COLUMN: When will federal funding stop
Governmental funding for religious organizations is George W. Bush’s latest attempt to bring fascism to America. Is it just me, or does this violate the whole separation-of-church-and-state ideal that was one of the main premises for coming to this country in the first place? I’m not sure why W. is suggesting such an archaic concept unless, of course, he thinks he’s the first one to come up with the idea.
In W. Bush’s “Faith-based Initiatives” proposal package, he advocates governmental funding for religious organizations. This funding is for different religions’ welfare and charity programs. The problem is, if you start there, a precedence has been set, and the possibilities for governmental control of religion becomes stronger and stronger.
If this proposal gets passed, think of what else could eventually pollute our freedoms. Maybe next a proposal to give religious groups funding based on their positive family values? What I want to know is which religious organizations will be funded and which will not. Because besides this type of thinking being unconstitutional in nature, concept and ideal, this proposal could start the beginning of America’s own holy war.
How does one decide if a religious group is worthy of funding? According to the original proposal, a church has to produce “results” to continue to receive funding. I wonder if this proposal is mainly for Christian-based groups, or are other faiths involved?
If you’re going to have a government giving money to religion, all faiths have to be included. This means Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Hindus, Baptists, Buddhists, Wiccans, Muslims, Nondenominationals, Satanists and all other religions should receive equal representation and funding for their religious groups.
The truth of the matter is if this actually passes, I just might start my own religion to get my own free governmental funding. And I’m not the only one who would do something like that. New religions would be popping up across this country like acne on a 13-year-old, and it would be just as messy.
Let’s say eventually, in order to get governmental funding, a religion has to teach certain ideals and “truths.” Well, how do we decide what these should be? Who will be in charge of taking all religious speculation, myth- and faith-based truths and saying that one group is right, therefore they get funding and another group is wrong, resulting in no funds for them? It kind of sounds as though we would be trying to decide the one true religion, and the truth is there isn’t one, or they all are true. It’s individual and personal, and what’s true for one group is not true for another; that is the reality of religion.
Trying to governmentally fund religions that show growth, even if it is just for welfare and other community-helping programs, is going to become a terribly annoying process as well. Listen, if you get annoyed by missionaries or Jehovah’s Witnesses or whoever does that coming by your house for an announced visit, just imagine all of the religions out there doing the same thing. I’ll tell you, if this happened, I’d be the first to invest all my money in a “No Religious Solicitations” sign-making company.
With government funding always comes government control. Freedom of religion to worship or not worship some bigger something in the cosmos is our right, and the government has no place infringing upon that right.
Currently, conservative Republicans are in control. If this proposal passes, paving the way for more proposals like it to pass, their view points on issues like abortion, homosexuality and other human rights could very well become a mandatory and bigoted teaching. Let’s say governmental funding is held from religious groups who teach the exact opposite. Now, let’s say a religion gets to the point where it needs the governmental funding it has been receiving and a new president is elected. The new president says that in order to receive government funding, it has to teach that abortion is a free choice and homosexuality a normal and perfectly natural thing. Those religions that need the money would have to teach something that they do not advocate. The government would have control over the religious views that a religion teaches, and that, dear readers, is not American.
Rich Timothy’s column appears every Friday in the Statesman.
He is a senior in technical writing. Comments may be e-mailed to rtimothy1@hotmail.com