Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation

[FredFlash]

Americans United: Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says Americans United

Congressional Meddling In Religion Violates Church-State Separation, Says Americans United
​

Wednesday, March 28, 2007


Politicians Should Stick To Legislating And Leave Decisions About Religion To Individual Americans, Says AU's Lynn


A group of U.S. lawmakers that today urged Americans to get “back to prayer” should stop meddling in religion and get back to work, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.


At noon, U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and congressional allies held a press conference at the Capitol to “officially call America back to prayer and encourage people to sign up to pray for our nation for five minutes each week.”


Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Lawmakers should stick to their constitutional duties and leave religious decisions to individuals. Congressional meddling in religion is an affront to the First Amendment principle of church-state separation. Religion is too important to become a political football.”


Lynn noted that the nation’s Founding Fathers were against mixing religion and government.


James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the Constitution, noted in 1788, “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation.”


“There are a host of political issues of utmost importance to Americans,” said Lynn. “Rep. Forbes and other members of Congress should work on those and leave decisions about religion to the American people.”


Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

 

[rathi]

a good move by these guys. Too many of the church leaders today forget that the once the church starts influencing the state, the state starts influencing back. And who wants a bunch of scum sucking bottomfeeders messing with your church?

 

[Stinger]

a good move by these guys. Too many of the church leaders today forget that the once the church starts influencing the state, the state starts influencing back. And who wants a bunch of scum sucking bottomfeeders messing with your church?

I have never understood why religious conservatives would want to mix government and religion.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “Lawmakers should stick to their constitutional duties and leave religious decisions to individuals. Congressional meddling in religion is an affront to the First Amendment principle of church-state separation. Religion is too important to become a political football.”

Thank you Reverend!

 

[OKgrannie]

I have never understood why religious conservatives would want to mix government and religion.

Because they would like to have financial support from the government. They ignore the history that proves government control follows government money.

 

[Stinger]

Because they would like to have financial support from the government. They ignore the history that proves government control follows government money.

I've never seen any huge examples of conservative religious groups petitioning government for any monies to speak of.

 

[OKgrannie]

I've never seen any huge examples of conservative religious groups petitioning government for any monies to speak of.

Here are some huge examples. Religious groups have to APPLY for this money:

The New York Times > Business > Image > Federal Dollars, Religious Recipients

"Federal Dollars Religious Recipients

Here is a look at federal grants awarded to faith-based organizations, and several of the lawsuits that challenged whether funds were spent unconstitutionally to promote religion."


$14 million in federal faith-based money goes to Pat Robertson

"$14 million in federal faith-based money goes to Pat Robertson
Televangelist's claim that Ariel Sharon's stroke was an act of God may have cost him the friendship of some Israelis, but it hasn't prevented his charity, Operation Blessing, from garnering faith-based grants from the U.S. government"

Approximately 2 billion dollars was distributed to faith-based organizations in 2005.

 

[FredFlash]

I have never understood why religious conservatives would want to mix government and religion.

They believe that civil government was ordained by God, that its authority comes from God and its purpose is to glorify God. However, the founders held that civil government was conceived by man, that its authority comes from the consent of the governed and its primary object is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Religious conservatives who advocate a union of church and state are enemies of our basic republican principles and should be seen as traitors, in the political sense, and Anti-Christian in the spiritual sense.

 

[Stinger]

Approximately 2 billion dollars was distributed to faith-based organizations in 2005.

I don't have a problem with faith based initiatives like this, as long as they are not requiring those who receive it to engage in the religion.

That is not what drives the so-called religious right and a major separation issue.

 

[Stinger]

They believe that civil government was ordained by God, that its authority comes from God and its purpose is to glorify God.

Some zealots do but most just want to believe we are "Christian Country" and Christianity should be allow to use government facilities to further or support their religion.

However, the founders held that civil government was conceived by man, that its authority comes from the consent of the governed and its primary object is to secure "certain unalienable Rights" including "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Endowed by their Creator, whomever we each individually deem that to be.

Religious conservatives who advocate a union of church and state are enemies of our basic republican principles

I wouldn't call them enemies, mistaken perhaps.

and should be seen as traitors, in the political sense, and Anti-Christian in the spiritual sense.

I think attitudes on both sides of the issue need to be civil.

 

[OKgrannie]

I don't have a problem with faith based initiatives like this, as long as they are not requiring those who receive it to engage in the religion.

That is not what drives the so-called religious right and a major separation issue.

Such requirements are happening and there is little oversight in these programs to prevent it. As far as money being the issue that drives the RR and the separation issue, I believe it is a major factor, at least with leaders of religious groups. These programs are also allowed to discriminate in hiring with federal money. BTW, I erred hugely on the amount of money being spent for these programs: Faith Base Initiative
"How Much Money?

How much are taxpayers paying for what Barry Lynn, Executive Director of American's United calls "federally subsidized employment discrimination?" According to Daniel Zwerdling who produced two programs on faith-based initiative for Bill Moyers TV show NOW in September, 2003, "administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information."

The March, 2004, issue of Church and State reports that the "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced to reporters that $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.

By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups ccould apply for more money through state-administered programs."



Religion for Captive Audiences, With Taxpayers Footing the Bill - New York Times

"the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress."


This is a lengthy article with examples of mixing religious services with social services:
Bush brings faith to foreign aid - The Boston Globe
"Many Christian groups, however, acknowledge that they aim to convert new members, while denying that they proselytize."



Statements, Sermons & Letters Index - Interfaith Alliance

"Host: Now, as I understand it, funding even under the Faith-Based Initiative is supposed to prohibit proselytizing.

Gaddy: That is correct. And the president, since the election, has been saying that with a clarity that he had not used before. However, there is a kind of double-speak. The president often has said, we will not fund proselytizing so we will not fund faith. But when you ask the president why then is the Faith-Based Initiative so important, he says, because faith makes the difference in recovery for alcoholics or recovery for drug abusers or, faith makes the difference in motivating young people to go get a job. Well, if we're not funding faith, then why is he emphasizing faith in the initiative so much? There's a lot of lack of clarity there that probably will not be revealed until we get court cases with lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of this initiative."

 

[Stinger]

If that is what you were alluding to, the faith based initiatives, as reason for conservatives wanting to involve thier religion in government and vice versa, then I simply don't see an issue. The whole "employment discrimination", why don't you just come out and say it for what it is, argument is simply not an issue but simply a means the left can prevent the conservative Christians, from recieving a share of federal money ear marked for helping the community. I fine if silly to put that ahead of the good work these groups mostly do. Why are you so opposed to them aid and helping the community if they aren't going to prostelitize while doing so?

 

[OKgrannie]

If that is what you were alluding to, the faith based initiatives, as reason for conservatives wanting to involve thier religion in government and vice versa, then I simply don't see an issue. The whole "employment discrimination", why don't you just come out and say it for what it is, argument is simply not an issue but simply a means the left can prevent the conservative Christians, from recieving a share of federal money ear marked for helping the community. I fine if silly to put that ahead of the good work these groups mostly do. Why are you so opposed to them aid and helping the community if they aren't going to prostelitize while doing so?

Excuse me, they ARE proselytizing while doing so, even though they claim not to be. Check out my links, google, it's all over the web. Also there is NO evidence to show that faith-based groups do a better job of social services. Also faith-based initiatives are almost always going to aid larger denominations at the expense of smaller groups. When faith-based groups want to do good works, and they do, they should do it with money they raise themselves from private sources. If the goal is to benefit the community, why do conservative Christians feel it benefits the community MORE to have the money funneled through them instead of the social service agencies already in place with trained personnel? Money to fund faith-based initiatives is merely being moved from current agencies to faith-based agencies, there has been no additional money allocated.

 

[tryreading]

If that is what you were alluding to, the faith based initiatives, as reason for conservatives wanting to involve thier religion in government and vice versa, then I simply don't see an issue. The whole "employment discrimination", why don't you just come out and say it for what it is, argument is simply not an issue but simply a means the left can prevent the conservative Christians, from recieving a share of federal money ear marked for helping the community. I fine if silly to put that ahead of the good work these groups mostly do. Why are you so opposed to them aid and helping the community if they aren't going to prostelitize while doing so?

The President's faith-based initiatives are a violation regardless of where the money goes, even if supposedly it will go to the poor, and regardless of whether the church prosyletizes or not. The government can not give money to religious institutions.

When James Madison was President, a bill came before him calling for the chartering of an Episcopal church in Alexandria, Virginia. Of course he vetoed it. He sent this response to the House of Representatives on February 21, 1811:


"Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into, and establishes by, law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of a minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law; a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society; inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics; as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable, according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves; and, as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

"Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor, and the education of poor children of the same; an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."

<a href="/ammem/amlaw/lwsj.html">Senate Journal</a> --SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1811.

 

[Stinger]

Excuse me, they ARE proselytizing while doing so, even though they claim not to be.

THEY are not that we know of, if the are some isolated cases then they should be stopped. But to deny them all the funds needed to do the good work they do is absurd.

Check out my links, google, it's all over the web. Also there is NO evidence to show that faith-based groups do a better job of social services.

If they merely do as good a job all the better.

If the goal is to benefit the community, why do conservative Christians feel it benefits the community MORE to have the money funneled through them instead of the social service agencies already in place with trained personnel?

Premises not established and they fill in, like non-faith based groups, where the government routinely fails. Why do you think only government groups can provide these services in every community?

Money to fund faith-based initiatives is merely being moved from current agencies to faith-based agencies, there has been no additional money allocated.

And joined with private money to provide the services they do.

Do you support ending funding to ALL private groups and only funnelling money through government groups of just cutting off faith-based groups?

 

[Stinger]

Then end all funding for social services I believe both Madison and Jefferson stated government should not be involved in such activities AT ALL, there is no reason to not included church based groups, as long as they do not use the money to further their religion than it is to not included a group because it may have a particular political leaning.

But feel free to take it to court and see what SCOTUS says about it.

 

[OKgrannie]

THEY are not that we know of, if the are some isolated cases then they should be stopped. But to deny them all the funds needed to do the good work they do is absurd.

My links clearly show otherwise.

If they merely do as good a job all the better.

If they do an equal job, why are they better? That's contradictory.

Premises not established and they fill in, like non-faith based groups, where the government routinely fails. Why do you think only government groups can provide these services in every community?

Government groups don't discriminate in hiring and don't violate the separation clause.

And joined with private money to provide the services they do.

Do you support ending funding to ALL private groups and only funnelling money through government groups of just cutting off faith-based groups?

In some cases private money dries up when government money flows in. Funding faith-based groups clearly violates the Lemon test. Faith-based groups discriminate in hiring, have unqualified personnel, proselytize, and unfairly benefit from government funding.

 

[Stinger]

Government groups don't discriminate in hiring and don't violate the separation clause.

Yeah so it's all about homosexuality. Rather than help people you'd rather present this phony issue. Well we'll just disagree and you can vote for people that will cut off funding to hundreds of groups with thousands of volunteers who are helping hundreds of thousands of people in need because you think a handful of homosexuals will not be hired by a fraction of the groups.

What folly.

 

[OKgrannie]

Yeah so it's all about homosexuality. Rather than help people you'd rather present this phony issue. Well we'll just disagree and you can vote for people that will cut off funding to hundreds of groups with thousands of volunteers who are helping hundreds of thousands of people in need because you think a handful of homosexuals will not be hired by a fraction of the groups.

What folly.

Religious groups discriminate on a RELIGIOUS basis. Give money to faith-based groups so they can PAY their own members to work!!! Why won't they volunteer? It's not as though faith-based groups are the ONLY ones able to provide a needed service.

 

[Stinger]

Religious groups discriminate on a RELIGIOUS basis. Give money to faith-based groups so they can PAY their own members to work!!! Why won't they volunteer? It's not as though faith-based groups are the ONLY ones able to provide a needed service.

Most do. Vote for someone who will end all the help they provide to the community then you can be proud of yourself.

 

[tryreading]

Then end all funding for social services I believe both Madison and Jefferson stated government should not be involved in such activities AT ALL, there is no reason to not included church based groups, as long as they do not use the money to further their religion than it is to not included a group because it may have a particular political leaning.

But feel free to take it to court and see what SCOTUS says about it.

No reason? Government can't give money to the church for Constitutional reasons. That's pretty important.

This thread is about church-state violations, not whether social services should be funded. That's not a Constitutional issue.

Are you so naive you think the churches receiving this public money, which is a crime, will not preach to any of the people who receive it?

 

[OKgrannie]

Most do. Vote for someone who will end all the help they provide to the community then you can be proud of yourself.

Nothing should stop volunteers from helping the community, they should not need government payment to do so.


Expose of corruption on the faith-based initiative program

"We must disagree here. Even if the faith-based initiative somehow avoided the problems cited by Mr. Kuo or enumerated in the recent Government Accounting Office report on accountability and oversight within the program, it remains a constitutionally flawed and unfair idea. A "better" faith-based initiative, whatever the bureaucratic criteria may be, still extorts money from millions of Americans who are Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists or some other type of nonbeliever. It takes money from those who do not embrace religious creeds, and gives it to churches and other faith-based groups. It crosses a constitutional line dividing the spheres of church and state, ultimately promotes religious faith, and amounts to a "religion tax" on our citizenry.

The faith-based initiative should be dismantled not because it is organizationally flawed, or lacks sufficient guidelines, or requires further tinkering, but because it is unconstitutional and ethically wrong. It does not matter that more churches, mosques or temples have yet to endorse it or participate. Government has no business subsidizing religious groups in such a fashion, even under the guise of "compassionate conservatism." If the notion of "religious liberty" and the principle of freedom from religious coercion mean anything, it must be a declaration that no man or woman may be compelled by the state to believe in a particular creed, join a certain congregation, or support a religious organization (and religious belief in general) through taxation."

 

[Stinger]

No reason? Government can't give money to the church for Constitutional reasons. That's pretty important.

Except if it is not given to the church but instead to a social service they provide.

Like I said if it makes you feel better vote to prevent these organizations from providing desperately need help to the community, just as a non-religious does.

This thread is about church-state violations, not whether social services should be funded. That's not a Constitutional issue.

Well actually it is if you are going to cite Madison and the founding fathers who believe NO social services should be provided by government using taxpayer monies.

Are you so naive you think the churches receiving this public money, which is a crime, will not preach to any of the people who receive it?

No it is not a "crime" there is a difference between a criminal violation and a civil violation but I think your having to try and misrepresent it speaks volumes, if they do stop the money are you so against religion that you assume the will?

So vote for people who want to stop this cvaluable service or better yet really hold to the constitutional principle that it is not the role of the federal government to provide for social services.

 

[OKgrannie]

Except if it is not given to the church but instead to a social service they provide.

Like I said if it makes you feel better vote to prevent these organizations from providing desperately need help to the community, just as a non-religious does.

The money is given to a CHURCH with little oversight to make sure the rules are followed. Stop with this boo-hoo that people are going to suffer without government funded churches, other organizations have been providing services for years within government guidelines. Furthermore there is nothing to stop a church from raising money privately to fund their own activities.

 

[Stinger]

The money is given to a CHURCH with little oversight to make sure the rules are followed. Stop with this boo-hoo that people are going to suffer without government funded churches, other organizations have been providing services for years within government guidelines. Furthermore there is nothing to stop a church from raising money privately to fund their own activities.

Stop your denials that many people will not recieve the proper and good assistance the recieve from these services. You choose which is more important for you own reasons.