A federal program that makes public funds available exclusively to religious groups is inconsistent with the law and President George W. Bush's promises about how his "faith-based initiative" will be implemented, according to a national church-state watchdog group.

     Americans United for Separation of Church and State research has learned of a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) program that makes $4 million in grant funds available only to "faith-based" institutions for substance abuse and HIV prevention.

     According to HHS materials, secular service organizations are not eligible to seek or receive funding under this program.  "This faith-based set-aside is solid evidence from this administration that it is embracing a system of favoritism toward religion," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "This isn't a level playing field, it's an arena where secular groups aren't even allowed to play.

     "This religious quota is not only inconsistent with Bush's promises, it is inconsistent with the Constitution," Lynn added. "I believe the White House is inviting a lawsuit it is certain to lose."
 In March, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which is part of HHS, announced a multi-million dollar funding opportunity to establish AIDS prevention programs in minority communities. On the application for funds, one program, worth $4 million, was limited to "faith-based organizations" and "youth-serving organizations collaborating with faith-based organizations."  Americans United has written to HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson to notify the department of this program's unconstitutionality.

     "The criteria used to select the grant recipients are not neutral and secular but instead favor religion," AU's letter said. "The aid is not available on a nondiscriminatory basis to both religious and secular beneficiaries, but it is only available to organizations that are religious themselves or are working with religious organizations."

     The Bush administration has insisted repeatedly in recent months that it merely wants to allow religious groups to compete with secular organizations for federal grants.  On Jan. 29, for example, Bush unveiled his faith-based initiative at a White House ceremony and said, "Faith-based charities should be able to compete for funding on an equal basis."

     AU's Lynn responded, "There's nothing 'equal' about discriminating against secular service providers. It appears that the rhetoric of the faith-based initiative's supporters doesn't match the reality."

     Attorney General John Ashcroft's appearance at a TV preacher's Washington gathering shows his continuing allegiance to the Religious Right and indifference to religious pluralism, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

     At the session yesterday in the Cannon House Office Building, Florida televangelist D. James Kennedy touted his standard "Christian nation" viewpoint while introducing Ashcroft. The TV preacher quoted founder John Jay as saying America is "a Christian nation" and "as Christians we should prefer and select Christians to rule over us." Observed Kennedy, "We would have far less trouble I'm sure if we did."

     The closed-door, invitation-only event was sponsored by Kennedy's Center for Christian Statesmanship, a Washington-based group that seeks to evangelize public officials and their staffs. Although Kennedy is less well-known than other TV preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, his Ft. Lauderdale-based ministry is equally extreme in its approach to politics and religion.

     Kennedy, who campaigned for Ashcroft's approval during the heated Senate confirmation hearings, repudiated those who have criticized the attorney general's office prayer and Bible study sessions as a violation of church-state separation. "No such principle," said Kennedy, "is found in the Constitution."
 Kennedy also argued that the nation's founders supported religious activities in government. He even claimed that Thomas Jefferson insisted that the Bible and Isaac Watts' hymnal be used in District of Columbia public schools. (Historians say the claim is bogus.)

     Far from repudiating Kennedy's "Christian" version of America, Ashcroft took the podium to praise the Florida-based television preacher, noting that he watches Kennedy's show on Sunday mornings.

     Church-state separationists were outraged. "Ashcroft's failure to repudiate Kennedy's bigoted version of America is appalling," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "Public officials should be chosen because of their leadership skills, not their religious affiliation. America isn't a 'Christian nation;' it's a pluralistic democracy that welcomes persons of all religions and none. As attorney general, Ashcroft ought to reject any appeal for sectarian politics, especially when it occurs in his presence."

     Instead, during the applause that greeted Ashcroft, the attorney general turned toward Kennedy and applauded him. Ashcroft then mentioned the trumpets that open Kennedy's TV show. Citing scripture, Ashcroft said, "You know the Bible says, if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for battle?"

     Ashcroft said the trumpets on Kennedy's show are impressive but they are "second rate compared to you." He later told the crowd that "you ought to get college credit for listening to him."

     Ashcroft also said, "Obviously, the Center for Christian Statesmanship and Dr. D. James Kennedy are a wonderful addition to the voices that need to be heard in the United States Capitol and in America." (Ashcroft received the first "Distinguished Christian Statesman" award from the Center in 1996.)

     Said the attorney general, "The Proverbs tell us 'where there is no vision the people perish.' Thank you for bringing your vision to Washington D.C."

     Kennedy's "vision," however, is quite extreme. For an overview of his religio-political agenda and a sampling of opinions taken from his 1994 book, Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search of Its Soul. See: www.au.org/djkennedy.htm.

     I recently received a letter asking for a contribution to the Carter Center, an organization that works for peace around the world.  It has had some successes. 

     The fund raising letter however, was awash with calls for faith and implied that it was faith that led to the peace accords between Egypt and Israel.  Faith, according to the letter, is instrumental in overcoming obstacles created by, well, er, -- faith!  Nowhere was the possibility broached that some persons care for others without the inspiration of faith.  I felt compelled to write to the former President: 

     1/11/00 Dear Mr.Carter: Please may I note before I criticize your letter seeking donations, that I have always admired you.  I have had the honor of  voting for you twice for president and have approved of your post-elected  office conduct in service of peace and the common good.  That is why I am  particularly disappointed by the nature of your fund raising for the Carter Center. 

     In your letter you say "faith can help unite us for good when worldly forces seem bent only on destruction."   Amazingly the example to which you were referring consisted of a situation where it could not be denied that "otherworldly" forces motivated the adversaries.  Faith was precisely the thing that divided Jews and Muslims (in Israel and Egypt).  It was overcoming the divisive nature of faith by embracing the humanistic virtues of peace and cooperation that led to peace. 

     As a person of no faith, I was saddened to see the complete absence of any mention of persons who do well without supernatural inspiration or commands.  Do you really believe that faith is necessary to be motivated to care about others?  It is a shame that an effort to be inclusive remains divisive.  It could not  be more clear that if one wants to promote peace and unity among humanity,  that the prerequisite should be possession of that desire, not faith.  Peace is the value we need to embrace in order to promote peace, not faith, which  means different and irreconcilable things to different persons. 

     You are free to believe that your work for peace is the result of your faith, but I believe it is more enlightened to believe it is the result of your love of peace itself.  Why not welcome others who are not faith-motivated to join you?

 Very truly yours,

 Gerry Dantone. 

    Well, sure enough, President Carter responded in a hand written note as  follows: 

Gerry - 

     Do you have faith in America?  Your parents?  A commitment to peace?  In yourself?  We all live and act on faith.  I just enjoy a very important  faith that you (so far) resist. 

 Best wishes, 

 Jimmy C. 

     The former president's response is not unusual for someone defending faith.  Aside from the unavoidably arrogant idea that the person lacking faith is the one "resisting," the thing that is usually done is to obscure the definition of faith and make it difficult to pin down what the apologist for faith is defending.  In the fund raising letter faith is used to mean religious belief or belief in the goodness of a deity and/or of the "plan" of the deity.  Is not the latter meaning intended when someone claims that "faith can help  unite us for good when worldly forces seem bent only on destruction...."  How  does faith have a power when people have "very different religious beliefs"  as the Carter Center letter proclaims? 

     In no way did the letter imply that faith was really "confidence" in one's  parents, one's self, or something other than a religiously based belief.   Confidence, in the sense a rational person uses the term, is not based on a supposition of the supernatural.  It is based on a more scientific outlook on the world.  We have confidence when we have non-supernatural reasons to have  it.  A person of faith can have "confidence" or "faith" in something or  someone based on supernatural assumptions in a way much different than a  person without faith would mean it. 

     Do I have faith in America, myself, parents, humanity or the commitment to  peace?  Actually, no I don't have "faith" that the above will certainly  succeed or prevail.  People and humanity may indeed fail, it is sad to say.  It is possible that a commitment to peace may fail again as it has in the past.  Motivating persons of reason is not "faith" but an appreciation of our lives and the lives of others and understanding the impact of moral choices from which we must choose.  We have no choice but to pursue peace and common  decency if we care about others and ourselves and we should admit that we might fail in our quest.  That makes it all the more imperative to work hard at making this a better world.  Belief that "faith" will somehow make it a better world or that we somehow will have a better world as part of a sacred  plan can only work to lessen the urgency that our situation on this earth, in  this life demands. 

     It does no good to seek only persons of faith to join in the doing of good deeds.  The criteria must become the desire to do those good deeds, and that desire alone. 

     Perhaps President Carter is learning this.  The latest solicitation from Habitat for Humanity now reads "Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit housing  ministry based on Christian principles.  It welcomes those of any faith -- or  no faith -- to join in the work of eliminating poverty from the face of the earth."  Earlier mailings did not make the Christian nature of the  organization clear until after one had donated money and previously they did not acknowledge persons without faith.  This is an improvement on both counts. 
 Further, it seems that human conscience is at the root of Jimmy Carter's ethical decisions after all.  In a stunning blow to the Southern Baptist Convention, President Carter cut his ties with the organization.  Carter said  "I personally feel that women should play an absolutely equal role in service of Christ in the church." 

     The President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. James Merritt said,  "With all due respect to the president, he is a theological moderate.  We are not a theological moderate convention." 

     Carter said he would associate with Baptist groups "who share such beliefs as  separation of church and state, a free religious press and equality of women."  If these principles were in the bible, the Southern Baptists, Christian  fundamentalists, the Pope, and the rest of us I'm sure, would be interested  in seeing it.  These principles reside in President Carter's conscience. 

     In irony of ironies, President Carter has done the humanistic thing and  rejected some of the teachings of his original faith.  Congratulations to President Carter for losing some of that faith and replacing it with common sense and common decency. 

Reprinted from Long Island Secular Humanists' Inquirer April 2001