PART III
VI. Pledge of Allegiance – "One Nation under God."
As of the writing of this paper, the nation awaits a decision
by the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of reciting in public
schools our "pledge of allegiance" that includes the words "under God."
The issue on appeal is not whether it is acceptable under the Constitution
to include the words "under God" in the pledge, but rather whether the
Constitution further permits the pledge to be recited with the blessing of
public officials in public schools. If the Court gets beyond procedural
issues that may justify dismissing the case without a decision on the
merits, the substantive question the Court will decide is whether it is
constitutional for public school teachers to lead the pledge.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judge Alfred Goodwin, wrote an
opinion accompanying that Court's most recent ruling on the case, stating:
"The pledge to a nation ‘under God,' with its imprimatur of governmental
sanction, provides the message to Newdow's young daughter not only that
non-believers, or believers in non-Judeo-Christian religions, are
outsiders, but more specifically that her father's beliefs are those of an
outsider, and necessarily inferior to what she is exposed to in the
classroom."
In commenting on the pledge of allegiance, Richard Land,
president of the Southern Baptist and Religious Liberty Commission, called
the 9th Circuit Court's decision "outrageous even for the looniest of all
the federal appeals courts in the land."[xxx]
In stark contrast to that Southern Baptist view, J. Brent
Walker, Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public
Affairs, states that although ceremonial deism may be legal, it isn't
necessarily advisable for Christians to advocate. If the Supreme Court
gets beyond procedural issues that may justify dismissing the case without
a decision on the merits, Christians (including Baptists) are clearly
divided in how they feel about the issue. Mr. Walker says, "The vitality of
religion in America is diminished by blurring the allegiance to government
with our ultimate allegiance to God. Are we any more religious today than
we were before ‘under God' was put into the pledge in 1954? I'm not sure.
But if we are, it has more to do with a commitment to full-orbed religious
liberty than with the mere repetition of God's name in our pledge of
patriotism."[xxxi]
As stated by Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, the pledge of allegiance case
"gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to remind all Americans of the
importance of freedom of conscience…." He says, "No one should feel
coerced to take part in a religious exercise to express patriotism. A
country founded on religious freedom should not be afraid to recognize that
love of God and love of country are not the same for some people.
Requiring a daily religious loyalty test for school children is simply
wrong."[xxxii]
Mr. Lynn also makes the point that the Pledge of Allegiance as
it was originally written by a Baptist minister in 1892 was secular and did
not include the words "under God." Those words were only added in 1954 as
part of America 's response to communism. This was at the end of the
McCarthy era in which Joe McCarthy led Congress on a witch hunt against
American citizens accusing them, without due process, of being communists.
After the public disgrace and fall of McCarthy, Congress
apparently decided to add the words "under God" to the Pledge as a way for
Americans to publicly affirm that they are not "godless" Communists. So in
the last hurrah of McCarthyism, Congress revised the pledge of allegiance,
thereby forcing every citizen to acknowledge God in order to show their
allegiance to the United States . The clear insinuation is that one cannot
be a loyal American without professing belief in God.
As we all know, there has been many a soldier that did not
believe in God yet willingly died fighting for the United States . Faith
in God has not proven to be a prerequisite for having allegiance to the
nation. But what are we doing to the conscience of that soldier who has no
belief in God but nevertheless recites a pledge of allegiance acknowledging
God? And this is not just any God. Clearly, the Baptist preacher penned
the words "under God" for the revised Pledge intended this to be "Jehovah"
God that is worshipped by Jews and Christians.
Do Christians really think we are serving God by requiring
Hindus, Buddhists, polytheists, deists, Wiccans, or other religions to
falsely profess a belief in Jehovah God in order to pledge allegiance to
their country which they genuinely love? What happened to the idea of
freedom of conscience and free will that has been so important to
Christians, particularly Baptist Christians historically?
VII. Faith-Based Grants
President Bush has been advocating Faith-Based Grants to expand
the "charitable choice" programs that were first made a part of the Welfare
Reform Act of 1996. When the president did not succeed in getting Congress
to approve legislation that he wanted for this purpose, he issued, in
December of 2002, an Executive Order expanding the ability of federal
agencies to provide funding to religious organizations such as churches and
mosques that provide social services.
There is a major difference between what is permissible under
this Executive Order and what has previously been done in the way of
federal funding for social services provided by religious organizations.
Prior to the "charitable choice" programs, the government only contracted
with organizations such as hospitals and charities that have religious ties
if the services to be provided did not include religious content as part of
the services.
Under the Executive Order funding will be permitted to
religiously based groups even if their religious work is intertwined with
their social work, provided that certain conditions are met. One condition
is that there be written assurances from the organization receiving the
federal funds that no federal funds will be spent on "inherently religious"
activities. Guidelines issued by the Administration states that "a
faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently
religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction or
proselytization, are separate – in time or location – from the
government-funded services that it offers."
One of the concerns with taking federal money is that it comes
with strings attached. As stated by Tony Campolo, a well-respected Baptist
sociologist, author, and evangelist, "Whoever pays the fiddler, calls the
tune."[xxxiii] As further quoted in Report from the Capital[xxxiv] Campolo
said churches and religious charities that think it is a good idea to take
government money are looking to the wrong place for their funding. "The
people of God have the resources to do what needs to be done, and we don't
need to be looking to the government…. If churches take Government money,
we will lose our prophetic edge. Separation of church and state is crucial
if the church is going to influence the government."
A. Treating Faith-Based Grant Recipients More Leniently than
Other Grantees
In virtually all federal grant programs, the grant recipient
is required to comply with myriad federal laws that are called
"cross-cutting" meaning that they cut across all federal programs. These
requirements, would normally, among other things, require grantees to
comply with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protecting against employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
But for his faith-based initiative, President Bush has insisted that he
intends that the grant recipients be relieved of the employment
discrimination prohibitions.[xxxv] He proposes to accomplish this by
enacting statutes or amending statutes one program at a time (e.g., Head
Start), to lift the civil rights protections applicable to faith-based
organizations receiving grants under the particular program or programs
funded by the various laws creating grant programs.
From my experience as an attorney with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) during the 1980s, responsible for deciding grant
disputes between municipalities and the EPA involving wastewater treatment
construction grants, I know that the government frequently changes the
rules of the game. Sometimes this is done through formal regulatory
changes. More often it is done by way of guidance documents and new
interpretations of old rules. The net impact is that there are numerous
ambiguities and grant recipients are subject to inconsistent treatment at
the hands of the government.
It is not difficult to imagine the election of new President
that is not so friendly to the idea of faith-based grants or the idea of
waiving the ordinary grant requirements for them. And it is not difficult
to imagine a tightening of the rules for receiving grants. For example, a
new President might insist that all grant recipients hire gays and
lesbians. Or perhaps, Christian grantee will be required to hire atheists
and individuals whose beliefs and lifestyles are inconsistent with those of
the organization. Just as religious colleges and universities that have
taken federal funding have been required to compromise their religious
principles to comply with federal requirements, the day will surely come
when faith-based grant recipients will be required to do the same if they
want to continue receiving grant funds. Having become dependent upon those
funds for their programs and for their payrolls, it may seem more
reasonable to bend to the will of the government than to forego the funds.
B. Grant Funding will Equalize Religious Organizations
As a federal grant program, the government will be required to
treat all qualifying organizations equally. Eccentric, fringe groups and
non-mainstream religious organizations may be helped more than the major
mainstream organizations that already have sufficient funding to run
programs. It will not be permissible to deny grant funding to an
organization because the government believes that the religion of that
particular organization is a fringe religion, cult religion, or even a
pagan religion. If it is a religious organization, it is entitled to the
full protection of the U.S. Constitution that makes all religions equal in
the eyes of Constitution. Merely because a majority of citizens or
government officials think the beliefs of a particular religion are
repugnant is not just cause to treat that religious organization
differently than those whose beliefs are more widely accepted.
Already, it is apparent that the Bush Administration does not
agree with this fundamental principle of Constitutional Law. According to
a December 2, 2003 press release by the Americans for Separation of Church
and State, White House "Faith Czar" James Towey was asked during an "Ask
the White House" question-and-answer session about the possibility of Pagan
groups getting tax funding to provide services to the poor and needy. His
reply suggested that it was not likely that Pagan groups would seek or
receive federal grant funds. In a similar vein government officials in
Chesterfield County , Virginia thought it appropriate to permit clergy from
main-line religions to give prayers before county supervisor meetings and
exclude a Wiccan (sometimes referred to as witch or earth/nature
worshipper) from offering the prayer. A magistrate of the United States
Court ruled that by creating an open forum for members of the Christian
clergy to give prayers before meetings, the supervisors could not
constitutionally deny a Wiccan the same opportunity because of her Wicca
beliefs.
A similar situation has occurred in at an Army base where
soldiers who were Wiccan (male and female) argued that since the Army base
provide meeting space for Christian groups it also had to provide a place
for the Wiccans to hold their meetings – involving chanting, and dancing in
the nude. The Army agreed to the request. If the issue had gone to court
it is likely the court would have ruled in favor of the Wiccans. What does
this have to do with federal grants to Wiccans? The same constitutional
principles that guarantee Wiccans equal rights with Christians to pray at
public meetings or to meet in public buildings will likewise be applied by
the courts to federal grant applications.
The government simply will not be able to deny grants to any
religious organization – regardless of how weird their beliefs may seem to
the government officials. This could have the affect of giving the
non-traditional religions greater financial backing to win support for
their programs, and ultimately their beliefs. Christians will see their
tax dollars being used by Pagans and cult religions to foster beliefs that
are contrary to Christian beliefs. Until now government leaders have
recognized that under the U.S. Constitution, no American may be forced
(through payment of their tax dollars or otherwise) to contribute to
religious organizations.
C. What happens if the Grant Recipient Fails to prove it
Satisfied the Conditions of the Grant?
As with any federal grant program, the recipients of
faith-based grant funds are subject to government audit to determine how
the grant funds were expended. They will be required, for example, to
present written documentation proving that the funds were used only for
those non "inherently religious" purposes approved by the grant agreement.
According to an article by the Associated Baptist Press, a
senior administration official said that monitoring of the grant funds
would be done just as it is with any other government contracting or grant
program. "I think they will monitor these programs the way we monitor
programs today," the official said.[xxxvi]
So how does the government currently monitor other grant
programs, and how do grantees fare when audited? In numerous grant
programs such as Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human
Services, The government is tough. Grantees often get an unpleasant
surprise following audit when the government demands that they return their
grant funds because their documentation was insufficient or because they
incurred "unallowable" costs. The projects funded by the grants may have
already been completed, and they may have produced a valuable service or
built a functioning building or facility. But unless the grantee can prove
that it met all the requirements of the grant and can prove with written
documentation satisfactory to the agency that the funds were spent
consistent with all the requirements of the grant agreement, it must return
the funds to the government. Meeting this burden of proof can be difficult
for a grantee because by the time the grant is audited few of the original
employees may still be working for the grantee. Memories fade. Documents
are lost. And the grantee has no way of proving it expended the grant
funds in strict conformance with the grant requirements.
If the Government demands a repayment of grant funds that the
faith-based organization has long since spent, and that organization does
not have the funds to pay it back, the government could very well take all
the assets, including the property belonging to the organization. It is
possible that the Government could take over church and religious
properties all over the country. To protect against such tragic loss, any
organization that is considering accepting federal grant money should
create a separate non-profit entity to be legally responsible for managing
the federal grant money and the grant program. The money and the program
should at no time be commingled with the basic church or religious
organization. This is fundamental, prudent risk management. Failure to
take these basic steps, in my opinion, would be so imprudent as to
constitute negligence or even malfeasance on the part of the directors and
trustees of the religious organization accepting the federal money.
.
|
