I'm not gracious enough to resist saying, "I told you so," when I see rivalreligious groups fighting over federal funds. Only a few weeks after PresidentGeorge W. Bush announced a federal initiative to fund sectarian religiousorganizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was reportedly pressuring theadministration--with some success--not to underwrite the Nation of Islam.According to The New York Times, ADL representatives left a meeting with John J. DiIulio, Jr., director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "reassured that the president would not allow financing for the Nation of Islam's programs."
The ADL, an organization devoted to opposing discrimination against Jews,might have spared itself the embarrassment of lobbying in favor of discriminationagainst Muslims. Bush made clear his aversion to the Nation of Islam during the2000 election campaign: "I don't see how we can allow public dollars to fundprograms where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhanpreaches hate," he declared. DiIulio will be hard-pressed to reconcile theblacklisting of a national religious organization with his promise that theallocation of federal funds will be based on "facts, not faith; performance, notpolitics; results, not religion." But public opinion probably opposes the fundingof unpopular religions more than it supports religious equality.
Not many people openly support discrimination or even tell themselves thatthey believe in it. Yet many will eagerly distinguish between true and falsereligions; and denying equal treatment to the latter seems no morediscriminatory than refusing to hire someone with fake credentials. Religions aptto be labeled false are seen as con games; by funding them, government officialslook like easy marks. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino recently came under fire forendorsing a literacy program affiliated with the Church of Scientology, whichmany consider a cult. (The mayor defended himself by claiming ignorance of theScientology connection.)
Unease about allegedly counterfeit religions is growing. Bush's faithful allyPat Robertson is fearful of a nondiscriminatory "faith-based" initiative. Helaments that "such groups as the Unification Church, the Hare Krishnas, and theChurch of Scientology could all become financial beneficiaries of the proposal toextend eligibility for government grants to religious charities." This isapparently a painful epiphany: "I hate to find myself on the side of theAnti-Defamation League, and others," Robertson observed. But if there's one thingthat worries him more than no government support for religion, it's governmentsupport for religions he doesn't like.
This impulse to pass judgment on minority religions is ubiquitous. InMassachusetts several colleges have banned the Boston Church of Christ from theircampuses, labeling it a cult. "They are destructive to freedom of thought,freedom of movement, and freedom of activity," the Reverend Robert W. Thornburgof Boston University asserts. Maybe so, but some overwrought atheists would offera similar description of mainstream religions; and even established minorityfaiths are apt to be labeled cults by the majority. In France a proposed anticultlaw criminalizing "mental manipulation" by religious groups has alarmed someAmerican Evangelicals, who fear it will curtail their freedom. (What preachersdon't engage in mental manipulation?) Included in the French government's list ofdangerous religious groups are the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and theScientologists. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright condemned thislegislation for stigmatizing "legitimate expressions of religious faith."Albright's stance begs the question, Which religions would she classify asillegitimate?
To some extent, official judgments about true or false faiths are unavoidablewhen the government offers a benefit to religious groups--another reason toprohibit state support of churches. The Internal Revenue Service, for example,has to decide which organizations qualify for exemptions under the tax code.(Under pressure of a lawsuit, it recognized the Church of Scientology.) But theappropriately broad definition of religion offered by the SupremeCourt--essentially, "a sincere and meaningful" belief in some transcendentpower--will not please those who are offended by the mere suggestion thatWiccans or Moonies, much less Satanists, should enjoy the same legal status asPentecostalists or Presbyterians.
Given prevailing concerns that federal funds might be allocated evenhandedlyto religious groups, there's no small irony in the fact that Bush's faith-basedinitiative and charitable-choice bills proposed in Congress have been marketed asefforts to end religious discrimination. Advocates of state-sponsored religiousactivities, from official school prayers to sectarian drug counseling, have beenquite successful in equating the separation of church and state withdiscrimination against particular churches seeking state support. John DiIuliocites "end[ing] discrimination against religious providers of social services" asa primary mission of his office.
What discrimination? you might ask. Federal funding is already available toreligious service providers who establish secular affiliates to administer it.But this debate is not really about the government's obligation to accommodatereligious belief and treat all sects equally. It's about the entitlement of particular religious groups to government support. Borrowing the rhetoric of stigmatized or subordinate groups that have had to fight for civil rights,believers who seek state sponsorship cast themselves as oppressed minorities whodemand not privileges but rights. Christian Coalition co-founder Ralph Reed andothers have asserted that when a school system declines to sponsor an officialprayer, it violates the rights of students who wish to pray.
It's always amusing to see right-wingers who have loudly derided the"victimism" of the left play the victim when their own sense of entitlement isthreatened. (Remember how Ronald Reagan's administration cloaked its attack onaffirmative action as a defense of white male victims of reverse discrimination?)Religious groups, even those that are part of a Christian majority, have becomeparticularly adept at this game. Attorney General John Ashcroft was characterizedas a victim of anti-Christian bigotry when Democrats questioned his record or hisfitness for office. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani cast his campaign tocensor "offensive" exhibits at the Brooklyn Museum of Art as an effort to stopthe victimization of Catholics.
You don't have to examine these claims deeply to recognize their flaws. Takethe argument that abolition of official school prayer is discriminatory. Itignores the fact that students have an undisputed right to organize their ownprayer groups in school, say grace in the cafeteria, call on God's help in afootball game, or use school facilities for extracurricular religious activities.A great deal of religious expression is permitted in school (and is protected bythe First Amendment). What is prohibited is officially organized religious prayeror proselytizing that infringes upon the religious freedom of others. People whowant school-sanctioned prayers that all students are formally required orinformally coerced to recite seek religious power over others, not religiousrights.
There are hard cases that involve the complex interplay between constitutionalprohibitions on establishing religion and guarantees of its free exercise: Whenchurches get special treatment from zoning boards, is that establishment ofreligion or accommodation of it? But efforts to require school prayer or providepublic support for sectarian social service programs don't cure religiousdiscrimination; they create it. Why didn't it occur to charitable-choiceproponents that unpopular religions and even "cults" would qualify for federalfunds? They put their own sense of entitlement above other people's rights.