LETTERS.

The `Faith-Based' Initiative: Misguided And Dangerous

Thanks to Americans United for keeping American citizens informed about H.R. 7, a misguided and dangerous plan. I recently wrote to my member of Congress to urge him to oppose the "Community Solutions Act" as currently written.

The president has couched his argument for this proposal in terms of "religious freedom in action." Is it religious freedom to take the taxes of citizens having one particular religious persuasion and give them to churches and religious organizations that propagate another religion?

The proponents of H.R. 7 say that the money will go to social services, but not to the teaching of religion or to proselytizing. A few organizations might be able to maintain this demarcation. However, many of the organizations being mentioned as favorites of the Bush administration (to receive some of these funds) make it clear that the key to their "social services" is a religious experience corresponding to their doctrines.

For example, religious conversion is central to the view of rehabilitation held by Teen Challenge and Prison Fellowship. These organizations may be doing commendable work. However, should we coerce funds from Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and Jewish citizens to pay for the promotion of Christian conversion?

Another issue is employment standards for organizations receiving public funds. The controversy regarding the private negotiations between the Bush administration and the Salvation Army illustrates the slippery slope of trying to rescind anti-discrimination policies in hiring in certain instances. Again, should taxes paid by people of certain religious beliefs and practices be given to groups that openly discriminate against those taxpayers in their hiring policies?

Yet another issue, and one that likely in the long term will be the most troublesome, is that of the shift in emphasis regarding social services from public and secular non-profit providers to religious providers. Again, I acknowledge that the religious organizations that provide various services are an important part of our communities. However, to rely on this sector is totally inadequate.

It is tragic that the current administration tends to speak of the government as a negative entity rather than a vehicle through which the compassion of a broad spectrum of citizens could be expressed concretely towards the disadvantaged, the poor, the troubled, the addicted, the abused and victims of injustice.

--John Gustavson
Morrisville, N.C.

Appalled By Salvation Army

I am appalled by the collusion of the present administration with the Salvation Army to provide government-sanctioned protection to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The administration has bowed to pressure and retreated from the campaign, but this does not absolve them from guilt.

What is more disturbing than the Army's request for protection to discriminate is the administration's willingness to entertain the idea, act in accord and attempt to manipulate federal codes to achieve the desired end. The callousness displayed by the administration in "offering up" a segment of the populace is egregious. It is chilling when a government views any part of its citizenry as expendable political fodder.

We must work to defeat the "charitable choice" provision in the Watts-Hall bill, (H.R. 7) specifically -- and the president's faith-based initiative generally. The actions of the administration demonstrate clearly why this is a misguided concept.

--Renee Williams
Durham, N.C.

Government Money, Government Rules

My husband and I are Christians who attend church regularly. We are also staunch believers in the separation of church and state. This wall, erected by the framers of the Constitution, has served our nation well by allowing religions to flourish. At the same time, we have avoided religious abuses that have plagued history. Modern examples are: persecution by religious police in Middle Eastern countries and the religious wars of Ireland, India and Pakistan, and Israel and the Palestinians.

Thus, we are adamantly opposed to President Bush's "faith-based" initiative. Therefore, it is deeply distressing to learn that the Salvation Army was planning to spend $100,000 a month to promote Bush's ill-advised initiative in exchange for the right to be exempted from anti-discrimination laws. This money was given to be used for the poor, not for political reasons.

We are also concerned that the Salvation Army wants government money with no government rules. If the Salvation Army is allowed to take taxpayer money and also discriminate against homosexuals and lesbians, the door is opened for other faith-based groups to receive government money and discriminate on account of race, religion, and gender. People in all these groups pay taxes. Therefore, their tax dollars should not be used to discriminate against them.

For this reason we will no longer contribute to the Salvation Army because we see that our money is not being used for the poor, but rather used to lobby against a constitutional principle that we hold dear.

I will close with the biblical admonition, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If the Salvation Army cannot follow Caesar's rules then it should not take Caesar's money.

--Laura Carter Callow
Livonia, Mich.

Church & State welcomes letters to the editor. Although not all correspondence can be published, readers' opinions are appreciated. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit all letters for brevity and clarity.