Agile Tortoise
Greg Pierce’s blog
« Buy my truck! Imitation and Flattery »
Profoundly Disturbing
I’m personally incredibly disturbed by President Bush’s initiative to support faith-based programs with government funds. Not only is it unconstitutional, it’s just plain wrong — for the government, the faith-based organizations, the taxpayer, and most importantly the very people they seek to help.
I have some background in the non-profit sector, and know some of the implications. None of which are good — barring the most superficial acknowledgement that many of these programs are very good, and therefore it’s natural to desire to support them.
I’ve started to draft my letter to my representative and senators, but I’m interested if anyone here has any comments to enlighten my views. I’ll post my letter when it’s done, of course, but don’t want to taint the any discussion with details of my opinion out of the box.
January 30th, 2001 at 6:50 pm
Not only is it unconstitutional, it’s just plain wrong — for the government, the faith-based organizations, the taxpayer, and most importantly the very people they seek to help.
Greg,
I’m interested to hear why you consider it unconstitutional. The first amendment states the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Do you think that contributing to a variety of faith-based charitable organizations constitutes the establishment of religion? If he were only contributing to Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) organizations, then there might well be a case to be made for it, but that’s not the case as I understand it.
Me, I agree that it’s a dangerous idea, and if I ran a charitable organization, I’d be reluctant to accept help from the government, knowing that there are inevitably strings attached. I don’t think this is a good idea, but I don’t see it being unconstitutional.
Sean
–
Sean McMains <sean@mcmains.net>
http://www.mcmains.net/
January 30th, 2001 at 7:30 pm
> I’m interested to hear why you consider it unconstitutional….
The exact language of the 1st Ammendment aside, by the last hundred years of
court interpretation of constitutional law — I think it would generally be
considered unconstitutional….but, really, that’s a technicality and not
the tantamount issue. I don’t really care whether it’s legal or not.
>Do you
> think that contributing to a variety of faith-based charitable
> organizations constitutes the establishment of religion? If he
> were only contributing to Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish)
> organizations, then there might well be a case to be made for it,
> but that’s not the case as I understand it.
But that’s unavoidable. It puts the government in a position were it’s
forced to be biased. There’s no way it can distribute grant funds without
passing judgment on competing applications…which will, of course, lead to
conflicts where one religion is being held up against another, and the
relative moral virtues of each assessed — thereby requiring the government
to favor one or the other.
> Me, I agree that it’s a dangerous idea, and if I ran a charitable
> organization, I’d be reluctant to accept help from the
> government, knowing that there are inevitably strings attached.
That’s issue number two…which I also fully agree with. The “strings” are
there for good reason…the most notable being anti-discrimination laws. If
you take government money, you are required to comply with
anti-discrimination laws — which include not discriminating on the basis of
religion. That’s inherently impossible for a faith-based organization.
Obviously, a catholic anti-drug conseling program can’t be forced to hire
conselors that don’t believe in the faith…and they can’t refure to if they
take government money.
The talk on public radio today said that Bush implied that the faith-based
orgs would not be held to that standard — which puts all other secular
charities on unfair footing.
What’s the most screwy aspect of it, to me, is the institutionalization of
charity. If I’m a Baptist, I don’t want my tax dollars going to support a
program that encourages people to be Muslim…and more than a Jew would want
their tax dollar going to a Baptist mission. It the inherent control factor
that’s disturbing to me. The republicans make a lot of noise about small
government — but a policy like this, or one of my other most hated
proposals “school vouchers”, say “we know what to do with your money better
than you.”
Make tax changes that encourage private giving if you want to support
faith-based charity…that’s my message to Bush. Private giving encourages
involvement, community, and accountability in a way that the government
never can or will.
g.
January 31st, 2001 at 12:38 pm
Greg,
I love the way President Bush stirs people up with his new programs. I’m was so tired of the really dumb Clinton policies that people just rolled over on, that this new President doesn’t beat around the bush (no pun intended).
I think sending Police-Action troops to foreign countries is highly unconstitutional, but most Americans didn’t mind that policy. That particular policy needs to be ended and maybe we’ll get to that later this year.
I’m glad President Bush’s policies and Cabinet people will be present to help turn this country into a better place than it has been for the last 8 years. So go on and yell and scream about his proposals. It’s somebody else’s turn to do that now for the next 4 years, and I hope for the 4 years after that. All the while the changes go forward and that’s the important thing.
I did plenty of yelling and screaming while that ass-hole Clinton was President. Now I’m sitting in the rocking chair and watching changes unfold for a better country from my point of view. By the time the 2008 Election rolls around, I hope nobody even dreams of running on a Democratic Platform that tries to bring back policies of the Clintion years. As a country in 2008, we’ll be so far from turning the clock back to policies like Clinton’s, any advocate of such “ancient” ideas will only be laughed at by people of all parties alike.
Don
January 31st, 2001 at 3:40 pm
> I think sending Police-Action troops to foreign countries is
> highly unconstitutional, but most Americans didn’t mind that
> policy. That particular policy needs to be ended and maybe we’ll
> get to that later this year.
You always bring this up, Don…but I don’t understand why you think Bush is
going to do something about this. I’ve never heard him make any indication
that he had plans to do so…if anything, the republicans have a worse
history in this area than the democrats…Bush, Sr. being a notable
example…and Bush’s Secretary of State, while a very respectable man, is
also the first in recent history to be from career military perpective, not
a diplomatic one.
If you could point me to some policy statements from Bush that indicated he
was for withdrawing our international military presence, I’d love to read
it.
It’s neither here nor there in light of the current discussion, however.
g.
January 31st, 2001 at 5:29 pm
>Greg’s Home Space: http://greg.turtleprod.com/348
>–
>
>> I think sending Police-Action troops to foreign countries is
>> highly unconstitutional, but most Americans didn’t mind that
>> policy. That particular policy needs to be ended and maybe we’ll
>> get to that later this year.
>
>You always bring this up, Don…but I don’t understand why you think Bush is
>going to do something about this. I’ve never heard him make any indication
>that he had plans to do so…if anything, the republicans have a worse
>history in this area than the democrats…Bush, Sr. being a notable
>example…and Bush’s Secretary of State, while a very respectable man, is
>also the first in recent history to be from career military perpective, not
>a diplomatic one.
Greg,
Guilt by association or by genetics? We really are from different points of view.
I bring it up because I thought the core of your dispute with the latest Bush proposal was that it’s unconstitutional. Does that mean some things to you are more unconstitutional than others and they should slide by?
President Bush may not bring the troops home as I would like. But he campaigned on the issue of when is the right time to deploy troops. In light of that issue, I don’t expect to see Bush send troops willy-nilly to other parts of the globe like Clinton did.
I rejoice when I can when American’s are left out of the little disputes of the world. If this is such a global world, then let the neighbors closest to the problems deal with police-actions if its deemed important to them. Local and regional issues are more pressing to countries than global problems on that topic.
I’ll even go so far as to say that any American that wants to go and spill their own blood for a cause should be free to do so. But they have no right to send someone else in their place just because we have a huge military for our own defense.
>
>If you could point me to some policy statements from Bush that indicated he
>was for withdrawing our international military presence, I’d love to read
>it.
Unfortunatly, I don’t have such proof to offer. That doesn’t change my feelings on the topic. I believe I can find proof of the stupid police-actions of the past 50 years that have cost tens of thousands of American lives to be lost, hundreds of thousands wounded, and many thousands missing in action. The bulk of those numbers happened under Democratic Presidents. I guess you choose to ignore those realities if you like and find fault with me for my feelings and lack of ability to stop future waste of American lives. Had the Constitution been followed instead of doing end-runs around it for the last 50+ years, those Americans would not have been involved.
>
>It’s neither here nor there in light of the current discussion, however.
>
>g.
I don’t think the President’s new faith-based policy should be rejected or accepted straight out. It should be explored on the various merits of the issue with respect to whether it actually in reality violates the Constitution. So you see, I don’t pick-and-choose Constitutional issues and decide which ones to support or not support. But we seem to be on opposite sides of that matter as well.
Don
–
Donald W. Larson
Global Business and Project Manager
MacroByte Resources
San Marcos, CA
http://www.free-conversant.com/
“Knowledge organizations need to get knowledge workers to turn more of their knowledge into information, into documents, into content.” — Rewarding Knowledge Workers by Gerry McGovern, http://www.clickz.com/cgi-bin/gt/article.html?article=2405