Source: http://members.tripod.com/~candst/faith.htm

Researched by Jim Allison

Faith-Based Charities Unconstitutional, says the father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights

FEBRUARY 21, 1811

VETO MESSAGES.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:

Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.'' The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. this particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty.

James Madison.

Source of Information: A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. II, Bureau of National Literature, NY, pp 474-475

Editor's Note: Madison vetoed the legislation because it crossed the line of separation between church and state and thus would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. Excerpt from July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802.* John Leland (1754-1841) was a Baptist preacher whose life involved writing about and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and about the proper relationship between religion and government. In the latter passion, Leland agreed with the position of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom he knew personally.

. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

---------------------------------

Source of Information:

Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.

(Both of the preceding quotations come from an excellent site "The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State" I recommend it as an excellent reference source) chas

The "original intent" of the framers of the Constitution was undeniably to establish and preserve a strong separation between church and state. W(easel)s' Faith based initiative clearly can be viewed as yet another attack on the Constitution by the enemies of a free America.

Charlie

[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 12/27/02]

OUR VIEW

Bush subverts 'heart, soul' of Constitution

Among certain crowds, at certain times, President Bush has described his faith-based initiative in terms that border on the revolutionary.

"We want more and more faith-based charities to become partners in our efforts, our unyielding efforts, to change America one heart, one conscience, one soul at a time," he recently told the White House Conference on Faith-based and Community Initiatives, meeting in Philadelphia.

The president's choice of words was neither casual nor off-the-cuff. To the contrary, "changing America one heart, one soul, one conscience at a time" has become a mantra of sorts for Bush. The phrase has echoed in speech after speech by the president as he describes his goal of partnering religious groups with the federal government.

For faith organizations, the mission of trying to change hearts and souls is, of course, nothing new. It is what they do -- what they have always done --and it's what makes them so powerful and useful.

For government, however, the goal of changing souls and hearts has until now been considered off-limits. Government already has a lot to do -- it collects our trash, it educates our children, it protects us from criminals, it defends us from foreign enemies. Trying to change the souls of its citizenry lies well outside government's traditional job description, at least as it's been understood in this country.

And that, of course, is where the controversy lies.

Anticipating that problem, Bush has also used his speeches to try to calm fears that his faith-based program was taking government into areas that are inappropriate or even unconstitutional.

As he told his audience in Philadelphia: "I recognize that government has no business endorsing a religious creed, or directly funding religious worship or religious teaching. That is not the business of the government." He also announced publication of a new government handbook specially designed to guide faith-based groups in applying for federal funds.

As that guidebook notes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that under the First Amendment, government cannot directly fund "inherently religious" activities. The issue, then, is how government can work through faith-based groups to mount "an unyielding effort to change America one heart, one conscience, one soul at a time," while ensuring that it does not fund activities that are inherently religious.

The president and others in his administration argue that until now, government officials have erred too much on the side of caution, trying so hard not to fund religion that they have in effect practiced discrimination against faith-based groups. "The days of discriminating against religious groups just because they are religious are coming to an end," the president promised.

However, that alleged discrimination has not barred all faith-based groups from federal funding. Habitat for Humanity receives federal assistance because its emphasis has long been on changing its clients' living conditions, not their souls. Lutheran Services of America delivers a range of programs -- from substance-abuse counseling to day care -- to 3 million people a year; it draws half of its $6 billion budget from government. Faith-based groups also sponsor more than two-thirds of the federally funded housing projects for the aged.

Nonetheless, to fight the religious discrimination that he perceives within the government, the president is using his "bully pulpit" to pressure the government bureaucracy to open up the purse strings to faith-based groups. Toward that end, he has also established offices in federal departments to monitor how much money each agency allocates to faith-based groups.

The president has also reassured religious leaders that federal money won't require them to change anything they do. When government money is involved, he says, "charities and faith-based programs should not be forced to change their character or compromise their mission. And I don't intend to compromise either."

Such rhetoric does not suggest a president committed to guarding the wall that separates church from state in this country, a wall that has long served the best interests of both parties. To the contrary, it suggests a willingness to subvert that constitutional directive on behalf of a goal that the president believes is more important: the changing of souls and hearts.

But that goal, while important, is simply not government's business.

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air -- however slight -- lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. -- William O. Douglas

"One of the penalities for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato