Discrimination Is a Problem, Not Faith

I appreciate Rabbi Hirschfield's response. I would like to add that when church and state are not separated, the state/government will attempt to sway its citizens with the prevailing belief of the government in power. The function of government is to protect and offer leadership to the people that it governs; not to persuade them to think a certain way. When monies are given to to the private sector, it interferes with their interests, no matter how well-intended.

If government funding is involved, it should be done so in the name of neutrality--that is, it does and should not purpose to sway others in the way the government feels they should think, because in doing so, they unknowinling create biases within the country, and among the people.

It is not the government's function to determine which faith should predominate, but rather should treat all faiths with equality and religious freedom. Separation of church and state is important because it allows us as a group of believers to have our own identity. It also allows all of us to believe and practice our faith as we see fit, and to act in the best interests of the group. We all deserve that freedom. We all need that freedom. Without it, we lose our sense of identity.

During the previous administration, I worked for the federal contractor that provided technical support for the faith-based initiative known as the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF). Much was made about the Bush Administration’s innovativeness in providing public dollars to support the work of faith-based organizations. This was inaccurate. Government support through a network of grants and contracts has been provided to religious organizations for non-sectarian social services for the past 50 years.

What was new was allowing federal funds to be used to support religious and quasi-religious activities under the guise of social services. This happened with a wink and a nod through the Capital Compassion Fund and related faith-based initiatives. This cannot be allowed to continue in the Obama Administration.

Additionally, I witnessed first hand, technical assistance training on how CCF grantees could legally discriminate against people they didn’t want to hire based on religious predilections. As an American, I was and continue to be offended that taxpayer dollars would be used to exclude any group of people. This, as well, cannot be allowed to continue.

Yet, beyond these challenges, there is the wider, Constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. The previous administration – certainly not the most respectful of the Constitution in general – somehow believed that the separation clause was up for grabs. It is not.

We are all diminished when government can use its substantial weight to assault the Constitution by funding the peculiarities of religious entities. Let’s hope that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, will safeguard these vital protections by curtailing the ability of any organizations – faith-based or otherwise – from using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against anyone.

I have written more on this issue on my blog: http://www.501cweb.com

The Washington Window, the house organ of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, recently carried a story on a homeless episcopal man who died this winter because he had no shelter. I wondered. Did Bishop Chane get the connection between his lawsuit and this poor man's unnecessary death?

The Washington Window, the house organ of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, recently carried a story on a homeless episcopal man who died this winter because he had no shelter. I wondered, did Bishop Chane get the connection between his lawsuit and this poor man's unnecessary death?

Hi Brad,

Thoughtful, and nuanced as usual.

Here in DC we have the strange case of John Bryson Chane suing the DC government, which was going to donate a run down old school building to a religious group called the Central Union Mission running a homeless shelter.

It seems the group was formed out of the Falls Church in 1884. Throughout much of its history Central Union Mission was privately funded and required homeless men to participate in Christian spiritual activities (The old "sing for your supper" routine.) When the deal was negotiated for the old DC school building, which the Mission was to invest in upgrading to a homeless shelter, Central Union Mission abandoned this requirement and now serves all in need without regard to their interest in Christian spirituality.

Chane and co-plaintiffs are still suing to keep the old building (which DC wants to be rid of and will not pay to renovate) out of the hands of Central Union on the basis of "Separation of Church and State".

Possibly coincidentally, The Falls Church has seceded from the Episcopal Diocese of Washington (Chane's Diocese) and there is a bitter dispute about the property rights of both parties.

Interesting case, I would say. Any thoughts?