I’m with the atheists

MINNEAPOLIS – I seldom agree with the American Atheists on anything, but I’ve found common ground with the group in opposing the latest incarnation of federal funding of so-called “faith-based” charities.

The atheists oppose the “Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment Act” of 2002, dubbed CARE, on First Amendment grounds – that allocating federal tax dollars to religious groups for any reason is a violation of the constitutional prohibition against establishing a state church.

Well, frankly, that’s a ridiculous reason for opposing this misguided legislation, and that’s where my unusual alliance with the God-haters ends.

Since the first U.S. Congress convened, it has spent taxpayer money on the furtherance of Christianity. The U.S. government published Bibles. It commissioned chaplains for the military and for both the House and Senate. It welcomed official prayers in its own chambers. And it did all of this under the watchful eyes of a U.S. Supreme Court convening in chambers emblazoned prominently with the Ten Commandments.

This idea that the Constitution generally, and the First Amendment specifically, forbid the government from fostering religion in the broadest terms is just plain bogus. It wasn’t true for 200 years of American history. This is a recent invention of extremists who would share little in the way of civic values and republican philosophy with Thomas Jefferson – the man who coined the term “separation of church and state.”

The truth is Jefferson didn’t believe in anything remotely resembling our notions of “separation of church and state.” His concerns, and the concerns of the other founders, were all based on how government might harm the churches, not vice versa.

And it is this concern of mine – not any First Amendment issues – that leads me to oppose all this “faith-based” rubbish.

We don’t need it. Like practically everything else government touches, it’s going to do more harm than good. It will be extremely wasteful. And, although there is no First Amendment problem with the legislation, there definitely is a constitutional problem.

The charity programs this legislation will fund have nothing to do with the enumerated powers of the federal government. In other words, they are none of Washington’s business. Most of them, frankly, shouldn’t even be handled by the states. They are local matters – private matters.

By definition, charity is not a government program. Let’s face it. Government represents force, coercion. None of us voluntarily gives our money to the federal government. Washington extracts it from us, at the point of a gun, if necessary. Charity, however, is voluntary. You can’t force someone to be charitable – it’s a contradiction in terms.

The closest the Constitution comes to authorizing anything remotely resembling forced charity drives is the “general welfare” clause. That’s the one that will be used to argue constitutional justification for every program from Aid to Families with Dependent Children to Social Security.

However, these charitable programs in no way promote the “general welfare.” Instead, they promote the specific individual welfare of certain recipients of aid – at the disproportionate expense of specific taxpayers. That’s not fair. That’s not just. And that’s not constitutional.

It’s not in the spirit of the Constitution, and it sure doesn’t follow the letter of the Constitution. Why is it that everyone discussing this issue is missing the important points? Does anyone get past the First Amendment in their reading of the Constitution these days?

Haven’t we learned our lessons about welfare programs by now? I thought there was a general consensus building among Democans and Republicrats that it was time to do away with “welfare as we know it.” Why, then, are we reinventing this hideous, un-American idea in a new form?

Why are we inviting the corruption of our churches with federal dollars? Isn’t it bad enough that Washington threatens them with removal of their tax-exempt status when they get out of line? Won’t the lure of tax dollars further prostitute the mission of the churches the way big-dollar government and international contracts prostituted Enron?

I’m sad to see so many seemingly wise people – men I respect, like Chuck Colson – jumping on the bandwagon of this terribly ill-conceived idea.

Unfortunately, those who should see it most clearly, see it not.

Therefore, I sound the alarm – virtually alone in my opposition to this legislation – unless, of course, you consider the companionship and alliance of the American Atheists to be encouraging.