One of the criticisms of President Bush’s “ faith-based ” programs is the manner in which they threaten to politicize churches and religious organizations. Instead of focusing on religious worship and charitable efforts, they must instead focus on political pandering and electioneering in order to keep the government largesse flowing. Did I say “threaten”?

Americans United has raised alarms over a church receiving a huge “ faith-based ” grant and the appearance that this grant came in part because of the church’s endorsement of Bush:

During the Republican Party's 2000 national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, heartily endorsed Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Since that time, Lusk has repeatedly advocated for Bush's " faith-based " initiative that seeks to fund church-run social service programs. ... [T]he church's charitable operation, People For People, has been awarded a nearly $1-million " faith-based " grant.

Now, it would be wrong to assume that there was some sort of quid pro quo going on. It’s certainly possible that the grant was awarded because this was the best place to spend the money. At the same time, however, this isn’t the only case where “ faith-based ” grants have been awarded in suspiciously political circumstances:

In 2002, The Washington Post reported that Jim Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, had made repeated public appearances with Republican candidates in hotly contested races for Congress and other offices to discuss or award grants. In a recent interview with the evangelical magazine World, Towey warned that if Democrat John Kerry were elected, he probably would "stick the faith-based initiative in the Smithsonian."

In addition, televangelist Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, was converted from being a harsh critic of the faith-based initiative to being a supporter by a well-timed government grant. In early 2001, Robertson warned his "700 Club" viewers that the initiative "could be a real Pandora's box" because religious monitories might wind up receiving faith-based grants. In fall 2002, Robertson's Operation Blessing received a half-million-dollar faith-based grant from the Department of Health and Human Resources. Since then, the TV preacher has not criticized the initiative.

What we have here is a developing appearance of conflicts of interest. The more this happens, the more people will start to adopt a cynical attitude towards any churches that do or wish to participate in government funding. People will have to wonder if the churches are tailoring their messages not to conform with religious doctrines and beliefs but instead with political realities and necessity.

Such cynicism already exists in quite a lot of contexts but it doesn’t seem to quite exist yet when it comes to religious and other non-profit groups. Why? Because they have managed to remain separate from the government. The government doesn’t tax and them doesn’t fund them. They are independent and they can criticize the government without having anything to lose. Thus, if they say something nice, it’s unlikely that the message is motivated to gain something. Under President Bush, however, that’s changing. Bush would like churches to become arms of government policy — and that means that churches won’t be independent anymore.

One would think that church leaders themselves would be out in front to oppose this, but for the most part that doesn’t seem to be the case. Too often they are instead out in front with outstretched hands, looking for money from government coffers. It’s as if they were already corrupt and just looking for a chance to cash in.

Read More:

• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101