People are talking -- although not as much as I'd like -- about President Bush's faith-based initiatives. Faith-based is an interesting neologism, a politically safe way of saying religious. And when the Prez says "religious" you gotta know he's talking about his born-again brand of Christianity. In a recent speech dead link , Bush brandished a Bible, calling it the "handbook" of faith-based programs. Faith-based initiatives allow the Bush Administration to give taxpayer money to religious organizations -- and "religious organizations" means churches and church programs. You may dismiss this as mere pandering to the God Squad vote, but I think it's much more insidious than that.

Faith-based reminds me of the corporate-speak fact-based, as in "fact-based decisionmaking." A memo was recently distributed in my friend's office announcing that the company was adopting "fact-based decisionmaking" as part of their new strategy. My friend joked: "Fact-based as opposed to the fantasy-based, talking-out-our-ass decisionmaking that we usually use."

Government spends. Jesus saves. The Bush administration now brings these two great tastes together in the Reese's Peanut Butter Cup of social welfare programs: the faith-based initiative. (Jesus saves, after all. Isn't it time he got a higher interest rate from Uncle Sam?)

You can read a good overview of faith-based initiatives from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life dead link . A transcript of one of the Pew roundtable discussions includes remarks from Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State dead link . As you might guess, I find myself in agreement with Lynn. He says:

"Even though the president's program was never implemented legislatively, never passed Congress, it certainly is being implemented in a kind of stealth atmosphere. Virtually everything, though, that has happened in the program demonstrates what I'd consider unfortunate either intended or unintended effects of any government-funded religion program. All the particular problems find their genesis in a fundamental design flaw, which is the idea that you can protect constitutional interests by simply proclaiming that public funds may go to religious groups so long as they are not used for religious instruction, worship or proselytization. The kind of magic formula, as often phrased by administration officials, is that tax dollars, they say, will be used to buy bread, not Bibles. This conveniently ignores, though, that the government does fund religion when it funds some loaves of bread for the church-based hunger program, because it also, in the process, frees up more church funds to buy scriptures or to increase the salary of the pastor. "

He also says:

"The first major problem is this: The administration has made every effort to legitimatize the funding of invidious job discrimination. In every set of proposed regulations, in the president's December executive order there is clear language that permits a recipient to hire persons to run taxpayer-funded programs solely on the basis of their religious affiliation or beliefs. This means that a Roman Catholic provider can refuse to hire or fire at will a pregnant, single mother. It effectively permits a fundamentalist Christian church from putting the words No Muslim Need Apply on top of its employment form.

"The president asserts this is designed to protect the integrity of the religious identity of the organization, and, of course, private religious groups can make such employment decisions with privately solicited funds. However, the constitutional and, I'd argue, the moral calculus changes when tax dollars enter the equation. It was wrong to create a system where you can be taxed to help pay for a job you cannot get even if you are the most eminently qualified person for that position. I've never found that a Methodist ladles out the stew in a soup kitchen differently from a Hindu, nor do Baptists change the bed sheets in a homeless shelter using a different methodology than do, let's say, non-believers."

If you have time, I suggest that you read the whole transcript to be fair to all sides of the issue.

Y'know, it's not as if Bush has set aside a new pile of government money to give to church-based programs -- these initiaves allow churches to "compete" for funds already earmarked for government grants. It used to be that, to qualify for government money, your organization had to comply with a lot of regulations to ensure accountability and that the services provided were nonsectarian in nature. None of that matters anymore with faith-based initiatives -- and American taxpayers are now supporting what amounts to Christian faith-healing directed at curing social ills.

If you're reading this blog, you probably have some relationship with Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. I happen to believe that if a person chants Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, the practice can and will transform that person's life for the better no matter what problems that person may have -- this faith-based program costs absolutely nothing, by the way. I also believe that the same is true of any spiritual discipline undertaken in the spirit seeking and openness as opposed to compliance and formality. I'm very pro-faith and pro-religion. So, why do I have a problem with faith-based initiatives?

Simply put: Government should keep its hands off of religion, and religion should shrug off any overtures government makes to woo it. Religion should be a critic of government, not its lapdog. This view is in keeping with the spirit of Nichiren, I believe, who declined the Japanese government's offer of a free temple and favorable treatment if he would just, please, stop criticizing the ruling authorities.

Also, I think faith-based initiatives are lousy because they indicate that President Bush is not spiritually mature enough to restrain himself from imposing his sectarian religious views on the people of the United States via Executive Order.

Pray, George. Worship as you choose. Praise God from your bully pulpit in the White House if you must. But making American taxpayers foot the bill for your religious prejudices just ain't right or fair.

And, no, you still can't count on my vote.
Love,
Lisa J.