Bush Plan for Religious Charities

* Your Jan. 30 editorial, “Church, State and Money,” is fine as far as it goes, but it only glances off the key question. President Bush’s desire to channel federal money to faith-based organizations will stand or fall on what he decides to do when the Wiccans ask for their share. I am reasonably sure he will fail this test of true religious neutrality. Religion means much more than the cramped and exclusive club his right-wing zealots want to steer people into.

DAVID LINK

Pasadena

* In allowing religious organizations to receive government funds for serving the poor, Bush did not make federal funds more accessible to religious groups (Jan. 30). Rather, he made federal funds not nonaccessible to some groups, like those born of religious beliefs. This violates neither the Constitution nor the spirit of impartiality.

LAWRENCE R. GORDON

Santa Monica

* President Bush’s grand idea of transferring taxpayers’ money to “faith-based” charities is so wrongheaded as to constitute a waking nightmare. Centuries of tragic history--some of which is still operating in many parts of today’s world--should, by now, have taught us a few lessons of what we might expect from Bush’s proposal: Money equals power. Power in the emotion-driven hands of fervid “true believers” equals irresistible temptation to promote their sincerely held beliefs, to the extent of pressuring needy “sinful nonbelievers” to jump aboard their particular gravy train to “salvation,” with overtones of theocracy.

Seen from another point of view, is it not corrupting to tempt the ministers of God/Jahweh/Allah/You Name It to feed at the public trough?

HORACE GAIMS

Los Angeles

* Bush cut funding to international family planning organizations, introduced policies to incorporate religious organizations into the departments of Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services, proposed John Ashcroft as attorney general and proposed school vouchers to be used at religious schools--all this in less than two weeks in office.

When did a vote for George W. become a vote for theocracy? Of course, we can feel comfortable that the Constitution will prevent such an outrage. As the ultimate arbiter of the separation of church and state, the Supreme Court stands between Bush and his theocratic empire. Perhaps we shouldn’t feel so comfortable.

LAWRENCE R. MILNE

Los Angeles

* The fact that faith-based programs work better than government ones doesn’t tell me they should receive federal funding. It tells me Washington should lower taxes, encourage charitable giving and get out of the way altogether.

TOM HOUG

South Pasadena