Do We Really Need A 'Faith-Based' Initiative?

I nearly spilled my cornflakes this morning when I read an Associated Press story asserting that U.S. Sen. Barack Obama planned to not only expand the "faith-based" initiative but apparently allow religious groups taking part in it to receive tax money yet still discriminate on the grounds of religion when hiring staff.

Obama's staff quickly clarified things. They insist he won't back tax-funded religious discrimination. That's good to know, and I look forward to learning more the specifics of the proposal. They say the Devil is in the details. When it comes to the faith-based initiative, I'd rather just let the Devil have the details, along with the entire initiative.

No, I'm not a fan of the faith-based initiative. That may seem odd, as I am a Christian minister. Let's just say I come from the old school and take what these days is becoming an unusual view: Religion should pay its own way in the world. If Pastor Bob wants to start a ministry, good for Pastor Bob. Let Pastor Bob's congregation pay for it.

The problem with the faith-based initiative is that it's a euphemism. We used to call such things "taxpayer-supported religion." Of course, no one would support it if it were called that. After all, the idea of taxing people to pay for religion is scary. It's what got folks so riled up back in the colonial period. No one wanted to pay taxes to support some other person's religion.

No one wants to pay them today, either. Yet increasingly we are being asked to do so. Eager to appear faith friendly, candidates in both parties are increasingly upping the ante for how much they plan to dole out to religion if elected.

Under the Bush administration, the faith-based payoff reached new depths in venality and cynicism. Staffers in the White House faith-based office appeared at political rallies alongside House and Senate candidates in tight races, implying that the right vote would lead to a cascade of new money for religion.

But it never did. There was no new money. Disillusioned faith-based staffer David Kuo pointed out in his book Tempting Faith that Bush never proposed any new funding for these programs. He just sliced the pie slightly differently to reward some of his fundamentalist allies, virtually the only sub-group that still sticks by his sinking presidency.

Under Bush, money poured into "abstinence-only" sex education programs that study after study has shown are not effective. Grants were given to groups based on how well connected they were and the theology they espoused, not how effective they were.

The final kick in the head came when John J. DiIulio, the first White House "faith czar," blithely admitted in his book Godly Republic that there is no evidence that faith-based groups do a better job than their secular counterparts. Of course, none of this mattered to DiIulio. He was still for keeping the funding spigot on full blast.

If we have to have a faith-based initiative, one that does not allow proselytism on the taxpayer's dime and that is free of religious discrimination, it's better than one that does these things. Still, I wish a presidential candidate would have the gumption to ask what has become a forbidden question: Do we need a faith-based initiative at all?

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn is executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Washington, D.C. (www.au.org)

Comments

[tbone99]

Will , say, a Moslem , Mormon or Jew feel comfortable going to get food in a Church with a giant cross in the parking lot if they need to get food or day care for their child.? Or viceversa?

I get physically sick if I have to go into to a church, knowing what they have done to our ancestors in the name of racial superiority and manifest destiny.

[tbone99]

Who EXACTLY will ensure they won't back tax-funded religious discrimination?. Are they going to create jobs for 2,000 church regulators?. If so , what a waste of money .

If not - I don't believe religious prosletizing and discrimination can be prevented!.

The essence of Christianity,,as well as most religions is tied up with "saving" others thru worshipping their way OR ELSE.

[AlButerol]

There is no way the government will ever have a "faith-based" program that will be able to credibly prevent funds from being used in a non-discriminatory fashion. What are they going to do? Hire watchdog accountants to micro-manage each charity's allocated funds?. A faith-based initiative is the government going into the religion business, plain and simple. It is a violation of one of the most fundamental concepts of the constitution and our Republic. The founders would shit a brick if they knew this was happening. By the way, does anybody have a count of the Muslim and Jewish orgs that are receiving funds under this boondoggle. I'll bet it's close to zero. This Faith-based crap is simply governmental promotion of Christianity.

[demigod]

If the GOVERNMENT helped people, people would believe in the GOVERNMENT. The Republicans can't stand that, so they yanked the public assistance from federal programs and gave it to churches. So people will believe in the churches. DISGUSTING. Even if the churches don't blatently proselytize, they still get the credit for using FEDERAL TAX dollars to do what they should be doing in the first place, as Jesus taught. It's money laundering in REVERSE, putting the Jesus taint on otherwise pure money. Churches should help people, not be private religious rah-rah clubs, it's sad they still exist at all, but they do and their members aren't going to change. People get high on God. It's very troubling that OBAMA supports this, it's very troubling that Democrats are "reaching out" to the "faith community" - we should be taking every opportunity to educate people away from religion, but that's not where the Party is heading. This is NOT PROGRESS to sink in the pit of religion. It is not PROGRESSIVE to embrace religion. PROGRESS lies in SCIENCE, period.

[BigCynicDotCom]

>Staffers in the White House faith-based office appeared at
>political rallies alongside House and Senate candidates in
>tight races, implying that the right vote would lead to a
>cascade of new money for religion.
>
>But it never did.

Maybe that's Obama's strategy, too: promise the fanatics money before the election to get their votes, then after the election, stiff 'em. You know the old saying, "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ... y'all ain't gonna fool me again!"

[tbone99]

Exactly what I said about Obama's support for FISA!

[holeybuybull]

Perhaps, if the Reagan/Bush administration hadn't instituted the Milton Friedman Disaster Capitalism model as our economic policy, and the majority of American sheeple weren't too gullible to recognize it as such, the earning power of the majority would be sufficient to make these community services largely unnecessary. Clinton attack on welfare only added to the problem. We need to reject the Chicago School economic model (fascism) and corporate welfare, and keep the God franchises out of the loop.

[Rog49Thomas]

Presumably you mean a nominee of one of the two major parties.

[ashenthorn]

This has nothing to do with getting religious right evangelicals, or Obama "moving to the center", and everything to do with Obama's attempt to drive massive African-American new voter registration and massive African-American turnout operations on election day. Obama is speaking directly to the black church which is intertwined with black politics, and which will be the most effective instrument in this effort. He is, in essesence, promising them future funding for "faith based" programs in exchange for a massive Obama turnout operation. Cynical? Sure. Effective? Probably, and perhaps even moreso because everyone seems to be interpreting this as an outreach to white evangelicals.

[sir ken g]

I am a non-beleiver, agnostist, athiest. whatever

...but I live in a pretty small Oklahoma town and the only day-to-day assistance given to the poor is church based, and desperately needed. They run the food bank, and the clothing bank etc... The only homeless shelter is church run. As far as I can tell neither discriminates in who they give services to. The largest one is interdenominational and includes local protestant and catholic churches - they see a need and work together. I have given money to both and will again. As long as the rules Obama puts forth are followed I have no problem with the government giving them money.
Now I am hoping that getting the robber barons out of power will increase the minimum wage, provide health care and housing for all so that kind of hand-out aid won't be needed in the future. All the more reason to supoort Obama.

[jpopphan]

Why isn't the government of your state stepping up to take care of its own needy? Oh yeah, OK is a GOPer's paradise isn't it?

I applaud the efforts of non-governmental organizations who try to allieviate the suffering of the poor and homeless. I think that the teachings of Jesus are clear on this point, and that all Christians are supposed to help out those in need.

But at the same time, I totally reject the idea of giving an overtly-religious organization a single dime of taxpayer money. As with any taxpayer-funded program, there is a need for strong accountability for where and how monies are spent. Churches are notorious for not keeping accurate records of this nature, and many churches outright refuse to provide the govermnent with any financial information. The potential for abuse in the "faith based" system is tremendous, and the program itself has proven to be nothing more than a political sop to the GOP's hard-core supporters.

Those in the religious community who wish to serve the needy have many, many SECULAR organizations from which to choose. If the intent is to help people, then doing so in a secular environment wouldn't be an obstacle. But if the intent is to proselytize then that is something else altogether - and should be funded by members of the church and not the government.

[hopeless277]

Obama is in full pander mode. Nothing matters to him except getting elected and disbanding congress.

[ManhattanMC]

hopeless-

"Obama is in full pander mode. Nothing matters to him except getting elected and disbanding congress."

he isn't going to need to disband congress-
there's going to be a dem super majority.

[jpopphan]

Um, what part of the Constitution allows the President to "disband" Congress? I don't recall ever seeing such nonsense.

Besides, McCain already has the "pander" thing down pat. He's flipped and flopped and flipped again in order to get the cranky, demanding and petulant base of the GOP to support him. Obama can't touch McCain when it comes to pandering, man.

[lvdragonlady]

We DO NOT NEED a faith based ANYTHING.
Faith should be a personal thing and NOT a political thing.

[yodaveg]

Wow--Obama clinging to religion and guns, both in the same week. He must be bitter!

I am an Obama supporter. But these contortions as he plays to the middle are difficult to watch.

[stanjz]

Wealth redistribution my foot. The owners of the factors of production: property, plants, equipment et cetera have too much power over the ordinary person and they exploit it. These large businesses are governments unto themselves and they don't want a bigger government around to punish them when they abuse their workers.

I went to Catholic charities for help on numerous occasions and they didn't push any religious agenda on me.

[Dajo]

Obama should know better than to mix religion with secular government, after all he is a Democrat, isn't he?

[Kassandra]

I saw you on Olbermann last night, sir. I agree with you 100%. The fact that Obama has always had a "religious advisory committee" has given me the creeps from the start.

I see myself wearing dresses down to my ankles or getting burned at the stake if these wackos are given much more power. They've already decried science and are trying to take women's control over our bodies away from us again. They've already taken great steps to help impoverish us and keep us in ignorance which is the most fertile ground a religion can have. Poverty and ignorance and faith; no thankee.

The religious right has become quite active in recent years and it's really showing. I respect genuine faith in people but not this enforced coercion to faith which used to characterize Christianity and still does in Islam. I'm sick of the wars over "my god is better than your god". We need a new spiritual paradigm, not bringing back the dark ages.