Faith based initiative

One of the big arguments made by those in favor of the Faith-Based Initiative is that "it works." They suggest that by using Christian programs, criminals getting out of prison will not become repeat offenders. This program has been touted by President Bush in the past as well as other members of the Republican Party and by the Religious Right. Often, what those speaking in favor of the program are seeking is tax dollars to fund their religious programs, to try to preach to the people on the Government's Dime. Of course, this could easily be considered endorsing religion, or using coercive tactics, but try convincing a fundamentalist of that.

Case in point - in Oklahoma, the department of corrections has turned to a group known as Genesis One to help with inmates about to be released from prison. According to this article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the program does not currently receive tax dollars, but it might after this November, "under the terms of a new state law that requires corrections officials to partner with faith-based groups on reentry programs."

This law would then allow Genesis One to preach (basically) the word of God to whatever convicts it can get its hands on, and do so with the State's tax dollars. The program claims to be open to everyone, according to Americans United, but one of the fundamental requirements is that the participants must be willing to "accept God." In other words, the state would be paying money for the advancement of Christianity, which seems very akin to a Government Endorsement of Religion, which is prohibited under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Perhaps this could be considered justifiable if the program actually cut down on recidivism amongst prior convicts, but a five year study cited in the article has shown that the recidivism rate for non-participating individuals was the same 39.6% as with those who completed the Genesis One program (source cited in the article in Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Steven W. Taylor). So what we end up with is a government-funded coercive endorsement of Christianity that doesn't even reduce what it claims to reduce. But what does effectiveness have anything to do with it?

Maybe I should join the ACLU...

The Freedom From Religion Foundation will be in oral argument before the Supreme Court next week, challenging President Bush's Faith Based Initiative.

I hope they succeed, though I think they won't.

I want them to succeed not because I oppose charities, or because I oppose President Bush. I want them to succeed because government funding of religion can easily lead to government direction of religion (or a state-run religion), which is what I think the First Amendment sought to avoid.

This is the same reason I oppose religious intrusion into government - because I fear government intrusion in religion. I don't want the government to tell me how I should pray, or to whom I should pray. I don't want it telling me which version of the 10 commandments is right. I especially wouldn't want the government to tell me that my representation does not matter if I am not of the same faith or denomination as those in charge, as would be the implication for all the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Wiccans, and others in America.

I think one of the overarching goals of our government, based on the representative democracy principles, is to help ensure that the minority viewpoint can be protected from the oppression of the majority, and I think that one aspect of this is the Faith Based Initiative, which, though perhaps noble in intent, runs contrary to how I view the First Amendments proscription on establishment of religion, and the Lemon Test's Endorsement test.