Discrimination With Federal Money

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

It is interesting to know whom I am fighting with. The modal verb can is not supposed to be followed by infinitive. Everyone can make a typo. Are you trying to present me as an illiterate one? It is a kind of impossible with everything I have accomplished, isn't it? So, find yourself a better occupation, and a better way to discredit me, if such way is existing. And I do not believe that it is.

I meant, "could post.."

I was just checking if I could to post a comment.

I don't think the federal government should be writing checks to churches - period. But if they are going to do so, then it is only right to require that churches receiving federal money not engage in discriminatory practices.

That said, if I learned that my church had received, or even applied for, federal funds, I would consider it grounds for resigning my membership.

The US taxpayers would be better served by first correcting all the historic and theological flaws and errors of the religions involved.

"If taxpayers are funding a program, that program should reflect our nation's historic commitment to civil rights."
I agree fully. During the Bush administration I personally experienced discrimination by a recipient of US Government funds. I offered 20 years relevant experience, local language, appropriate technical skills, and the ability to start immediately, but not the correct religion. That was all it took.

"If sectarian organizations are using their own money, they have every right to employ only persons committed to their religion. However, if taxpayers are funding a program, that program should reflect our nation's historic commitment to civil rights."

This is exactly correct. As a taxpayer, I have a right to be assured that my taxes will not be used to support (in any way) a religion in which I do not believe. If we do not stop taxpayer support for religious discrimination (discrimination by religious groups against others) even those who support this "faith-based" approach will find themselves seeing their taxes going to support religions with which they do not agree. The "scariest" example, from the point of view of today's fundamentalist Christian supporters of faith-based programs, would probably be taxpayer support of Islamists. If government supports Christian programs today, it is only a matter of time before government will be supporting other religious sects as well. By the it will be too late to stop the improper governmental support for (and hence establishment of) religion. People here who want theocratic government will find a theocracy in Iran: they should either embrace it there,or recognize that if it is not stopped here, we are exposing ourselves to the risk that clever lawyers (of which I am one) will be able to argue that government support for "mainstream" religion obligates the government to support "non-mainstream" ones. I say "NO"!