Last week, the House of Representatives included $100 million for the Compassion Capital Fund in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the economic stimulus package. The Compassion Capital Fund was a key component of George W. Bush’s controversial faith-based funding program and has been singled out by watchdog groups for its inability to ensure that religious groups receiving tax dollars are not breaching the constitutional separation of church and state.

On Monday, the Senate is expected to begin voting on the passage of the economic stimulus package; their version currently does not contain money for this faith-based initiative and it’s important you make sure it stays that way.

Take action now!

The Religious Right is lobbying hard for this back door funding, and it’s time for us to fight back. It is imperative that you send a strong message to your Senators today asking them to take a stand now and in the future against funding a highly criticized program that violates the separation of church and state.

Take action now!

Best wishes,
Secular Coalition for America

Does this mean religious people have no place in government?  Clearly, it does not.  Does it mean religious citizens have no right to petition the government based on their beliefs?  Of course not; the Constitution gives us all the same rights, including those with life philosophies that are not by nature religious.  We all have the right to freedom of conscience, and to lobby the government based on what we find important.

Bush went too far, violating the clear intent of the founding fathers¹.  By creating the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives², an office specifically dedicated to predominantly religious organizations, he smashed Jefferson’s “wall of separation between Church & State.”  The office gave taxpayer money to religious organizations without any real attempt to ensure that this money would be used for charity and community programs only, and not used for religious purposes such as proselytizing.

The lack of oversight was such that we still don’t know, and may never know, whether these funds were used mainly for non-religious charity work or religious uses.  Frankly, there is reason to be doubtful.  Even when doing charity work, there are numerous instances of religion-based charities requiring people to be captive audiences to proselytizing before they would actually help them.  I am not claiming that all religious charities do this.  I’m sure there are those who do separate their religious and charity work, but we simply have no assurances that most did and many reasons to believe they may not have.

The fact that religious groups got their own office should give anyone with a basic understanding of the Establishment Clause a feeling that something is not right.  Why do religious groups get special treatment such that they have their own office, when they could work with government in the exact same way secular charities do?  This is certainly not a separation of state and church, and looks scarily like giving preference or at least special privilege to religious groups.  There should have been uproar from both the religious and nonreligious communities over this.  You might see nothing wrong with your religion or denomination proselytizing using your tax dollars, but remember that it could easily be a religious denomination you don’t belong to, or one of a different religion altogether.  Would a Christian be happy to see their tax dollars funding Muslim proselytizing?  I doubt it.

Of course religious charities should be able to use tax payer funds for their charity work just as any secular group can, but they must not get special treatment and must play by the same rules.  We have no evidence so far that they have.

President-Elect Obama has pledged of overhaul the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives.  If it will still exist, I hope it is a major overhaul that will bring some actual oversight to it, assuring that our money will only go towards only charity.  Unfortunately, by its very nature, the continuing existence of the office will continue to mean that religious charities are getting special treatment.  It will still be our government telling us that these charities are more important than those which are secular, and therefore deserve their own funding.  This is absolutely not the place of our government, and will continue to be worrying.

In a couple days, the man who got us into this predicament will be gone.  For that, although it is more than a month past Thanksgiving Day, I am thankful.

References/Footnotes:

1. Atheists do not experience major prejudice and discrimination in the United States.
2. Although atheists may experience some measure of prejudice and discrimination, it is not as extreme or openly codified into our government and culture, as it was against blacks, and therefore we have no right to call their fight a “civil rights movement” (a mostly emotional argument made by many African Americans, especially those who experienced the civil rights movement first hand).

The first argument, which this first of two posts is concerned with, has no truth whatsoever.  It is simply an attempt to whitewash the entire issue.  There have, throughout American history, and are still today many examples of discrimination, and most certainly bigotry against atheists.  Although it is not my purpose in this post to give a ton of examples (that’s this entire blog’s mission, isn’t it?), only one is needed to show that claim is patently false – that there is, in fact discrimination against the nonreligious codified into government.  Many states still technically require a religious test for public office, which is blatantly unconstitutional.  They don’t require any specific religious beliefs, only that one asserts a belief in some supernatural deity.  This clearly singles out only the nonreligious, barring them from state public office¹.  These states are:

• Arkansas²

“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
Constitution Of The State Of Arkansas Of 1874 (Article XIX, Section 1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness)

• Maryland³

“That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).”
Declaration of Rights, Maryland Constitution (Article XXXVI) [emphasis added]

“That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
Declaration of Rights, Maryland Constitution (Article XXXVII) [emphasis added]

• North Carolina⁴

“The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.”
The Constitution of North Carolina (Article VI, Section 8. Disqualifications for office.) [emphasis added]

• Pennsylvania⁵

“No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”
Declaration of Rights, Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Article I, Section 4. Religion)

[Ed. This isn't clear.  Is it implying that only those who acknowledge God are protected from disqualification due to their beliefs, therefore atheists are not?]

• South Carolina⁶
  

“No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being; and who on the date of such election has not attained the age of thirty years; and who shall not have been a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of this State for five years next preceding the day of election. No person while Governor shall hold any office or other commission (except in the militia) under the authority of this State, or of any other power. (1972 (57) 3171; 1973 (58) 48.)”
South Carolina Constitution (Article IV, Section 2. Qualifications of Governor.) [emphasis added]

• Texas⁷
  

“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”
Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4)  [emphasis added]

Although only one example would have been needed to invalidate the first criticism, I have shown that atheists are subject to institutionalized discrimination in many states.  In these six states, the nonreligious are denied a right that the religious are given.  Specifically, no atheist, agnostic, etc. may hold either any public office, or, such as in the case of South Carolina, a specific public office.  This is one of the most important facets of representative democracy, which in these states the nonreligious cannot participate.

I don’t claim this list to be exhaustive.  It’s simply what I have found in my research.  Do you know of more?  Am I mistaken and has one of these changed to include those of all faiths and no faith?  Let me know: sdreport [at] bunda.org

In my next post, I will respond to the second criticism (that atheists have no right to call their fight a “civil rights movement”).

Edit: I think it is important to point out that the U.S. Constitution trumps these discriminatory parts of state constitutions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this (Torcaso v. Watkins)⁸.  The point is that these provisions still exist in these constitutions, something no one felt was important enough to remove.  Furthermore, I wouldn’t put it past some ideologues to at least try to enforce it, even though precedent suggests the Supreme Court would most definitely overturn these provisions if challenged.  Presumably, these have not been challenged because the bigotry that exists, or at the least the fact that polls suggest atheists are the least trusted citizens, has not allowed openly atheist politicians to run.

References:

Despite being named in several lawsuits filed against the Pentagon for allowing military chaplains to proselytize to soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the numerous letters he has received  from civil rights organizations and government watchdog groups since he was tapped as Defense Secretary two years ago, letters demanding that he launch investigations into widespread proselytizing, Gates has failed  to issue a response of any kind to these groups and has refused to take steps to address the matter. Meanwhile, soldiers continue to have fundamentalist Christianity shoved down their throats.

Secretary gates has given no indication that he will do anything about the clear systematic First Amendment violations.  As far as our rights are concerned, I don’t see the “change” that President-elect Obama continues to trump.  Obama is a Constitutional scholar; I’m sure he understands the First Amendment and that it protects all of us, not just the religious.  Furthermore, this is not simply a violation of nonreligious service members’ rights,  but a violation of the rights of all service members: Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, atheist, etc.  No one should have to be a captive audience to religious proselytizing.

This is still a democracy (although the previous administration would make you think otherwise).  All is not lost.  Make sure Obama is aware of the bigotry and proselytizing in the armed forces.  Let him know that business as usual will not be acceptable.   Especially if you are in the military and have experienced this firsthand, definitely let Obama know your story.

change.gov

Don’t forget to read the rest of the article I quoted.  There is important background information.