You've got your church, and you've got your state. Now to most of my loyal readers (except for a small, but loyal fan contingent in Reykjavik, Iceland), the word "state" refers to the government of the United States of America. This "state" does things like finance our interstate highways and send people into space.
The word "church," to most of my loyal readers, varies greatly in personal meaning. For some, church refers to a place where one can go for free bread and wine; for others it refers to a place where one can get his E-meter read, and for others, still, it refers to a place where one goes for the eight must-know tips for reaching nirvana. Unlike state, however, most churches do not attempt to send people into space (except for Heaven's Gate, which is currently defunct).
Now the Constitution that establishes our state (Again, I refer to the state of my U.S., not Icelandic, readers), has some strong words concerning the mixing of these two words that we are currently exploring. In the very First Amendment to the aforementioned Constitution, it states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Our new president, the lovable and ever-precocious George W. Bush, feels that even though our Constitution extols the need for a separation of church and state, state should do more to help out church. In order to facilitate this aid, the always-wacky Kegmeister W. recently signed an executive order that established a new White House office — the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Establishing faith-based initiatives has been one of Bush's goals since the beginning of his presidential campaign. Way back in October 2000, when President Kegmeister was merely Gov. Kegmeister, he stated that "the role of government is to rally the armies of compassion that exist all across America."'
So you've got your church, and you've got your state. And by rallying these so-called "armies of compassion" through government funding, Bush feels as though it was possible to have church organizations serve as a replacement for many state-provided social services. Churches could play an increased role in providing services like rehabilitation for drug addicts, support for alcoholics, and aid to the poor.
Now before Bush opened the White House faith-based office early last month, I'm sure that he expected that there'd be a bit of resistance. Since the churches that would receive funds were technically private organizations, they had the right to discriminate as to whom they hired or provided service. In other words, if the Nation of Islam were providing some sort of service, it could say "No Service to Jews or Homosexuals," and get away with it. Therefore, I'm sure Bush expected a full attack from left-wing, civil liberties watchdogs groups.
And as soon as the faith-based office opened, all manner of criticism poured in from the left. The American Civil Liberties Union declared that such money placed towards faith-based initiatives was tantamount to "federal funding for religion run amok." The Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that in regard to helping people in need, Bush's plan was "the wrong way to do it."
So yes, people did get upset over what seemed to be the government "respecting an establishment of religion," and allowing church to get all up in state's business. But El Keg expected this, and was prepared to deal with it.
What he didn't expect, however, was the booming sound of criticism that rained on him from the right.
Ultra-conservative voices from Gary Bauer to Jerry Falwell began to decry Bush's faith-based initiative. Bauer, a man so maniacally conservative that he makes Charleston Heston look like a member of the Green Party, said that the faith-based initiative is "the worst trip of the administration's first 50 days."
So you've got your church, and you've got your state. But the right-wingers who usually are the most ardent supporters of the church are wailing about Bush's plan to give state money to the church. Why would this be?
If Bush is perplexed (hard to envision, I know), it's because he's forgetting a key part of the reason that the Framers of the Constitution created a wall between church and state. When we usually think of issues about separation of church and state, we think about issues concerning church leaking into the state. We think about the constitutionality of school prayer or whether a teacher should be able to hang the Ten Commandments in her high school classroom. Since these types of issues usually arise in public discourse, we tend to think of the First Amendment as only protecting state against the influence of church.
And while the First Amendment does indeed serve this function, at the same time that it is protecting state from church, it is also protecting church from state. By guaranteeing that government shall not "prohibit the free exercise" of religion, the First Amendment ensures that if people choose to engage in a spiritual endeavor, it can be done without government meddling.
Aid to faith-based organizations would be the epitome of government meddling with religion. In order for Bush's faith-based initiative to be anywhere close to constitutional, the government would have to ask church organizations, especially those that were evangelically based, to tone down the message of their church to those to whom they offered their social services.
But no matter how important a church holds helping those in need, very often there are certain core religious values held as more important.
Or, as host of the 700 Club and all-around party animal Pat Robertson put it: "If we couldn't ever tell them about Jesus, we'd say, 'No way, we won't take your money.' "
So you've got your church, and you've got your state. And for all of their disagreements, voices from the left and voices from the right seem to agree on one key issue: If you mate church and state, you get some strikingly ugly offspring. Hopefully Bush will eventually realize this and see that the wedding of church and state is no match made in heaven.
