Americans United for Separation of Church and State yesterday urged several federal agencies to refuse to distribute earmarks to religious groups that will use the money for programs that appear to violate the First Amendment and which the agencies are forbidden under their interagency regulations that forbid funding of overtly religious work.

In their press release, Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director of AU, said, "Government pork for religious work is never kosher. The federal government should never use public funds to directly support religious missions. The bulk of these earmarks are highly suspect because they are directed at groups or programs that include heavy doses of proselytization."

The press release also contained several examples of programs which are included in the pork earmarks:
* A $47,000 Justice Department grant to several Teen Challenge, Albany, N.Y., programs, including one called “Rock the Block.” That program, according to Teen Challenge, is intended to bring “the life-changing message of salvation through Jesus Christ to the city streets.” Teen Challenge’s Web site notes that this program includes religious activities, such as altar calls and distribution of Bibles and “salvation cards.”
* A $282,000 Justice Department grant to a program of a St. Louis group called World Impact. The DOJ grant is aimed at helping World Impact to “enhance programs designed to help meet the needs of low-income, at-risk youths.” The group’s programs, however, appear to be of a proselytizing nature. The group says, on its Web site, that its aim is to “present Christ to the unchurched through all our ministries.”
* A $595,000 HUD grant to a World Impact program in Kansas. The grant is aimed at renovating the facilities of the group’s Morning Star Ranch in Florence. According to World Impact’s Web site, Morning Star Ranch is a “training center for inner-city young men ages 18-25.” The training program at the ranch is called “Christian Leadership Training,” and includes “Bible studies and devotions.” Moreover, the ranch runs children’s camps that include “relationship building, evangelism, spiritual growth, and wholesome fun.”
* A $94,000 DOJ grant to Straight Ahead Ministries’ Ready4Work program. This Boston-based group says its mission is “[t]o see Jesus Christ transform the lives of juvenile offenders.”
* A $401,850 Justice Department grant to the New Song Urban Ministries, Inc., of Baltimore, Md. The grant is to fund the group’s at-risk youth services. New Song’s Web site says it embraces “a holistic approach to neighborhood development known as church-based Christian community development ….”
* A $195,000 Education Department grant to Indiana’s Grace College. The grant is for “technology upgrades.” The college describes itself as an “evangelical Christian liberal arts college,” whose “goal in Christian living and teaching is to make Christ preeminent in all things.”

The First Amendment is very clear: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Religious groups are free to spend their own resources on religious education and proselytizing. Congress cannot force taxpayers to subsidize religious groups which, in most cases, are already tax-exempt.

And before some of you go all knee-jerk and talk about the GOP, the Democrats are at least equally to blame for this (if not more so since they controlled both houses of Congress for the current budget). Over $300 million has gone to religious causes since 1989.

Earmarks are a real problem. These are discretionary spending measures often tucked into unrelated bills which accounted for over $18 billion in federal spending in the FY08 budget. There are stark differences between the three remaining serious contenders for president: Hillary Clinton was responsible for $340 million in earmarks, Barack Obama was responsible for $91 million, and John McCain was one of five senators to abstain ($0) from earmarks.

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

It's a shady enough practice as it is with hiding spending measures in unrelated bills. It's unconstitutional, though. when it involves giving taxpayer money to do religious work. It should all be stopped.