Let government fund religion

Margaret Mitchell

ABC.com says, "Bush Pushes for Religious Programs." You could easily believe that statement if you read the headline alone.

President Bush is moving forward with his plan to make money available to faith-based charities in an effort to build a bridge between religion and government. Critics say he's trying to breach the wall between church and state. Who is right?

Now, before I go any further into this opinion piece, let me say up front that I am not a Bush "fan," and I did not vote for him, so this is not a puff piece written by a cheerleader for the politico of the hour. Disclaimer over.

Before passing judgment on the merits of this plan, it is necessary to take a look at just what is being proposed. According to what I've seen, Bush wants to let faith-based charities compete with non-faith-based charities for government assistance.

Note the operative word: "compete," not "hand on a silver platter."

By definition, "compete" means making a voluntary decision about jumping through the hoops that have been set up in the hope of receiving some benefit despite the fact that there are strings attached ... and there will be strings because there always are with government "assistance."

The thing about government assistance of any kind is that it is voluntary. Just because it is available does not mean that an organization must compete for it, nor does it mean that they must accept it.

It's an option, and if there are qualified organizations that want it and are willing to jump through hoops and accept strings to get it, they should be able to compete for it, whether they are religious or not.

On the opposite side of the church-state wall is whether religion will begin to influence government.

First, if there is anyone who still actually believes that religion does not influence government, I've got a couple of bridges in New York to sell you.

Despite the efforts to separate the two, as long as people run government and people are involved in religion, the two will always be connected. The "trick" is to temper the jagged edges that religion can take on when it comes to pushing its own agenda.

Looking at programs offered by religious groups, specifically the ones most likely to actually receive funding under Bush's plan, they serve a secular purpose. 

The country as a whole has an interest in rehabilitating its substance abusers, training its workers and feeding its people.

While the U.S. government does have programs to fill these needs, there are limits to what it can do because first, government can't fix every problem and second, a sizeable number of voters and politicians don't want the government to do so even if it could.

Funding for assistance programs is shrinking, but the need for assistance isn't. Where will the needed assistance come from? Oftentimes, the answer is a church.

For example, the food kitchen I work in once a week is based at my church and staffed by parishioners. Our mission is to cook breakfast, not condemn anyone to hell.

Granted, there is a blessing before the food is served, but presence at it and participation in it are not required. Bible study is also offered once a week, but it's not in conjunction with breakfast, and it's open to anyone who wishes to participate.

I'm sure that at least someone out there is thinking that this is the same logic behind the "moment of silence" -- you don't have to participate, but you can't really get out of it.

No, it's not the same, because entering into a drug treatment program is an option. You have the option to choose a group or leave a group based on it's beliefs and practices, religious or not. If you don't like it, get out and find a different one.

As long as participation on all sides -- the government, the charity and the participants in the charity programs -- is voluntary, I say let religious organizations have the same chances as secular organizations. That is the fair thing to do.

Mitchell, a senior political science major, 
can be reached at Smeggie37@hotmail.com