Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
From the New York Times this morning (ugh, I feel dirty even typing that name). Barack has made another gaffe (which is becoming more and more common as the luster wears off and people start to examine what he is saying), this time regarding his plans for reaching out to faith based organizations with a golden calf.
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.
First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.
Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.
While Mr. Obama acknowledged President Bush’s promise to “rally the armies of compassion” through such an initiative, he maintained that the promise had gone unfulfilled because of too little financing and too much partisanship — and that he, Barack Obama, would not only carry out but also expand what Mr. Bush had pledged.
He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking “as someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he spelled out “a few basic principles” to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.
“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”
That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.
The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama’s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.
Religious groups that know the law have long agreed that federal money cannot be used for proselytizing or discriminating against beneficiaries. But they have never agreed that taking religious considerations into account in hiring personnel — certainly for top positions if not for all staffing — should be considered discrimination. And they point to the religious exemption in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislative and Supreme Court decisions to back this assertion.
There it is, in a future Obamanation: he wants to expand the partnership between religious groups and the Federal government, but if you take any monetary support from the gubmint you cannot discriminate in any way, even if that requires you to hire people who oppose your identifying religious tenets. I am a banker, so I know this for certain: money always comes with strings attached. People come in to the bank and joke about me giving them a million dollars. I always tell them they can have as much money as they want as long as the get approved for the loan and sign some papers. I thought when President Bush first proposed the office of faith based services or whatever it is called that it sounded like a great idea. But that was naive and kneejerk on my behalf.
The reality is that the First Amendment is more about protecting religious groups and expression from meddling by the government, not banning all form of religious expression in any public forum. When the government starts funneling money with strings and qualifiers attached, the spirit of the Amendment is violated. Like private universities, once you start taking money from the government, you lose your ability to make decisions for yourself. It is very tempting, the idea of all of that money from the government. Sure there are some restrictions, but think of all the good you can do! But that means that Jewish groups may have to hire Baptists. Pentecostals may have to hire Catholics. Answers in Genesis may have to hire atheists. Not just people who are neutral on a key stance, but actively opposed to that tenet. I have worked places before, especially in financial services, where some employees were vehemently opposed to the idea of capitalism and boy they were not great employees.
From the New York Times this morning (ugh, I feel dirty even typing that name). Barack has made another gaffe (which is becoming more and more common as the luster wears off and people start to examine what he is saying), this time regarding his plans for reaching out to faith based organizations with a golden calf.
On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.
First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.
Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.
While Mr. Obama acknowledged President Bush’s promise to “rally the armies of compassion” through such an initiative, he maintained that the promise had gone unfulfilled because of too little financing and too much partisanship — and that he, Barack Obama, would not only carry out but also expand what Mr. Bush had pledged.
He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking “as someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he spelled out “a few basic principles” to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.
“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”
That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.
The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama’s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.
Religious groups that know the law have long agreed that federal money cannot be used for proselytizing or discriminating against beneficiaries. But they have never agreed that taking religious considerations into account in hiring personnel — certainly for top positions if not for all staffing — should be considered discrimination. And they point to the religious exemption in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislative and Supreme Court decisions to back this assertion.
There it is, in a future Obamanation: he wants to expand the partnership between religious groups and the Federal government, but if you take any monetary support from the gubmint you cannot discriminate in any way, even if that requires you to hire people who oppose your identifying religious tenets. I am a banker, so I know this for certain: money always comes with strings attached. People come in to the bank and joke about me giving them a million dollars. I always tell them they can have as much money as they want as long as the get approved for the loan and sign some papers. I thought when President Bush first proposed the office of faith based services or whatever it is called that it sounded like a great idea. But that was naive and kneejerk on my behalf.
The reality is that the First Amendment is more about protecting religious groups and expression from meddling by the government, not banning all form of religious expression in any public forum. When the government starts funneling money with strings and qualifiers attached, the spirit of the Amendment is violated. Like private universities, once you start taking money from the government, you lose your ability to make decisions for yourself. It is very tempting, the idea of all of that money from the government. Sure there are some restrictions, but think of all the good you can do! But that means that Jewish groups may have to hire Baptists. Pentecostals may have to hire Catholics. Answers in Genesis may have to hire atheists. Not just people who are neutral on a key stance, but actively opposed to that tenet. I have worked places before, especially in financial services, where some employees were vehemently opposed to the idea of capitalism and boy they were not great employees.
Faith based organizations of all stripes ought not to be fooled by the Trojan Horse of government partnerships. Any government, especially one run by a far Left leader like Obama, is sure to promise a lot, deliver a little and compromise the message. Better to be tight on money and true to your principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment