2001-07-17 Re: Faith Based Initiatives

From: Ed Halley <ed@halley.cc>
To: President George W. Bush <president@whitehouse.gov>
To: Senator Carl Levin of Michigan <senator2@levin.senate.gov>
To: Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan <senator@stabenow.senate.gov>
To: Representative Vernon Ehler of Michigan, Third District <rep.ehlers@mail.house.gov>

To my honorable representatives in government,

I am writing to discuss my position on a very important topic which faces all of you, and all of the constituents who have collectively elected you as our representatives in this nation of ours. It pertains to legislation that has recently been passed by the House of Representatives, and now depends on the leadership of the Senate and Executive to decide the matter in a way that benefits all Americans. Since my position does not revolve around rhetoric or litmus or partisanship, I hope that all four of you consider my thoughts carefully as you weigh your responsibilities to serve the country.

The matter at hand is in the legislation about the Faith-Based Initiatives, and more specifically, the news-worthy clauses which seem to allow federally funded organizations to continue to exclude job applicants based on the group's moral policies rather than the state or local laws that prevent such exclusion.

I have no objection to church groups or other faith-based organizations receiving federal funding, and in fact, applaud the approach as one that may relieve our government of the complex program deployments and provide a more locally-tailored service to those who need the assistance that these groups are already well trained in providing. However, I have two specific issues that I hope I can explain in clear enough terms to persuade your decisions as you represent citizens like myself. I will offer my two main objections to such legislation as plainly as possible.

One, it seems incongruous that this federal program would attempt to usurp local civil rights standards, when it is in fact trying to offer help to local organizations who can provide the best assistance needed by many Americans on a personal level. That is, this law would seem to say, "Local responsibility is best, but Local rights are to be ignored." Many local laws define a more level playing field for all Americans, to have confidence in their own jobs and to enjoy their personal freedoms. Suggesting that federal money can be used in a way that allows and even encourages organizations to disregard such freedom gains is not productive in creating a better community or nation.

Two, while the press has reported sound-bytes that claim "safeguards to make sure the religious groups do not use the money to proselytize," I ask you directly: how can a morals-based hiring decision be described as anything but proselytizing? Imagine a helpful and competent woman being turned away because the organization she wants to assist has told her that she's immoral, or that she doesn't fit within their theology. To proselytize is to induce someone to change their own personal opinions, and denying someone a job because their beliefs are somehow "wrong" is clearly inducing them to change their minds.

Again, faith-based approaches for assistance have promise, but as Thomas Jefferson pointed out almost exactly 200 years ago, "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and engrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." I urge you to steer very carefully in these waters that define the founding fathers' strongly-intended separation between morality doctrine and governance.

Sincerely, your constituent,

Ed Halley