To help clarify the polemic background of this issue, keep in mind that tax dollars have been totally cut for Planned Parenthood and even overseas funding of family planning organizations that use their own money to fund abortions.  There are also strong indications that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is frequently accused by conservatives of being biased, will be defunded.  

At the same time, vast amounts of tax dollars go to fund war, drug war and penal processing.  Many argue that goodwill spending is more efficient than police/military spending.  Public funding of sports arenas is possible, but not the arts, education or universal health care.  Politicians quietly spend millions on "corporate welfare" to support rich corporations like Halliburton, but Cheney himself has consistently voted against an astounding number of programs aimed to help poor families.   The actions of Cheney and other fiscal conservatives indicate that they see no problem with giving huge tax breaks and funding to the rich, but they deeply resent giving even health care to the poor.  (Notice the teacher's heavy-handed bias here.)

The point is: there is a deepening split in our society between those who resent taxes, goodwill spending, and wish to impose stricter rule of law to punish the rebels and thieves, and those who resent unjust distribution of wealth, military aggression and metaphysical intervention in the legal code.  Americans do not agree on these fundamental issues, and tax dollars are constantly being spent in ways that offend or even harm one or another group of people.  

[Refer to Katherine Yurica's article "The Despoiling of America"]

It is my perception and opinion that this process has always favored a "trickle down" model in which money is concentrated among rich elites who, it is told, will spend that money in such a way as to create jobs and thereby improve the lot of the lower classes.  Since much of this capital is invested in a variety of tax sheltered financial instruments, the trickle down does not occur--or at least there are significant doubts about it.  It is also my perception and opinion that whenever the government is financially weak, budget cuts are nearly always carried out in such a way that goodwill and arts spending are cut more severely than the funding for programs that benefit corporations, the wealthy and the military.  The cause of this, it has been suggested, is the powerful corporate lobbyists and the close ties between corporate money and political campaigns.  Further, Plato taught long ago that the arts are dangerous, for they invoke discord and rebellion.  

Religions have long enjoyed a very attractive tax-exempt status, which makes them a sort of favored industry in this country.  They have not received government money in the past, nor have they paid in any taxes.  Instead, they are able to amass and use wealth in ways that no corporation can.   This faith-based initiative of the Bush administration will add to these benefits by funneling money from tax-payers into religiously controlled welfare programs that conservatives decried when they were secular in nature, suggesting to me that the real issue isn't spending money on the poor, but rather, funding secular institutions.  In other words, many opponents of the plan see in it an attempt to increase the power of religious institutions, and to make religion a factor in the disbursement of economic assistance to the poor.   Bush has come out publicly in support of allowing these charitable institutions to discriminate on the basis of their beliefs (against gays and non-Christians).  Bush described attempts to force charities receiving tax dollars to not discriminate as government interference.  He has turned the First Amendment on its head. 

There is an obvious potential for discrimination in the plan.  For instance, imagine that money is going into faith-based chemical dependency treatment programs. Many addicts may want help, but have either different religious convictions, or a strong aversion to theistic organizations. S/he might reject treatment options offered as part of the sentence, since s/he might be repelled by the religious elements in that program.  Would that person be denied the same rights that a religious person would have if charged with a drug-related crime?  Would churches favor their own members over others in the vicinity?  AIDS treatment and hospice care is an even better example.  It is common knowledge that some religious groups believe that AIDS is God's revenge on homosexuals and drug addicts.  Consequently, they resent the fact that so much of our tax dollars are going to fund various programs including charitable programs helping AIDS patients  By moving funds to religious organizations, it becomes acceptable for them to discriminate against gays.  We saw this in the case of the Boy Scouts, whose religious, non-profit status is sufficient reason to justify their anti-gay membership policy.  

Many of those offended by the initiative would strongly support federal funding of programs that these religious institutions have been lobbying hard to destroy: Planned Parenthood, for example.  In other words, it appears to them that there is a strong bias toward religious agendas.  It seems profoundly unfair to those of us who do not share those religious/ethical convictions.  

Imagine this scenario:  a predominantly white church receiving government funding could give money to a middle class white family in their congregation that lost their home in a fire, though they had insurance to cover most of the losses.  Meanwhile, poor minorities that belong to poor inner city churches would receive no help from that church, and might be discriminated against by the system.  Perhaps they would be unable to solicit the same kind of funding because of the small size and poverty of their church.  If we do allow churches to receive funding for charitable activities, who decides who gets the money?  Who decides what activities count as charitable?  What defines a church?  How will fairness be enforced?  Can tax dollars be used to build churches and other buildings for the benefit of religious institutions?  

Perhaps even more insidious is the irresistible attraction of government money.  Opening what some critics have called "the Faith-based Pandora's Box" will mean that available funds will entice people who have not previously been either charitable or religious to seek that money. New religions will be invented.  New charities will appear.  New ideas for what counts as charitable will also appear.

For example:  Imagine a Wiccan homeless shelter that takes people in, helps them with herbal cures and massage, and whatever homespun common sense medicine they could do with over-the-counter pharmaceuticals.  They could even offer midwife services (perhaps including herbal abortion), and probably even AIDS awareness campaigns, sex education in poor neighborhoods, etc.  Perhaps they could teach them organic farming, or wilderness survival skills.  More than likely, the cyber savvy Wiccans would be teaching computer skills.  I can  imagine a very effective operation like this.  To make it all fit the bill for a fully religious organization, they could teach them how to be Wiccans so as to help give their lives spiritual purpose and meaning.   It strikes me that there is just enough righteous anger among the "left wing" to attempt something like this simply to make this point.  The laws already in place would make it very hard to prevent this from happening without creating restrictions on unorthodox religions.  No doubt there would be an attempt to stop this on the grounds of the religiously-motivated "gag order" on abortion counseling, but I'm sure that for the sake of appeasing the demands of the conservatives, they could forego such controversial activity--playing the game completely by their own rules.  

Scientology could step up its public relations, and make a play for charitable dollars based on the fact that they put people to work as auditors. 

Many nontraditional religions have tax-exempt status already, so this could create some extreme potential for corruption, and for it to backfire in the faces of many well-intentioned religious people.  They seem to forget that government money has strings attached, and that means that the government will be interfering in religion. This is a political issue that will be very important for the future of this country.  

Some would prefer to see ALL religions lose their tax-exempt status, especially if such organizations are directing antagonistic public policy, and receiving government money without paying in taxes.  It appears to me that we are in the midst of three heated rhetorical battles: a) how tax dollars should be spent, which of course connects back to how they are collected.    b) how much freedom should people have to follow different lifestyles? (i.e. to what extent is there pressure to follow certain rules of behavior in regards to sexuality, politics, religious manifestation?)   c) and the unspoken battle over the extent to which we should allow religious institutions to consume public resources and indoctrinate the population.  

Depending on your perspective, it can be argued that religious charities take advantage of people's misfortunes in order to convert them to their religion.  

What is the difference between the imaginary Wiccan homeless shelter and the Salvation Army, or the Protestant missionaries who are converting refugee Southeast Asians before helping them immigrate to the United States? 

Should a church that uses its funds almost entirely to pay for its own expenses, recruiting expenses and for publishing religious materials be granted tax-exempt status? 

Should there be a tax distinction between religious organizations and charitable organizations?

If religious motivations can be used as an argument against funding Planned Parenthood, should there be equal respect for the opinions of those who resent tax funding of religious charities?  Why or why not?