Faith-Based Welfare
Reform:
A Constitutional
Crises
Part
Two
Government
and Religion
The opening phraseology of the First
Amendment states, “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (source). This mandate intends to put the free
exercise of religion under the protection of Constitutional law but clearly
also to prohibit government from entanglement with religion. At the same time the Constitution also
intends to protect the right of individuals to freely choose their religious
affiliation or alternatively choose no religion at all at the dictates of their
own conscience. In so doing, the First
Amendment’s phraseology was further designed to guard against government
authority being used to conscript either the individual or the nation to any
religious deity, theology, or doctrine.
Therefore, any legislation that empowers a religious establishment with
government money and/or government authority is by definition
unconstitutional. Furthermore, with all
political hair-splitting aside, any “faith-based” organization, as the term is
conventionally applied, is a religious institution and therefore an
establishment of religion. When we reach
the point where the president and congress are undermining the Constitution in
the service of factional religious interests, then we have a dangerous
political situation indeed.
The language of the First Amendment is
empirically justified in the most profound way. World history has repeatedly
demonstrated that in the absence of adequate civil safeguards, the encroachment
of totalitarian religion can become pervasive and devastating. There is nothing secret or complex about the
basic formula. First, some religion or
sect therein gains government favor through political influence and
compromise. Then after a while it
manages to get itself declared the official religion of state. Then eventually, it becomes the only
admissible religion and any tangible pretense to religious freedom is
ultimately lost in a draconian repression of all competitors including even the
option of non-participation itself. This
scenario characterizes some of the cruelest circumstances in the history of the
world. Epochs of great tyranny where
countless numbers of people were persecuted, jailed, tortured, and even
executed for harboring religious, theological, philosophical, or scientific
beliefs that ran counter to the prevailing doctrinal authority. For recent example, consider the oppressive
impact of Islamic
fundamentalism, replete with its ministry of moral virtue, on the Afghan
people and current world events. The
cultural realities of Afghanistan may seem to have little in common with the
politics of religion in America or issues of welfare reform. Still, America is a relatively young nation
and the not so subtle potentiality is clearly there. Some things happen incrementally and almost
imperceptibly over a period of generations.
The repressive evil of autocratic ideology, be it secular or religious,
lurks ever near, waiting for the opportunity to take the thrown of power. Undoubtedly, some of the worst culprits of
the present age, like Nazism and Communism, are forms of secular fascism. Still, this fact will never justify the
equally as oppressive specter of religious totalitarianism. As the old saying goes, “those who refuse to
learn from history’s mistakes are doomed to repeat them.”
Many within the broader
Christian community fervently oppose the faith-based legislation. This is presumably for essentially the same
reason held by people of alternative religious and non-religious persuasion. That is, the certain breakdown of
church-state separation that would ensue (source). However, without apology for anyone, there
are concerns within the right wing Christian camp that pertain more to
government encroachment on religion rather than the reverse. That is, their objections are not about
government money and authority being extended to faith-based charities, but
rather the restrictions against proselytization and discrimination that come
attached to it. Christianity is
notorious for using charity outreach to market its religious and moral goods
and thus fulfill its evangelistic causes.
What better way (as the theory goes) to solicit and hold the attention
of the poor but with basic commodities like food, shelter, and money? In the absence of government restrictions,
faith-based charities impose religious coercion or outright obligation in
exchange for whatever material assistance they actually dispense. The fundamentalist Christian view of
humanitarian causes is that the material component of charity cannot be
separated from the act of spreading their version of the gospel and winning
over converts. Their agenda is
reasonable enough when kept within civilly respectful bounds and the charity is
supported entirely by private sector donations.
However, when government money and authority are involved, it becomes a
different matter altogether.
From the fundamentalist viewpoint, being
obligated to work under the shadow of government restrictions would ultimately
serve to dilute the religious character of their outreach and thus make them
puppets to the will of the state. With
the current restrictions in effect, this would be true in theory for any
organization that went on the dole for the money. However, for the very same reasons, the
organizations that take the money cannot be trusted to abide in good faith with
any government mandated restrictions. It
amounts to a blatantly classic example of pledging the fox will faithfully
guard the chicken coop, or that the dog will change its spots. There is a long difference between promising
that restrictions will be faithfully enforced versus having the charity
organizations actually conform. Many
participating organizations will likely give only enough respect to the
mandated restrictions to avoid significant legal trouble. As their experience
grows, they will also become more adapt at circumventing the restrictions in
favor of their religious agenda (article). Over time, the pressures they exert on
government to have all restrictions against proselytization and discrimination
lifted will become increasingly more intense. President Bush’s agenda of
“partnership” with religion is an unequivocal result of just such pressure
politicking. The underlying problem is
there can’t be any partnership between religion and government that is
constitutionally valid! In view of this,
one should consider just how well the President’s executive orders match up
against his sworn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, which
was a condition of his inauguration (Article
Two).
If
the above stated scenario is allowed to run its course, the existing
religiously neutral welfare system stands to degenerate into a system of
religious guilds. In such case,
appropriately credentialed human service workers stand to be discriminated against
in favor of employees or volunteers with the “correct” religious loyalties and
social engineering theories. Thus, as
the faith-based welfare dynasty gains dominance, the religiously neutral human
service professionals face being pushed out of the market altogether. In such case, access to welfare entitlements
will become increasingly difficult to obtain without the recipients being
forced to run the gauntlet of religious indoctrination, obligation, and moral
tribunal.
This
brings the commentary around to the most deadly aspect of the whole
matter. The Thirteenth Amendment to the
Constitution made slavery and involuntary servitude illegal (source). Coupled with the First Amendment religious
establishment clause, any reasonable interpretation of the law must therefore
encompass the illegality of enslavement to religion itself. From this viewpoint, the resulting civil
rights infringements will impact both the welfare recipients and the wage
earning Americans that must ultimately foot the bill.
It’s
certainly legitimate for private citizens to support faith-based charities if
they so desire. However, it’s something
altogether different for the government to use tax revenues to that end. As the situation stands, the government is
becoming increasingly given to using tax money to dictate not only how much we
will donate, but also what charities benefit.
This amounts to forcing us to pay tithe to the churches! As such, the charitable choice and
faith-based legislation amounts to some of the most blatant subterfuge that has
ever occurred in American politics. The government does not have the right to
subsidize organized religion of any kind regardless of how “righteous”,
“socially redeeming” or “compassionate” the causes are exposed to be. If
government does not want to preserve and defend a religiously neutral public
welfare system, then it should get out of the business of funding welfare
altogether and reduce the associated tax burden on the American worker. Then, each of us can decide for ourselves
which “faith-based” or secular charity organizations deserve support and then
how much we will donate if anything at all.
Solicitation of private sector charity
money alone has become big business.
With so many organizations involved, the government coffers are now
extremely lucrative targets. With
monolithic organizations like the Salvation Army, United Way, Catholic
Charities, Jewish Federation of Charities and others on the dole, lobbying for
government favor at both the national and state levels is strong and
pervasive. Inevitably, these charities
are an attractive source of grass roots support for vote-hungry
politicians. The attraction runs both
ways because stewardship of government money and authority means economic and
political power. The more that these charity organizations become attached to
government funding the more they will take it to be their just due. Then, the
continued solicitation of government funds becomes an end in of itself with the
wealth and political status of the organization coming first before anything
else. Other faith-based organizations
that are presently reluctant to get involved may end up with no choice just to
survive. As such, a faith-based public
welfare system stands to become a huge political swamp. One that is replete with fraud, waste, and
sectarian power struggles for government favor as well as control over the
beliefs and the lives of the needy people they allegedly serve. The resulting private sector bureaucracy is
thus also bound to dramatically exceed the inefficiencies, abuses, and cost of
the existing civil service administered welfare system. On these and all preceding grounds, the
existing charitable choice clause and present “faith-based” initiatives are
dangerously incompetent pieces of legislation.