Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson proclaimed last Thursday that more than $2.2 million will be transferred from its child support programs to a variety of religious and nonprofit organizations to help deal with the problem of deadbeat dads and struggling families. In fact, one-fourth of this money will be specifically used to help educate and promote the importance of having strong marriages for the benefit of the children of the broken relationships who are usually forgotten.

However, not everyone is happy with the decision by the Bush administration to give government money to religious organizations regardless of the reason.

Predictably, there are critics who believe this action is just another way the government will intrude on the personal lives of the American people. They believe that the government does not have any business sticking its nose into marriages. Still, there are others who are miffed at the decision to give money to “religious” groups because they believe it is an act that violates the fictitious separation of church and state.

Leading the way against giving government funds to these religious groups is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Let me see. Their concern is not about ensuring that marriages remain solvent, but whether there has been a violation of the separation of church and state. Huh?! What exactly are the priorities of this group?! Can they not look beyond their own personal disdain for religion long enough to see that there are positive social benefits to the services offered by churches and other faith-based groups?!

Robert Boston, spokesman for the Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, “Whether a person gets married or stays married is none of the government’s business. It feels paternalistic for government to be interfering.” Boston fears a growing “big brother” mentality by the U.S. government will lead to a loss of freedoms and eventual totalitarian rule. This fearmongering has only strengthened the resolve of President Bush.

Undeterred by his detractors and a passive Congress, President Bush signed the executive orders in December to implement portions of his faith-based initiative. By taking this action, President Bush has now paved the way for religious and nonprofit organizations to obtain federal funds for their social programs and services. This is an important first step towards eliminating government-sponsored social programs forever.

Essentially, these one-time and short-term government funds will act as a starting point for transferring many social services from the control of the government to the private sector. As many government programs begin to be phased out, President Bush will be able to cut taxes for all Americans even further. As a result, this will allow hard working Americans to keep even more of their own money!

Before long, these private social programs will become self-sufficient because the American people will be eager to share a portion of the extra money they have in their pockets to help sustain these necessary programs. Best of all, the government will be completely out of the picture for good (politics aside, even the staunchest critic of President Bush should applaud this likely possibility!).

Despite the knee-jerk criticism he has received so far from many leftist groups, President Bush contends that not one single dollar of government money will go to support religious activities. Of course, some Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have balked at this notion. They believe churches will use the tax dollars given to them to indoctrinate their religion on people. And this would supposedly violate the separation of church and state that many (falsely) believe is in the United States Constitution (NEWSFLASH: “Separation of church and state” is not in there even ONE time!).

President Bush should be commended for fulfilling a promise he made during his campaign for President in 2000. He believes that religious and nonprofit organizations are better equipped to take on the challenges of meeting the social needs facing America. It truly is revolutionary to find someone, anyone in Washington, D.C. (much less the President of the United States) who would choose to have the private sector do something rather than the government. And how hard is it to find a man in the White House who actually keeps his promises? That should be reason enough to re-elect him in 2004!