Bush's Faith Based Initiative Hits Seven Years
Dubya wants to make his Faith Based Initiative program permanent.
In January, 2001, when Bush rushed funding for churches and religious groups providing social services, Americans United for Separation of Church and State said,
"Bush's plan throws the massive weight of the federal government behind religious groups and religious conversions to solve social problems. While houses of worship have played an important role in this country since its founding, these institutions have thrived on voluntary contributions. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions they may or not believe in is no different from forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues and mosques.
"America's founders would be appalled at the Bush initiative....
"When unveiling his legislative plan to Congress Jan. 30, Bush said, 'Government, of course, cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities.' This, however, is a distinction without a difference. In most instances, the services provided by religious ministries are explicitly religious. The president, therefore, cannot honestly suggest that he will 'change lives' by funding religious groups and maintain the façade that he is not also funding religion.
"In other words, an American could help pay for a job but be declared ineligible for the position because of his or her religious beliefs. That's not compassionate conservatism, that's outrageous. And under Bush's plan, it's perfectly legal.'
And that is one of the reasons the Faith Based Initiative programs hasn't received congressional approval.
As Bill Berkowitz has written, "One of the reasons no congressional action has been taken is opposition to the insistence by a number of Christian groups that they be allowed to skirt existing civil rights laws regulating hiring....
"...there are still no adequate measures in place to gauge whether religious organizations providing social services outperform -- or even perform equally as well -- as their secular counterparts.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State stated, "The president has promised 'secular alternatives' for those who don't want to be forced to go to a house of worship for help. But in some instances, particularly in rural and less populated areas, the closest 'alternative' can be a great distance away.
According to Rob Boston at Talk2Action, that is exactly has happened with faith based drug rehab programs.
He writes, "In 2001, a young man in Michigan named Joseph R. Hanas was arrested for possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty and was told he could avoid prison by entering a drug rehabilitation program.
"The program Hanas ended up in is called Inner City Christian Outreach. It is sponsored by a Pentecostal church. Hanas is Catholic, and upon his arrival at the program, his rosary and prayer book were confiscated. He was told Catholicism is a form of witchcraft and that he would not be allowed to see a priest.
"Hanas says he was indoctrinated with Pentecostalism. He was forced to attend worship services, read the Bible for hours a day and denied access to his attorney. He wasn't offered any actual drug rehabilitation; the program merely referred clients to another religious provider for rehab.
"Hanas was in tight spot. He believed the program was violating his religious liberty rights, but if he failed to complete it, he would be incarcerated.
"The matter ended up in court. A federal court ruled in Hanas' favor, and recently an appeals court agreed. The court called the violation of Hanas' rights 'flagrant' and noted that the young man 'faced incarceration if he were expelled for resisting [the pastor's] directives on how to worship.'
"The appeals court noted that there was a 'symbiotic relationship' between the drug court that sentenced Hanas and Inner City Christian Outreach.
"We've been told repeatedly by members of the Bush administration that faith-based groups provide services cheaper and more effectively than secular providers. There is no evidence for this, of course. The faith-based boosters just say it over and over, assuming that if it is heard enough, it will be considered factual by most people.
"Not only do faith-based groups have a lackluster track record of providing services, some of them, as this case shows, put conversion ahead of everything else.
"One has to wonder how many other people simply put up with the preaching, knowing that their only other option was incarceration?....
"...Violating people's constitutional rights by forcing them into programs where they are subjected to religious coercion is not a serious response."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State correctly claimed, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"For years, public funds have provided services at religiously affiliated organizations. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, for example, often have received government grants and contracts. However, strict safeguards have been in place to protect the interests of taxpayers and the religious liberties of those receiving assistance. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.
"Courts found this approach to be consistent with the First Amendment. Bush's plan radically alters that set-up by allowing churches and other houses of worship to preach, proselytize and discriminate while providing public services."
The Faith Based Initiative was another of the Bush administration's terrible domestic policies like inheriting a surplus from the prior Democratic administration and turning it into trillions of dollars in debt which included tax cuts for the super rich.
Bush and his fundamentalist right wing Christian cronies have used the Faith Based Initiative to claim and promote the United States as a Christian nation, which it is not, and by ignoring the rule of law, trampling the Constitution and defying constitutional separation of church and state.
In January, 2001, when Bush rushed funding for churches and religious groups providing social services, Americans United for Separation of Church and State said,
"Bush's plan throws the massive weight of the federal government behind religious groups and religious conversions to solve social problems. While houses of worship have played an important role in this country since its founding, these institutions have thrived on voluntary contributions. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions they may or not believe in is no different from forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues and mosques.
"America's founders would be appalled at the Bush initiative....
"When unveiling his legislative plan to Congress Jan. 30, Bush said, 'Government, of course, cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities.' This, however, is a distinction without a difference. In most instances, the services provided by religious ministries are explicitly religious. The president, therefore, cannot honestly suggest that he will 'change lives' by funding religious groups and maintain the façade that he is not also funding religion.
"Under the president's proposal, churches will be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving public dollars. A Bob Jones-style religious group, for example, will be able to receive tax aid to pay for a social service job, but still be free to hang up a sign that says 'Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply.'
"In other words, an American could help pay for a job but be declared ineligible for the position because of his or her religious beliefs. That's not compassionate conservatism, that's outrageous. And under Bush's plan, it's perfectly legal.'
And that is one of the reasons the Faith Based Initiative programs hasn't received congressional approval.
As Bill Berkowitz has written, "One of the reasons no congressional action has been taken is opposition to the insistence by a number of Christian groups that they be allowed to skirt existing civil rights laws regulating hiring....
"...there are still no adequate measures in place to gauge whether religious organizations providing social services outperform -- or even perform equally as well -- as their secular counterparts.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State stated, "The president has promised 'secular alternatives' for those who don't want to be forced to go to a house of worship for help. But in some instances, particularly in rural and less populated areas, the closest 'alternative' can be a great distance away.
According to Rob Boston at Talk2Action, that is exactly has happened with faith based drug rehab programs.
He writes, "In 2001, a young man in Michigan named Joseph R. Hanas was arrested for possession of marijuana. He pleaded guilty and was told he could avoid prison by entering a drug rehabilitation program.
"The program Hanas ended up in is called Inner City Christian Outreach. It is sponsored by a Pentecostal church. Hanas is Catholic, and upon his arrival at the program, his rosary and prayer book were confiscated. He was told Catholicism is a form of witchcraft and that he would not be allowed to see a priest.
"Hanas says he was indoctrinated with Pentecostalism. He was forced to attend worship services, read the Bible for hours a day and denied access to his attorney. He wasn't offered any actual drug rehabilitation; the program merely referred clients to another religious provider for rehab.
"Hanas was in tight spot. He believed the program was violating his religious liberty rights, but if he failed to complete it, he would be incarcerated.
"The matter ended up in court. A federal court ruled in Hanas' favor, and recently an appeals court agreed. The court called the violation of Hanas' rights 'flagrant' and noted that the young man 'faced incarceration if he were expelled for resisting [the pastor's] directives on how to worship.'
"The appeals court noted that there was a 'symbiotic relationship' between the drug court that sentenced Hanas and Inner City Christian Outreach.
"We've been told repeatedly by members of the Bush administration that faith-based groups provide services cheaper and more effectively than secular providers. There is no evidence for this, of course. The faith-based boosters just say it over and over, assuming that if it is heard enough, it will be considered factual by most people.
"Not only do faith-based groups have a lackluster track record of providing services, some of them, as this case shows, put conversion ahead of everything else.
"One has to wonder how many other people simply put up with the preaching, knowing that their only other option was incarceration?....
"...Violating people's constitutional rights by forcing them into programs where they are subjected to religious coercion is not a serious response."
Americans United for Separation of Church and State correctly claimed, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"For years, public funds have provided services at religiously affiliated organizations. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, for example, often have received government grants and contracts. However, strict safeguards have been in place to protect the interests of taxpayers and the religious liberties of those receiving assistance. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.
"Courts found this approach to be consistent with the First Amendment. Bush's plan radically alters that set-up by allowing churches and other houses of worship to preach, proselytize and discriminate while providing public services."
The Faith Based Initiative was another of the Bush administration's terrible domestic policies like inheriting a surplus from the prior Democratic administration and turning it into trillions of dollars in debt which included tax cuts for the super rich.
Bush and his fundamentalist right wing Christian cronies have used the Faith Based Initiative to claim and promote the United States as a Christian nation, which it is not, and by ignoring the rule of law, trampling the Constitution and defying constitutional separation of church and state.
Comments