Can someone please explain this to me. There are so many views but I want the facts. What does it really mean? Where does it come from?
thanks, JDWhy would Bush’s ‘Faith Based’ charity office not be considered a violation under this decision? Are our federal taxes not used to fund it?
When the founding fathers set up the US, one of the things they were concerned about was the role of religion. They had seen the effect that religious wars and state religions had had on Europe…the establishment of one religious faith as official, taxes going to support a certain church, the denial of full civil rights to those people of dissenting religions, etc. This concerned them, not least of which because, by the standards of the day, the US was a religiously diverse country…there were large numbers of Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, and all sorts of religious denominations.
So, the founders were concerned that the establishment of a state religion, or the favoring of one set of religious beliefs over another would be detremental to both the state and religion. They therefore decided that the United States would be a secular democracy where religious freedom was allowed to everybody. The government wouldn’t interfere in anyone’s religious beliefs, and the churches wouldn’t attempt to dictate public policy or seek special favoritism. There would be, in the words of Jefferson, “A wall of seperation between church and state”.
In my opinion it would be close to the line, but then what do I know? After all GW has a 70% approval rating so he must be right.
I’ll make a prediction right now. If the “Faith Based” charity idea is implemented, and it looks shaky right now, it won’t be long before there will be all sorts of scandals about “gummint money” being used for proselytizing by some denominations.
Bingo, David Simmons. Bush’s “Faith-Based” government action plan will become the best argument in a century against government entanglement with religion.
Go on, nutballs! I dare you to implement it!
Given their war on terrorism distraction, not until a second term, … if Bush is elected to a second term.
Then again, the teeming minions seem to have fallen almost hook, line and sinker for the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft trinity. With the Republican war, er, campaign chest growing by the millions leaps and bounds, it could get very scary indeed.
The 2002 by-elections may be a telling point.
You will find no better source on this topic than James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. I’d offer a quote or two, but I think the entire document is worth a read.
I am not sure to what extent the Bush plan calls for aid to faith-based organizations, (restrictions on how the $$ is spent etc…) but there is at least some precedent with g’vt aid to sectarian schools. I suppose the FBOs could receive funds to carry out secular works, but it is difficult to see how they could effectively seperate their religious and civil obligations. All in all it seems a waste of time and money that will acomplish nothing more than to placate the Christian Coalition.
The fact is, most church charities that care about doing good work ALREADY have a means to do so: they simply set up a separate entity with its own set of books to audit and a special board. After that, they can get government money just like any other non-profit, as long as their activities are actually focused on aiding people, as opposed to trying to convert them.
So what Bush’s plan is designed to allow is not churches getting money to do good social work, but rather funding for programs for which proselytzing is a core component of the program.
Jefferson would have found this sort of thing profane: in his estimation, to be asked to pay for the dissemenation of opinion which one does not agree was immoral. Indeed, there is something problematic with a democratic government ever being involved in telling its citizens to think a certain way. In a representative democracy, the citizens ultimately tell the government what to think, not the other way around. Oftentimes, the government will do or even say things that citizens dislike. That dislike has an outlet: organize, vote, lobby congress to change. But what would be the point of having a democracy at all if the government was in the bussiness of telling people what their opinions should be?
The Supreme Court is actually deciding a case right now about vouchers that would allow tax money to pay for secretarian schooling.
I would also note, as is often forgotten (and as some would have you believe), that historically the people who have fought for the separation of church and state have often been as deeply religious as those who fight against it. Certainly non-believers have an interest in being free from government religious imposition: but in a way, deeply religious people have far more to loose. At worst, in a theocracy, people like me would have to profess bullshit we didn’t believe. But religious people who were unlucky enough to be the wrong religion would be asked to profane their deeply held beliefs.
Funny how those who advocate a breaking of that wall always assume that the state church will be their church…
jayjay
Yeah, I don’t think the radicals who would tear down the wall realize that the government is much more powerful than anyone religious sect in the United States, even the Catholic Church, that the real risk at allowing the intermingling is religion being damaged by government manhandling (say, the government forcing Catholicism to allow women priests, or something else that would go radically against the precepts of whatever religion… without a wall between the two, there’d be nothing, legally, to stop the government from doing this).
Religion will always have an impact on the government. Religious groups wield great power in this country, politically, because almost all of our elected leaders have been indoctrinated in some sort of religious milieu. If religious groups were to actually use their influence with the members of their sects that were elected officials, then they could get their views expressed far more clearly than they are now, and without tearing down the wall of separation, which would endanger every religious movement in the country, particularly the smaller ones.
Okay, having re-read that post above, I am vowing never to post at 3:00 am again. Grammar… not… good… powers… weakening… life support… failing… *
Simmons is right. Look for court battle number 2 as well “I didn’t mean for my tax dollars to be used by those (Pagans, Muslims, Buddhists - preferrably using the most offensive term possible for these people).”
“What do you mean vouchers are being used by that Fundie Islamic school, they train terrorists?!?”
“What do you mean the Wiccans are counseling abused women with my tax dollars - AND talking about getting strength through the Goddess?!?”
Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Never have truer words been spoken. **
jayjay**, have you ever used this phrase over at the ** Flatbread Consumption Location**? Might open a few eyes.
And on preview, add Dangerosa’s comment to the list of things I wish the wall-breakers could understand.
I guess everyone loves democracy until they’re in the 30%.
Your excellent quote, msmith537, reminded me for some reason of something Mike Tyson said to a sports writer ca. 1988. The sports writer said that Tyson’s upcoming opponent had a plan to defeat him.
For the ages, Tyson replied, “EVERYONE has a plan. Until they get hit.”