worse than ever at present when there is a war on terror fueled by religious intolerance.
What's your view on this matter? Whatever it is, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Enjoy yourself, be well and try to look on the bright side of life.
Domain: mentalSubdomain: factual knowledge
Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.
Read about our
Featured Products
my shopping cart
Read Don's latest report or search his report archive to find commentary on what you're interested in.
 |
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here. |
