Faith-Based Charity Alliance With Government

Faith-Based Charity Alliance With Government

Dear Editor:

It is interesting to watch the liberals scream about President's Bush's "Faith-based" social services program. Next to the accusation of racism, liberals' chief weapon for destroying anything wholesome and good is to accuse it of breaching the wall of separation between church and state.

The fact is, liberals really don't mind churches being involved in and with government agencies and funding. Over the years liberal Protestant bodies have been welcomed at the table. Of course they share the same moral, social and political philosophy of the Democrat party. The Black political establishment is solidly Democrat and a sizeable number of its political leaders are minister of churches. They have free access to the political table and federal funds do flow in their direction. Democrat politicians never reflect guilt for their campaign stops at Black churches. Their objection is only to the possibility of some of the funds and influence going to evangelical churches, which tend to share the conservative and family values of the Republican Party.

In recent years, millions of government dollars have gone into institutions and programs controlled and manned by those whose religion is secular humanism, the anti-Christian religion of choice for many liberals. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that Humanism is a religion entitled to tax-exemption. That religious group constantly grubs for government dollars and uses them to promote its agenda which features evolution, abortion on demand, gay-rights and religious pluralism, control of public education and keeping evangelicals out of the social and civic arena of public life.

Mr. Bush's proposal is commendable. It is based on the observable success of those efforts to ameliorate human and social problems by church related groups in contrast to the dismal record of those administered by government bureaucrats.

For the sake of the human lives at stake, we should give the president's proposal a chance. Surely it cannot do worse than what we have been trying for the last 50 years.

Back -- or go -- Home