There's the problem. Bush can't see that people who don't share his faith don't necessarily find his religion's tenets tangible and obvious. Bush maintains that his religious awakening changed his life. I happen to believe he's sincere about that. Unfortunately, he's also sincere about federally funding the religious salvation — a.k.a. the conversion to Christianity, specifically — of America's poor and needy.

Bush's programs are like those "free" trips to Florida run by real estate time-share agencies: you think you're just getting a free meal [or trip to the Sunshine state]. But there's a price. In oder to qualify, you have to hear all about the wonders of the faith [or visit a bunch of crappy condos] every time you want a free ham and cheese sandwich [or precancerous sunburn].

Are All Religions Created Equally?

When Bush talks about salvation, he's referring to his religion in particular, not all religions. So when he proposes or pushes through these faith-based initiatives, I don't think he can be objective about why he's doing it. He honestly believes, as do most Christians, that the more people who convert to Christianity, the better. I don't necessarily think they're wrong, unless these conversions are subsidized by taxpayer money, in which case it's unconstitutional.

And I kind of doubt Bush would be as sincere about these initiatives if the country started pumping out radical Muslims instead of conservative Christians.

So when our president uses religious terminology and his own experience to describe why he wants to give public money to religious organizations, he's tipping his hand. It's not just about helping the poor overcome their poverty. It's also about saving them in the Christian sense. Salvation is fine as long as it's done with private money.

To top it off, organizations representing different religions will compete for public money. No matter how you slice it, someone's religion is going to get less than someone else's. [I can only imagine how much the National Association of Atheists is going to get!] My guess is that Christian organizations will receive the lion's share of the public money. But how will we know if the inevitable funding imbalances — no matter in whose favor — are based on anything but religious preference? How will we know the government isn't simply endorsing one religion by giving it more money than the others, and therefore more opportunities to reach out to new "members"?

We shouldn't use taxpayer money to take advantage of the needs of the poor in order to push a little religion into their lives. The American government shouldn't be in the business of funding religious activities or evangelism. So I say give the religious organizations the money to help the poor, but put back the rule — which Bush rescinded — that prohibits the use of that money for religious activities.