Will the government now determine what is an appropriate "religion?"  I assume that  new religions, sects, and "cults" will be neglected as the government determines where to spend this public money.  But where is the line drawn?  With Christian Science practitioners?  Scientology therapists?  Pagan shamans?  Native American medicine men?  Fundamentalist faith healers?  Hospitals of the lesser Saints?

     Would Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, or Jews feel comfortable sending their children to a well funded Lutheran or Catholic after-school center?  Does anyone really think funding religion will foster community better than establishing centers and health care facilities that belong to the whole community, city, or county but do not endorse a religious creed?  Faith-based social services opens a Pandora's box of problems that our founding fathers had sealed with the First Amendment to the Constitution.

      Consider the consequences.  Religious leaders may be inclined to keep from criticizing government policies for fear of losing funds.  Americans will be publicly funding groups that discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs and practices.  The motivation for giving that has traditionally come from religious congregations and inspired individuals will change.  Cutting money due to poor services will be viewed as religious persecution.  If only our elected officials would heed the First Amendment's warning: "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." 

     On February  21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill from the House of Representatives designed to incorporate the Protestant Episcopal Church so it could provide social services.  He did so because it violated the First Amendment.

     Madison's veto resulted, he wrote, "Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates [the First Amendment]..." 

"...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."

(From  A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. II, Bureau of National Literature, N Y, pp 474-475). 

See: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/madvetos.htm for the original bill and ensuing debate

     Dateline: February 1, 2001

     Unaware that reporters were listening, President Bush told Catholic leaders yesterday that his new program to give tax money to religious groups will help them promote opposition to abortion.

     The remarks, unintentionally broadcast over a White House public address system, contradict his earlier claim that the program "will not fund the religious activities of any group."

     Bush was privately meeting with Catholic leaders to discuss his executive order creating an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that will distribute billions of dollars to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. He also signed an executive order instructing government agencies to set up special departments helping religious groups get the money.

     Giving churches and religious charities public money raises troubling questions about the separation of religion and government that is at the heart of American democracy. Recognizing this, Bush promised that the new office would only fund social services, such as soup kitchens and drug treatment programs, when he announced its creation.   But in his private conversation with Catholic leaders, Bush said the program is intended to "change the culture" of America in ways that will make it easier for them to oppose abortion and save "babies." That is proselytizing  trying to convert people to a particular religious belief  and clearly breaches the constitutional wall between church and state.

     Bush's comments were accidentally played on an Oval Office speaker system that broadcasts the president's public remarks to reporters in another room. This conversation was not meant to be heard by the public, however, so a White House spokesman had some explaining to do when reporters questioned what Bush was saying.   The incident is similar to last September's embarrassment when candidate Bush called a New York Times reporter "a major league asshole", not realizing he was in front of an open microphone at the time.
 

     "We've got a cultural issue in America. We've got to change the whole way the issue is looked at," Bush said.  "That's the mission. Some in the political process don't have enough patience for that, and I probably don't either."

     Dear Reasonings Editor,

     I am very disappointed with Senator Feingold's vote to confirm former Senator Ashcroft to be the next attorney general of the United States of America.

     In my view the former senator's fanatical opposition to a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion makes it very doubtful if he would vigorously prosecute those who commit acts of violence against abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions.

     Moreover, his presence at  Bob Jones University as a  recipient of an honorary  degree from that institution  which specializes in anti-Catholic bigotry certainly  makes him singularly  unqualified to be the chief  law enforcement officer of  the United States of America. 

     Finally, Ashcroft's affinity  for those who cannot abide  the fact that the  late  Confederate States of  America was defeated by forces superior to it materially and morally makes him suspect as a person who could impartially uphold the civil rights of all Americans regardless of race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. I have specific reference to a friendly interview he gave to Southern Partisan, a publication devoted to trashing Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr. and all Americans who have been active in the fight for human rights and equality.

     There was absolutely no reason for Senator Feingold's disgraceful support of the former Missouri senator for attorney general.

     After all, Senator Feingold  certainly wouldn't have supported a person friendly to anti-Semitic institutions and publications; hence, I did expect him to vote against a person who has given aid and comfort to anti-Catholic bigotry and who has, in fact, spit upon the grave of every American who died fighting to preserve the Union and to end the scourge of slavery during the American Civil War.

     Senator Feingold's vote to confirm President's Bush's choice for attorney general is a vote that will live in infamy. 

 Do John Ashcroft's Religious Beliefs Include Rewriting History?

     John Ashcroft's desire to "return our country" to a  "Christian Nation" may necessitate rewriting our history books.  On January 16th, Ashcroft again repeated his belief that the American Patriots rallied behind the slogan, "No King but Jesus" while defying the King of England and establishing the philosophical foundation of our country.

     In fact, this slogan came from the Fifth Monarchy Men, a quasi-political religious party active in England from 1649-1661.  The Fifth Monarchists strove to overthrow Cromwell and usher in  the millennial Biblical "end times" -- when true Christians would rule.

     Although the sentiment "No King but Jesus" may have existed for centuries, this particular motto is not found in the writings of any leading American revolutionary.

     It was the merging of politics with religion that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said created grave social conflict both in Europe and in the American colonies.  Madison wrote, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?"  Let us hope that Madison's actual words will not be replaced by fictitious quotes.

       MY thoughts went floating on vast and mystic currents as I sat to-day in solitude and half-shade by the creek — returning mainly to two principal centres. One of my cherish'd themes for a never-achiev'd poem has been the two impetuses of man and the universe — in the latter, creation's incessant unrest, (1) exfoliation, (Darwin's evolution, I suppose.) Indeed, what is Nature but change, in all its visible, and still more its invisible processes? Or what is humanity in its faith, love, heroism, poetry, even morals, but emotion?

     On February 12, 1809, two boys were born, one on each side of the Atlantic Ocean. Neither appeared to be particularly promising in their childhood, youth and early manhood.

     Abraham Lincoln, the American, grew up under hardships, heartbreaks, and hazards of frontier life in Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois. Like so many others of his time in an expanding young country, he had a thirst for knowledge and managed to supplement his meager access to books by long, leisurely, deep thoughts of his own as he swung an ax, tramped the hills or plowed a furrow between the stumps. He even had to make his own arithmetic book. 

     Charles Darwin, the Englishman, was a poor student, according to the standards of his time, even though he was the son of a doctor and the grandson of another famous doctor.  He,  too, loved to tramp the hills  and was fond of dogs, horses  and hunting.  He, too, had an  inquiring mind and thought his  own deep thoughts as he  threshed out the why and  wherefore of things.

     Yet these two boys grew  into men who will be  remembered and imitated  wherever and whenever men  seek freedom.  The one, as  president, led this country with  simplicity and deep  understanding through a bloody civil war to establish freedom from slavery.  The other, by common sense and the careful weighing of evidence, showed that man is a child of nature and lives by nature' s rules.  Both were prepared for future greatness by their intimate acquaintance with the out-of-doors.  Both were simple kindly men, full of humor. Both hated injustice and cruelty.  Both loved the truth above all else and were driven by a desire to improve the welfare and progress of their fellowmen.

     Lincoln the statesman set free men's bodies. Darwin the naturalist set free men's minds.