Debates have stirred up once again over President Bush’s faith-based initiative. At a recent speech, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said the line between church and state has been misinterpreted by both the Supreme Courts and the lower courts.

A few days after Scalia’s speech, Attorney General John Ashcroft made his own address, in which he endorsed Bush’s plan. While quoting the Old Testament, Ashcroft said the government has been discriminating against faith-based organizations that do good for the people. The faith-based organizations Ashcroft was referring to include non-profit associations that organize soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other beneficial programs.

Bush failed miserably last year when he tried to pass his initiative through a Democratic Senate, although he did use his power to implement parts of it through executive order.

According to the order, all federal agencies must follow the principle of equal treatment in rewarding social service grants. Therefore, no organization will have to change its identity to apply for funds.

Bush also gave specific instructions to groups, such as the Federal Emerging Managing Agency, which have had a history of discriminating against faith-based groups. The instructions include revising policies on emergency relief so all non-profit organizations can benefit from the assistance of money and aid.

With a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, Bush hopes to win the passage of his initiative this year.

However, conservatives such as Bush, Ashcroft and Scalia should think twice about intertwining more religion into the government. If they do, they will be opening the door wide for criticism.

It will be difficult for Bush to know if the government money he is allocating to the different faith-based organizations is actually used for the purpose he intends — to help other people. The money could be used to promote the religion instead.

In our Constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” If the money is used for other objectives, such as advancing a religion, then it would be violating the supreme law of the land.

Americans, who practice many different religions, will have issue with the government favoring one theology over another.

Scalia had said the constitutional wall between church and state has been misinterpreted by the court system. However, the original framers of the Constitution did not really have religion, as we think of it today, in mind.

Most of the early fathers were deists. They believed God had set the world in motion and then watched his work from a far distance. Therefore, the original framers of the Constitution probably did not want religion to be a big part of the government.

Religion is one of our primary civil rights. Although the three religious musketeers may not see the faith-based initiative as harmful, it is a step in erasing one of the Americans’ most important rights.