Call to Renewal?
Dateline: May 06, 1998
Traditionally, liberal and conservative religionists in America haven't agreed on much in the political arena. For example, while one group fought to promote Civil Rights, the other fought to promote segregation.
But liberal groups are starting to follow their conservative brethren in calling for the state to publicly and financially support their faith. They want more state support, more taxpayer dollars, and even more say in the government administration of public benefits. Perhaps the largest effort has been spearheaded by "Call to Renewal," a group founded in 1995 as an alternative to fundamentalist political groups and which has lately been calling for religious groups to be allowed to administer social service and welfare programs - all funded by us, the taxpayers.
The commonalties between liberal-mainstream religious groups and right-wing counterparts like the Christian Coalition have been growing as the former have begun to recognize just how lucrative "faith-based" outreach programs established as alternatives to - but still funded by! - the secular state might be. It was, in fact, the Christian Coalition's "Contract with the American Family" (there is a rebuttal) which first called for the highly questionable state subsidizing of religious community programs. The premise being, of course, that religious leaders and religious ideology is somehow better suited to solving social problems. It almost seems as though churches are looking to such programs as way to replace the money being lost to the fact that pews are coming up emptier and emptier as people appear to be moving from institutionalized religion to a vaguer do-it-yourself brand of spirituality.
Today, religious groups which want to administer any kind of social welfare program have to adhere to certain protocols, including important restrictions which are supposed to prevent "charitable organizations" from diverging into blatant religious proselytizing. The operation and purpose of these organizations are supposed to be entirely secular - but it is far from clear that this is even possible. An obvious example of the conflicts which necessarily arise are Roman Catholic hospitals which profit hugely from state-funded programs like Medicare but which simultaneously refuse abortion services. Personally, I don't care what services Catholic hospitals refuse - if they are private entities, they should be free to do as they see fit. But if they are truly going to be private, then perhaps it would be better if they were to cure themselves of the addiction to taxpayer money. I do not believe that the government has any role in subsidizing an organization which makes health-care decisions based on ancient religious superstitions.
Organizations like Call To Renewal, however, are also calling for changes in the laws that would allow groups to "...retain their religious character by displaying religious symbols or using religious criteria in selecting employees." In other words, the people being served by such programs will be faced with a government-funded program to help them, but which forces them to be surrounded by religious symbols in order to get the help to which they are legally entitled. Does anyone else see something wrong with that? Should a retiree have to listen to Bible-readings in order to receive their Social Security check? Should a jobless mother seeking an unemployment check have to go to a church in order to get it? Even worse is the idea of our government sponsoring an organization which would engage in discriminatory practices with regard to religion - a clear violation of federal law and fundamental Constitutional principles.
On both the left and right, religionists seem to agree that more rather than less religion is needed in American life - their religion. What are they thinking? What society needs is more education and more scientific literacy - and less superstition. Churches can push their ancient ideologies all they want - they have and deserve that freedom. If people wish, on their own, to choose some set of religious beliefs, then they have that freedom. But there is no way that they deserve government support for their efforts.
If churches whither away and die because the people lose interest, then that's just the way things go - but no one should expect taxpayers to bail them out. If churches want more money, the should ask their members for it. If churches want to run social welfare programs, they are free to start their own.
|
Make your opinions be heard on the Bulletin Board or Chat Room! |
