'Rice' Christians

"The government [British Raj in India] allowed the Christian Missionaries in 1813 to spread their religion in India, and they did so with much zeal. Even the government supported their cause. Missionary schools were opened with this very object. During a severe famine in 1837 in Upper India, the relief work was left with the charitable institutions, and it gave an opportunity to the missionaries to undertake their prostelysing task, those who converted to Christianity were fed properly. [a practice that happened all over India and led to the term "rice Christians"] The Disabilities Act of 1856 guaranteed the rights over inheritance, even after conversion, but only to Christians."
(from a message on another list) - Author Unknown (to me)

Make no mistake about it, the Bush Administration is funding faith-based charities at the expense of other non-religious non-profits. Head Start? Forgetaboutit. He's cut it to the bone, and the administration sends out threatening letters every time the program speaks out in protest.

Parent Centers funded under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) narrowly dodged legislation that would have stated that non-profits that did any type of "federal relations" would be made ineligible from receiving parent center grants - something some parent centers see as a core part of their mission in educating the public and assisting those with disabilities. Here's more from OMB Watch on why the Castle bill was so troubling:

"Two factors added to the troubling nature of this provision. First, "federal relations" was not defined. The proposal specifically prohibited lobbying at the federal level on disability education issues, but added that "federal relations" would also have disqualified the organization from receiving grants. The inescapable conclusion is that "federal relations" must go beyond federal lobbying, and include activities like commenting on regulations or giving a Member of Congress a tour of a parent center. We cannot imagine what type of federal government interactions would not be considered "federal relations."

Second, when the bill was under consideration there were reports that a House staff member indicated that this model might be applied to grantees under other sections of IDEA. This would have affected an even broader set of nonprofits. It was clear that this was a slippery slope. If good for these grantees, why not for others?"

Freedom of speech by nonprofits is certainly under attack, and not just by conventional means. The threat of an audit by the IRS for speaking out is also a very real one . Just look at what the NAACP is facing for speaking out against Bush prior to the last election.

Call to stop IRS probe of NAACP

Certainly tax-exempt Roman Catholic groups that campainged heavily for propositions banning gay marriage have not come under IRS scrutiny. In fact, recall that the White House has already been caught asking churches to turn over membership directies for Bush to target for political campaigning. The zealot Christian Coalition even brags that it delivered 30 million "voter guides" to 80,000 churches for the 2004 election, yet there is no IRS probe there.

Unfortunately, I believe we will continue to see reproductive rights and AIDS/HIV non-profits fall under the heaviest attack. More from OMB Watch:

"Perhaps the harshest opinions are being voiced by those dealing with issues concerning reproductive rights and HIV/AIDS. Many have described their differences with the Bush administration as falling on one side or the other of the "safe sex" versus "abstinence" debate. Some claim that targeted audits are occurring to those to disagree with the administration's emphasis on "abstinence." Others, who fall on the "safe sex" side of the debate claim that they are being told not to apply for new grants since resources will be going to faith-based organizations more consistent with administration policies. Some claim that there is a blacklist being developed by agencies, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), to insure that certain organizations do not get grants.

Some of these sentiments are based on oral communication with those in USAID and other government agencies, but have not been documented in writing. Some derive from written communications, such as a December 2, 2002 "action cable" to USAID mission directors regarding "implementation of USAID policies and programs on HIV/AIDS and trafficking." The final page of the action cable states. "all operating units should ensure that USAID-funded programs and publications reflect appropriately the policies of the Bush administration." It should be ensured that "USAID is not perceived as using U.S. taxpayer funds to support activities that contradict our laws or policies, including 'abortion.'"

The same action cable notes that "any websites fully or partially funded by USAID" must have materials reviewed before posting to the web. Many groups working on HIV/AIDS believe that USAID and others, such as NGO Watch (see below), are combing through websites to find code words and phrases that might lead to blacklisting. They say keywords, such as "condoms," are triggers. If this process is occurring, it raises questions about whether federal agencies are properly applying cost allocation rules that grantees are required to follow. Cost allocation rules, which were at the heart of the 1983 OMB Circular A-122 fight, state that activities deemed unallowable for federal reimbursement should be paid for with non-federal funds, but that grantees can properly allocate a portion of the allowable cost to the federal government.⁶ In this way, nonprofits do not need two copies, two offices, two executive directors, etc. However, the USAID action cable seems to suggest that if any federal funds are used for the website, then the entire website must follow federal standards. Thus, if a grantee, were to mention something about abortion or sexual activity it would "taint" the entire website, meaning no federal reimbursement would be allowed."

Bush is cynically using faith-based charity funding to further propogate his beliefs and promote his agenda rather than seeking to help his constiuents. He openly attacks those who oppose him and looks the other way for anyone that supports his administration.

An Attack on Non-Profit Speech: Death by a Thousand Cuts

Take a long hard look at using tax dollars to fund faith-based charities, especially at the expense of other nondemoninational ones. The next time you are laid off work or get sick, the only people who may be able to help you out could also require you to attend their services, read their faith based literature and possibly even someday convert. How's that for freedom of religion?