Liddy Letter

What Do Senator Joe Lieberman, John Ashcroft And BushÂ’s Proposal To Support Faith-Based Social Service Programs All Have In Common?

There is an old axiom: "You will know your enemy by the company he keeps." Thus, the answer to the question "What do Senator Joe Leiberman, Attorney General John Ashcroft and President George W. BushÂ’s proposal to allow faith-based social service groups to compete with secular groups for federal contracts to provide services to the poor have in common?" is that the liberal elite heavily criticizes them all. Joe Lieberman, the first Jew ever to run for national office on a major party ticket, was initially lauded by the political pundits and press alike. Al Gore was commended for a bold move to shake up his sagging presidential campaign. Leiberman is not only a Jew, but an Orthodox Jew. He not only admits but also celebrates the fact that God plays a large role in his life. So when he first appeared in public as the DemocratÂ’s nominee for Vice President, those who know him were not surprised when he glowed before the national cameras and thanked Al Gore for selecting him, and then gave a very moving and personal testimonial about how important religion is to him and what a large role God plays in his life. That is when the criticism began.

Immediately newspapers and television reports were filled with questions and comments about the appropriateness of Leiber-manÂ’s comments about religion when he was seeking public office. These criticisms came from the Left. The Left is dominated by secular humanists who do not believe in God and have advocated for a misinterpretation of the First Amendment to the United States ConstitutionÂ’s prohibition against the establishment of religion by the federal government as a "wall separating church and state." No where in the Constitution is there any mention of a wall separating church and state. On the contrary, there are numerous references to God in the Declaration of Independence and specific allocations of federal funds for chaplains in the newly formed Congress and the military. Notably, the United States government has an official holiday dedicated to giving thanks to God.

The same liberal Democrats and journalists overtly opposed or questioned President BushÂ’s appointment of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. One is certainly free to oppose Ashcroft, and to do so for any reason, but it is interesting how it was done. On the surface, we heard that Ashcroft was a racist and opposed abortion. But not far below the surface of the anti-Ashcroft commentary, there were anti-religious comments.

We heard that Ashcroft was an Evangelical Christian. During Janet Reno’s confirmation or at any time during her stormy eight-year tenure at the Department of Justice, did we ever hear the identity of her religious preference? We read that John Ashcroft’s father founded a Pentecostal bible college in Missouri. Did we ever hear that Janet Reno even had a father? Clearly the liberal Left was uncomfortable with Ashcroft, not because he is a conservative, as is George W. Bush, but because he is a born-again Christian, as is the President. Somehow, a born-again Christian who served as Missouri’s Attorney General, Governor, and Senator is not qualified to be Attorney General of the United States—the theory being that someone who believes in God cannot enforce laws that must be void of references to God.

Faith-based programs have had tremendous success serving the sick, poor, and downtrod-den in America for the past 225 years. George W. Bush worked for one such charitable group. He worked with troubled black youths in Houston, Texas. Bush has spoken about the wonderful work faith-based organizations do, and how much he learned and grew as a man as a result of his service in Texas many years ago. So it should come as a surprise to no one that he feels passionately that faith-based groups should be able to compete for government contracts that serve the poor. His proposal would limit federal funds for use in support for programs directly serving the poor and afflicted and not for proselytizing. All of these groups need buildings, computers, books, and food that can be obtained with tax funds and kept separate from funds used for church, mosque, or synagogue services.

Yet some in the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party seem adamantly against allowing service programs affiliated with any religious organization to compete for government support contracts. This fierce opposition is unconstitutional. It calls for the government to discriminate against faith-based groups that wish to compete for government contracts to deliver social services. It is clearly established constitutional law that the government cannot favor one religion over any other, but neither can it show hostility against religion.

The Bush Administration insists that it will be performance, and not religious affiliation, that will qualify or disqualify any group, faith-based or not, to be awarded government contracts to provide much needed social services that, before the 1930Â’s, were the province of faith-based charitable groups and not the federal government. In fact, prior to the massive expansion of the roll of the federal government in the lives of Americans during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt era, Washington played very little roll in service to the weak and suffering. Such service to the poor and miserable has been a mandate to the faithful from God for thousands of years.

The DemocratsÂ’ opposition is all the more ironic in that so much of the suffering is in the black communities in AmericaÂ’s inner cities and, accordingly, black churches stand to benefit greatly byng government contracts to faith-based service programs. These very same black churches have provided an essential infrastructure to the Democrats get-out-the-vote effort every election year.

Joe Leiberman failed in his bid for the Vice Presidency but emerged as a much greater power broker within the Democratic Party. He will likely contend for his partyÂ’s nomination for president if Al Gore decides not to make another run at it. John Ashcroft, confirmed as Attorney General, will be both a fair and just enforcer of the law as well as a fundraising tool for the Demo-cratsÂ’ direct mail campaigns.

Regardless of the final outcome of BushÂ’s faith-based service programs initiative, it seems clear that the Democratic Party will never again be the majority party in the United States until they get past their hostility to religion.

Copyright © 1996-2001 - FPL, Inc.