Recently, a group of religious leaders in our state sent a letter to the state Legislature requesting that they raise taxes on the citizens of Washington to avoid the alternative option of cutting social services.

Ironically, such a request from religious leaders indicates a lack of faith, rather than the dependence on faith that believers profess.

This letter raises many concerns for me, as a person of faith myself.

These religious leaders are not asking their followers to give, but they are asking the government (with the full force of the law as backing) to take.

These leaders make no distinction between believers and non-believers, but in the name of good intentions expect to use the long arm of the law to impose their goals upon all citizens.

The purpose of the First Amendment, mostly known for creating the “wall of separation” between church and state, is for the purpose of not confusing civic mandate with religious conscience.

“There shall be no law establishing a religion…” is a critical component of our civic right to practice any faith or no faith, according to the dictates of individual conscience.

This is what Benjamin Franklin meant when he said, “When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one.”

An even more explicit sentiment came from 19th-century English preacher Charles Spurgeon. Admonishing Christians who seemed to rely on Parliament to support their religious goals, Spurgeon declared: “I am ashamed of such Christians who rely on Parliament. Hands off! Christ wants no help from Caesar.”

Leaders who confuse government action with faith practice often cite their cause as “the common good,” but then narrowly define the common good according to their specific vision of government initiatives, thus tying a yoke to all citizens.

What if your version of common good obstructs mine?

My graduate degree is in ministry. It was always my understanding through the study of scripture and church tradition that as religious leaders, we are called to use our gifts to tend to the spiritual welfare of the flock.

We are called to pray with, exhort, teach, correct and organize under the power of God for the benefit of the world.

We are called to bring reconciliation, healing, love and material assistance, but always in the name of God and the redeemer who saves us.

Our work is always about relationships between neighbors; becoming my brother’s keeper in the name of God and hopefully by doing so, witnessing to God’s love for us.

Our work is explicitly tied to God’s glory.

The leaders who authored the letter to the Legislature, however, never even mention God’s name in their letter, but only make vague references to economists and budgets and necessary services.

The head of a government agency could just as easily have written it.

I hope that such leaders have not abdicated their faith in pursuit of the mighty government dollar in an effort to preserve their funding.

They seem to confuse the biblical mandate to serve the poor with a mandate to advocate for government coercion by way of more taxes.

Rather than appealing to their flock, or to God, they appeal to the taxman.

Two of the organizations who signed on to the letter are funded by tax dollars, namely the Church Council of Greater Seattle (35 percent funded by tax revenue) and Associated Ministries (42 percent of its revenue comes from government contracts).

Contrast this with a ministry such as the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle, which intentionally turns down government funding in exchange for the freedom to proclaim its services in the name of their Christian faith.

They have engaged their flock to serve the poor, and their flock are certainly blessed by doing so.

How many religious institutions, such as colleges and hospitals, have had to compromise their religious principles because they have sold their institutional soul to the gospel of government?

A few years ago, the Boston Archdiocese was forced to stop offering adoption services because it wouldn’t comply with a government mandate to place children with gay couples.

As we speak, the Obama administration is constructing mandates to force Catholic hospitals to either shut down or offer abortion services.

Future showdowns are imminent because we have for too long sullied our integrity by taking government money.

The Scripture passage “the borrower is slave to the lender” comes to mind.

Georgetown University (a Catholic university) has just confirmed reports that it covered the name of Jesus that is carved on a stage where President Obama would be delivering an address.

They did this in compliance with a White House request. Apparently, the president wants no Christian symbols to be present in his televised image.

If this is true, then I’m ashamed at how eager my brothers in faith have complied.

It appears they have chosen their master.

Angie Vogt writes a column for the Federal Way Mirror, the Independent’s sister publication.