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 clearly intends to put the
free exercise of religion under both 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 for that matter choose no religion at all. 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 set 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
very dangerous political crisis 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 fascist specter of religious totalitarianism. As the old saying goes, “those who refuse
to learn from the mistakes of history 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 philosophical
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 camps that pertain more to the encroachment of
government on religion rather then 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. Fundamentalist Christianity is notorious
for using charity outreach to market its religious and moral prescriptions 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 do 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 that the fox will faithfully guard the chicken
coop, or that the dog will change its spots.
There is a long difference between promising that the 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 unobtainable without the recipient 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 will 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 against constitutional law 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 very big business. With so many organizations involved, the
government coffers have now also become 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 charity
organizations become attached to government funding the more they will assume
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 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.