Discrimination Turns Back the Clock

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

J. Brent Walker: To subsidize religious discrimination with tax dollars is arguably unconstitutional. In any case, it is an unfair advancement of religion that also turns back the clock on civil rights.

The first amendment clearly says "an establishment of religion." How is giving public money to a church, or a church hiring who they want an establishment of a religion?

Thank you, Mr. Walker. The distinction you've made here is eminently reasonable.

May I ask, what would be your response to your co-panelist (and co-Baptist) R. Albert Mohler Jr.?

So, are you then advocating that the Baptist churches in America forego all public funding unless they hire the most qualified person regardless of religious affiliation?

What a novel idea!