Towards the Slippery Slope to Theocracy
Jason Pront
January 30, 2001
Since his inauguration, George W. Bush has proposed changes that could dramatically change this and take a first step over the bounds towards theocracy. Early this week the president introduced two executive orders aimed at bridging the gap between the clerical and the secular. While Bush's apparent motives may seem to be well meaning, or even noble, the precedent that these actions set are very dangerous to the foundations of this nation.
President Bush is a believer that private groups are more successful at assisting the poor and needy than the government. Given the dubious success of Welfare, the impending bankruptcy of Social Security, and the disaster that is the American health-care system, one could easily say that W has a point. Private grassroots charities can directly affect the problems at a more localized level, and may be the best method of helping those in need. In many cases these private groups have religious affiliation.
Up until now, these groups have not received funding due to America's belief in the separation of church and state. Bush now proposes that certain religious organizations receive federal aid in order to further carry out charitable activities. Which organizations receive government money are to be determined based on a set of as-yet unnamed criteria to be determined by an appointee of the president.
Naturally, liberals are distraught and irate at Bush's actions. Claiming everything from unconstitutionality to a right-wing Christian conspiracy, the left is convinced that Bush's move is both illegal and dangerous to the future of America. Is it? The question we have before us is one of utmost importance, and is certainly not easy to answer.
Many question the constitutionality of Bush's move, citing the First Amendment's clause regarding church and state. Interestingly, the Constitution does not explicitly prohibit Bush's move, or in fact demand the separation of church and state at all. The phrase reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." While this has generally been interpreted as meaning that the US Government should in no way become involved with any religious group, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in this amendment, or anywhere in the entire document for that matter. Furthermore, by issuing an executive order, Bush has avoided the issue altogether - Congress may not make any such law, but the Executive is not expressly prohibited.
While legalists can debate this semantics of the First Amendment until the cows come home, (and, given the lawyers I know, I can assure you that they will,) the real issue here is the precedent that this move sets. State involvement in religion is a very slippery slope, and once you begin to slide down that slope, the acceleration kicks in quickly. Which religious groups do you fund? And how will you determine this? Based on effectiveness? Well, who is to say what is more or less effective when you deal with intangibles such as charity. Size? That becomes discriminatory extremely quickly. What about fringe religions and cults? Do you fund Scientologist charities in the name of fairness? Do you not fund Scientologist charities because of some cult-like activities they may or may not have? Are they even a true "religion"? Should the government have the right to answer that question?
The difficulties with this issue are seemingly endless. I, for one, am sharply opposed to this plan. While I do not believe, like some groups would suggest, that this is a thinly veiled plot to funnel government money into the Christian right, I do think there is significant room for fraud and misuse. Furthermore, I see no fair and equitable way of distributing funds properly to any of the selected charitable groups.
George W. Bush probably means well. It is important that our president is concerned about the welfare of this country, and I am very glad to see charity taking such a high place in Bush's agenda. However, I feel that this plan was not thought through well enough. If Bush and his cabinet were to sit down and organize a solid plan, this issue could be addressed more effectively. It's a step in the right direction, but at the same time a step into hot water. Government must not be involved with religion. This country was founded on the ideals of freedom and equality. While the Constitution may not explicitly prohibit Bush's actions, it is clearly against the intent of our Founding Fathers. Any attempt to legislate religion, even on such a minute point as charity, leads to inequality. This plan will set a dangerous precedent which could lead to even more dangerous consequences. Government has no place legitimizing certain religious groups above others; any attempts it makes should be met with the utmost vigilance. This plan must not be permitted to be enacted.
