Tue, April 8, 2003

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of a lower court that allows for "indirect" government funding of faith-based initiatives, as long as a secular alternative is provided. In this case, a Wisconsin program called Faith Works provides a halfway house that uses nine months of intensive bible study to rehabilitate parolees. Recently, parole officers began offering Faith Works among the options for convicts, and the state began paying the Faith Works tab for those who chose to spend time there.

The Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sued, alleging a breach of separation of church and state, and lost. The court's point is a valid one – that the government isn't sponsoring a particular religion as long as they're equally supporting a secular alternative. Except, that argument assumes that sponsoring the idea of religion is what separation of church and state is trying to avoid.

Not so.

The separation of church and state was created to prevent the sponsorship of any particular religion over others ("none" being counted among the "others"). This is the sort of persecution America's founders were escaping when they left countries which each had a national religion. The only arrangement that would be truly equitable is if a secular option were available as well as an option for each other major religion. If your choices are simply Christian or secular, it fosters the "indirect" government sponsorship of Christianity over other faiths. A slippery slope at best.

America's strength comes from the cultivation of a pluralistic society. Maintaining this requires neutrality. If lawmakers are allowed to earmark public money to unbalance that neutrality, there is a very real danger of our pluralism collapsing. If Buddhist, Atheist, or Wiccan faith-based programs cannot afford to compete with Christian ones, it is the government's responsibility to protect the equal playing field by blocking all programs from receiving federal contracts.

A decision like this one will encourage churches to bid for more government contracts for other services. GED programs, job training, etc. Under a ruling like this, the churches will be able to take government money for these programs as long as a complementary secular service exists. Faith-based initiatives, with their size and resources and myriad cash inflows including the collection plate, will prove formidable competition for other programs whose funding may come exclusively from the government. Who will assure that the secular alternative is always an equal alternative?

As powerful primarily-Christian faith-based initiatives continue to expand their reach and scope, is it unreasonable to fear that the country may be overrun by an army of Christian robots, programmed by faith-based halfway houses, after-school programs, and relief agencies? The religious right constituted our president's most powerful voter base his 2000 campaign; is it unreasonable to imagine that his interest in underwriting their expansion is related to a recruitment effort for his party and his policies?

© onebee · all rights reserved