COLUMN: Hazy definition of 'faith-based' dangerous

Updated 12:00 PM ET February 9, 2001

By Mike Wisebaker
Daily Kent Stater
Kent State U.

(U-WIRE) KENT, Ohio -- "Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?" - Black Sabbath, "After Forever"

You would think that after "winning" such a close and contentious election, George W. Bush would think twice about rocking the boat so soon after inauguration. However, one of his very first initiatives has set the stage for a very dangerous national precedent. I'm talking about his program to give tax dollars to "faith-based" organizations for social programs.

Don't worry. This isn't another "separation of church and state" column. No matter what Constitution-thumpers say, that philosophy is so full of holes that it's not even worth mentioning. My bone of contention involves a much more subtle issue.

Who is going to decide which religious organizations are going to get money and which will be rejected? According to the proposal, any religious group is eligible. I have my doubts.

"Government, of course, cannot fund and will not fund religious activities," Bush said. "But when people provide faith-based services, we will not discriminate against them." What, exactly, does he mean by "faith-based"? Christian? Catholic? Hindu?

What about the Kent Neo-Pagan Coalition? Would they be considered for funds under Bush's plan? The Wiccan religion has its own scripture in the form of the Wiccan Rede. I have a friend from high school who knew practicing members of the Church of Satan. The Church of Satan has its own bible. Each of these groups has a faith, and therefore can be considered a "faith-based" group. If Bush truly intends to give every "faith-based" organization an equal chance, then theoretically these groups would be considered unequivocally.

If you are horrified at the notion of Satan worshippers getting taxpayers' money, you've made my point for me. Are we to assume that Bush's plan will only benefit Judeo-Christian organizations and none other? For a man who pays so much lip service to being a "compassionate conservative" and who has vowed not to discriminate against any "faith-based" organizations, Bush has made his own perception of "faith" perfectly clear.

Do you think a man who would have Franklin Graham speak at his inauguration will approve of a Wiccan organization getting federal money? In touting this very proposal, Bush spoke of making change "one soul, one conscience at a time." He spoke of a "soul" -- a decidedly Judeo-Christian notion.

You might be thinking, "Well, some of those churches are illegal or something, right? It's got to be against the law to sacrifice animals like Satan worshippers do!" You'd be wrong. According to Church of the Lukumi Babalu Eye v. City of Hialeah, Fla., a city cannot discriminate against any religious group because it practices animal sacrifice. The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Eye practices the Santerian religion, a combination of Catholicism and native African worship. In theory, then, this church would be considered for funding under Bush's plan. Do you think they would get funding if they requested it? I sure don't.

Do I think that the Church of Satan would ever organize a social or civic program that would require federal money? Of course not. Am I a member of the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Eye? No. Why am I so upset about this? The answer is simple.

In a society that embraces equality, this plan must not exclude certain religious groups because their doctrines may be unpalatable to some. If you want to sing praises of the land of the free, you must at least acknowledge the legitimacy of these groups. Unsavory as they may seem, they have as much a right to this money as the Southern Baptist Church (assuming Bush's plan goes through). If the definition of "faith-based" can be so manipulated as to only include "acceptable" religious institutions, then what's next? His presidency isn't even a month old, and we already run the risk of a semantic nightmare. What would Bush mean by "environmental protection"? (Can we say oil tycoons?) What would he imply by "gun control"? (Can we say NRA?) Would these definitions also be tailored to align with Bush's own personal views?

If Bush's plan truly will consider every religious sect, then maybe I have nothing to worry about. But I'd like to ask him personally if he would give money to a coven of witches. I want to see if he can say "yes" with a straight face.

(C) 2001 Daily Kent Stater via U-WIRE