Faith Based Initiative
The Faith Based Initiative is an insidious intrusion into the separation of
church and state that was established by the First Amendment to our
Constitution. Our nation is a product of our Constitution. Within
that document, there is no mention of God. The only mention of religion is
in Article VI that states that there shall be no religious test for office.
Our founders established the first secular nation because they feared the
influence of religion upon the state that resulted in centuries of religious
wars in Europe. Our nation was founded upon the concept that the
government served at the will of the governed, not the will of God.
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Two
things were guaranteed: that Congress will not favor, promote, or endow
religion and that Congress shall not impede, obstruct, or penalize religion.
Yet today, Congress has sidestepped the Constitution, and the Executive
Branch has issued Executive Orders that have obliterated the separation of
church and state.
The following research is available at:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/churchandstate2.html
Welfare Reform Act and Ashcroft Amendment (1996)
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, signed by President Clinton, enabled some houses of
worship to receive tax dollars for delivery of social services, due to an
amendment sponsored by then Senator, now Attorney General, John Ashcroft. Prior
to that year, government funds could go to religious groups for social services,
but the institutions were required to have separate, secular nonprofit entities
to administer the programs. With the "charitable choice" provision of the 1996
act, religious charities were permitted to compete for government welfare
dollars.
Some groups fear that the ramifications of adding religious groups to the
federal welfare equation are far-reaching. The National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force complains that the 1996 Welfare Act also "allowed religious institutions
to discriminate in their hiring practices on the basis of religious belief,
gender, race and ethnicity, and other factors. Moreover, the 1996 law eliminated
safeguards that were intended to prevent recipients from being subjected to
unwanted proselytizing, the display of large religious icons in areas where
services were provided and other forms of captive-audience religious
expression."
Faith-Based Initiatives
In January 2001, President Bush announced the establishment of the
White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and Centers for
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in initially five, and later seven Cabinet
agencies: the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human
Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education and the Agency for
International Development.
The Office was formed to lead a "'determined attack on need' by strengthening
and expanding the role of faith-based and community organizations in addressing
the nation's social problems. The President envisions a faith-friendly public
square where faith-based organizations can compete equally with other groups to
provide government or privately-funded services."
Critics say that Bush's faith-based initiative doesn't have clear enough
protections against prosleytizing and discrimination in hiring. But it's not
just Republicans who've thought that taxpayers' money should be given to
religious organizations to run social welfare programs. In fact, during his
campaign for the presidency, then Vice President Al Gore proposed doing
something very similar.
Americans
United for Separation of Church and State (AU) strongly oppose giving
broad-based funding to churches and other religious groups. Charging that
faith-based initiatives violate the separation of church and state in various
ways, AU refers to such initiatives as "Taxpayer Funded Religious
Discrimination."
Some further references:
Workplace Religious Freedom Act In Need Of Revision,
Says Americans United
Watchdog Group Urges Congress To Rewrite Bill To Avoid
Constitutional Pitfalls
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
A proposed federal law intended to protect workers’ religious rights needs to
be revised so that it does not end up infringing on the rights of others, says
Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2005 requires employers to make
“reasonable accommodations” for employees’ religious needs unless they cause a
“significant difficulty or expense” to the employers. While intended primarily
to cover things like requests for time off for religious observances, the act’s
language, Americans United says, is dangerous and could lead to anti-civil and
personal rights abuses.
As an example, Americans United pointed to a spate of recent news stories
involving pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because doing so
would violate their religious beliefs.
AU also fears the measure could be used by employees to trump state and local
civil rights laws that protect people from discrimination on the basis of
marital status or sexual orientation, as well as employers’ voluntary civil
rights and anti-harassment policies.
“Religious freedom in the workplace should not be interpreted to mean
stepping on the rights of others,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive
director of Americans United. “Congress should not pass a law so broad that it
becomes a weapon that can be used against others.”
The House Committee on Education and the Workforce is scheduled to hold a
hearing Nov. 10 on the bill, H.R. 1445.
In a letter sent to House members today, Lynn wrote, “Americans United
strongly believes that no employee should gain a right under Title VII, of all
laws, to discriminate against or harass other employees or third parties at
American jobsites, even if the employee wanting the accommodation is motivated
by sincerely held religious beliefs. Further, it compromised by a religiously
motivated employee requesting an accommodation that could pose such threats at a
worksite.”
Lynn noted that Religious Right groups have been unsuccessfully litigating
under Title VII’s existing provisions to gain legal rights to proselytize and to
undermine compliance with civil rights laws and policies.
These groups will do the same with a powerful new tool if the Workplace
Religious Freedom Act becomes law, AU says.
Americans United says the spirit motivating the bill is commendable and
recommended that its sponsors revise it to resolve its defects.
“Religious freedom in the workplace can be protected in a way that does not
threaten anyone else’s rights,” Lynn said. “I urge Congress to make that clear
in this legislation.”
Americans United Criticizes House Approval Of 'Faith-Based' Job Bias
House-Passed Bill Would Allow Religious Discrimination
In Federal Job-Training Programs
Americans United for Separation of Church and State says the House of
Representatives was wrong to approve a job-training bill that would allow
publicly funded religious agencies to hire and fire workers based on their
religious beliefs.
Americans United had urged the House to reject the Job Training Improvement Act
unless it was amended to ensure that workers could not be discriminated against
on religious grounds in federally supported social service programs.
On Wednesday evening, the House voted 224-200 for the bill, after turning down
an amendment to protect the civil rights of workers.
"The House vote is a stark reminder that our civil rights and civil liberties
are in peril," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans
United. "For years, this job training law has protected the religious liberty of
all employees. Now, that protection is being jeopardized.
"The battle is not over yet," Lynn continued. "We believe the Senate will not be
willing to jettison these long-standing civil rights protections."
U.S. Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) introduced an amendment to restore civil
rights protections to the bill. His proposal was defeated by the House on a
239-186 vote that fell largely along party lines.
In a Feb. 15 letter to representatives, Americans United's Lynn reminded
lawmakers that when President Ronald Reagan signed the job-training bill into
law in 1982 it contained the safeguards against employment discrimination based
on religion.
"This twenty-three year old provision has worked well since the inception of
this program, allowing religious organizations to provide government-funded
services while maintaining America's bedrock commitment to protecting both civil
rights and religious liberty," Lynn wrote.
Lynn said he hoped the Senate would show greater concern for workers' civil
rights.
"We call on the Senate to restore to the nation's job-training bill civil rights
protections for all Americans," Lynn said.
AMERICANS UNITED PRAISES FEDERAL COURT'S DECISION IN 'FAITH-BASED' PRISON PROGRAM
Federal Court Says Legal Challenge Against Iowa Prison Ministry Program May Proceed
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today lauded a federal
judge's ruling that its lawsuit against a faith-based prison ministry program
may proceed to trial.
In 2003, Americans United brought suit in a U.S. District Court in Iowa, arguing
that the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) was violating the separation of
church and state by promoting an evangelical Christian prison ministry program
called InnerChange Freedom Initiative.
In its lawsuit, Americans United argued that the program, which receives state
funds, indoctrinates participants in religion and that inmates choosing to enter
the program receive benefits not provided to those who do not. InnerChange was
created and is operated by Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt, in a 29-page opinion issued today, wrote
that Americans United had produced "voluminous documentation," in arguing "the
InnerChange program is so infused with religion that it is impossible to
separate its sectarian from nonsectarian functioning." Americans United is
representing IDOC inmates, their family members and Iowa taxpayers.
"Government must not be in the business of religious conversion of inmates,"
said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "The whole
idea of InnerChange rests on accepting evangelical Christianity as a way to
rehabilitation. The set-up in Iowa is a blatant violation of the First Amendment
and must be shut down."
Pratt noted in Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison
Fellowship Ministries, that Iowa's corrections department had paid InnerChange
$1,111,553.50 "in direct payments" and that the contract with the religious
program has "been renewed and extended annually to the present."
AU's lawsuit charges that InnerChange is based solely on evangelical
Christianity. The program's materials describe it as "a revolutionary,
Christ-centered, values-based pre-release program supporting prison inmates
through their spiritual and moral transformation."
Pratt's opinion also ordered "that a trial will be held as soon as feasibly
possible on Plaintiffs' claims that IDOC's funding of the InnerChange program
violates" the First Amendment principle of church-state separation.
"The court's opinion recognizes that we have presented a substantial amount of
evidence in support of our claims that the InnerChange program violates the U.S.
Constitution," said AU's Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser. "We look
forward to proving at trial that the government is supporting religious
discrimination and coercion by funding and sponsoring InnerChange."
| 
