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

[tmckly]

The gov should not give them money, but back in the day the churches fed, sheltered and clothed the poor. They did not receive tax money and there were no gov social programs [wealth redistribution] what happen? thanks a lot FDR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fedupwithpolitics]

It's bad enough that churches do not pay taxes--now they want to take from the public also?!!

[ga4ry]

Do I agree with Obama on this matter, no. But I have no place to go, for he has the words that end eternal strife. I will write him, I will attend any meeting with him I can and I will support any group that will emplore him to revoke the faith based sillyness. But I will vote for Obama because voteing for Mcsame is a sin

[edgarallenpoe]

The government shouldn't pay for fiath-based anything.

[Soothsayer08]

Good post and I also heard your comments on Keith Olberman last night. While I do agree that this might appeal to Evangelicals and garner more votes for Obama, I don't think taxpayer money should go to religious organizations. They also should not be tax exempt, since some churches are conducting business enterprises.

[naluca]

Obama supporters backed him for all the right reasons, but will see a steady erosion in his commitment to the principles which attracted them. Perhaps the worst part of it is that whenever he changes position, he does so in a way which is so circumspect as to make it impossible to challenge him. This is just plain dishonest. Do we want another president that, while running a shell game, says "Just trust me?' No thanks.

[Sciguy]

Oh, my! A christian minister who doesn't think the rest of us should support him and his church? I've just selected "Become a Fan" at the top of your post.

[elbzee]

The answer? A resounding HELL NO!!!! I am sick to death of religion's involvement in our political system. We have strayed waaaaay too far from the original objective. Church and State should NEVER be so closely associated.

[Soulsurfer]

As an atheist, I'd have to say this is ridiculous. Funding people who believe in invisible flying entities, who know everything and can read your thoughts.......what year is this?

[Overd0g]

Faith is a great evil. Faith in anything.

[FlyingDutchman]

Um....AD 1200. Oh, no, that's not right. I'm with ya on this one; this administration crossed a line here that should not have been crossed. I am also sick to death of politicians wearing their religion on their sleeve, but unfortunately one's faith (or lack of) has become a litmus test for office.

[Mimo29]

It's refreshing to hear that most of us disagree with Obama on this issue. But, now what? We are stuck in the same quagmire we were in 2004...having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

[Superfelo]

Senator Obama is not just another politician; he is a tremendous politician. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt. The filigrees, the church attending public, are a tremendous, silent majority, and they vote as their pastors tell them to. Although progressives, a million progressives, have supported Obama from the get go; and we look like a great majority, I will say this: there is more of the others. They are not as well read; they are not vocal, they don’t write on blogs. Yeah, they read, the Bible, but they get their news from their pastors’ mouth, and they vote.
He needs to win first. Obama stated that:” change will not come unless the people demand it." Well, a million strong of us will demand it, everyday. Enough is enough-we will be there. There is just nobody left and this country will not elect the Kucinichs; or any other person that strikes them as radical, or even has a whiff of radicalism. Remember we still live in a prejudiced society.
And on that note, Senator Obama has a lot baggage, as they see it, or strikes against him.
He is shoring up support. Let's see, if he gets elected how he will govern. We will be there. I have not said enough.

[MarkInEugene]

It's an important tenet of Democracy to keep a separation of Church and State, particularly when it involves money...taxpayer money! Forcing the people to be obligatory supporters of religious organizations that discriminate based on strict narrow-minded religious beliefs turns a democracy into a theocracy.

It’s revolting to me to think that my tax dollars are being given to organizations who hate me because I don’t bow to their god and adhere to their dogma. I can’t conceive of anything more undemocratic!

[elbzee]

HEAR HEAR Mark! Damned straight!

[kallisti7]

Not for nuthin', but I'm a life-long liberal, so I'm inclined to share your revulsion at mixing church and state. However, my wife works for a social policy reserach company that develops and administrates programs funded by Bush's faith-based initiative program and I gotta tell you, a lot of these programs work. I think once in three years has she told me about a church having to be cautioned about coming on too strongly with the faith part before actually administering any social work help. Also, her office is overflowing with liberals, many of them black and/or gay. Kinda awesome, huh? Let's not be too quick to tar all people of faith with the same prejudiced brush.

[darcy]

Mark, you nailed it!!

[RJC]

What we need is an office of "Reality" based initiatives, not "Faith" based initiatives. It should be shut down.
Taxpayer money should never go to organizations whose purpose it is to convert people to believe in their imaginary supreme being. All of their do-gooding is a means to an end, proseletyzing. You can't separate out and only federally support the non proseletyzing portion. It's a shell game, the money they get only free's up their own money to gather more sheep. We've done just fine without before GWB and the faithe based based progam. Besides, it's only another avenue for him to support his followers.
The faith based progam should be shut down. It's irrelevant how effective or ineffective the programs are. The ends don't justify the means. These groups avtivities are based on a belief in an imaginary being, as such their fairy tales should not be validated. It is high time the US distances itself from primitive unsubstantiated belief systems. We would do well to ground our policies in the real world, and not delusion

[Snerdgronk]

I too believe the Faith Based programs should be shut down ...

Snerd

[Snerdgronk]

Lynn: "DO we really need faith-based initiatives?

SG: Empirically, No!

Snerd

[GiggidyGeshmoygen]

the faith-based initiative is, at its' core, an admirable and honorable concept

sadly though, like so many other admirable-sounding concepts (No Child Left Behind), it has been dragged through the mud by a corrupt, politically motivated and cynical "Christian" named george w. bush and used to pander to rightwing evangelical cronies

bush could give a rat's a$$ about actually helping anybody - hopefully, Obama is promoting the idea from a much more genuine perspective - ironically, if this is so, it is a politically brilliant move

[Snerdgronk]

The real difference is that Obama has decided not to go after 'Old Testament Ch(R)istians'

Snerd

[txbyrd]

Thank you and Amen.

[LeeAlex]

Rev. Lynn,

I saw you on Countdown. I've heard you refer to "old school." Ideally, congregations should pay their way. But mainline denominations are shrinking. Larger givers are older and are passing on. Younger people are dealing with debt, costs of living, etc. My worst moments on a church board are budget nights where we figure out how to whittle our projected ministry costs down by 80%. We dream big but have to work small, often in $50 chunks.

Churches, synagogues, mosques and other secular charities are a huge safety net in communities where social services have been cut. Our facilities are battered from hosting all the recovery groups that have nowhere else to go. Other groups wonder how they are going to feed the families who come in needing food -- middle class families at that faced with rising housing costs. Seniors who decide to pay for medicine or food, never mind utilities. And it's only going to get worse. In my circle, we have no conditions for help. There is no litmus test on belief for staff or for those who need help.

So if you tell me how to increase giving in my congregation, I'll gladly argue against government help. Until then, and until this country is restored to some balance, I believe Sen. Obama is on to something. I want controls, I want something better, but the truth is that none of us can do this alone right now.

[clevelandchick]

Religious charity should get in line with secular charities for the money not get a special huge pot of money set aside especially for them. That is bias favoring religious over secular groups. It's not Constitutional.

[sws3030]

Your church sounds more admirable than many.

We have a local congregation that runs a food bank. They distribute their food on Sunday after services-but only to those people who have attended their service.

This is not charity-its a public relations ploy.

At Christmas they provide gifts for poor children-after they have attended 4 weeks of Sunday School.

For a group like this to be considered for government money is a sin itself.

[jhalvers]

You need to just deal with it. Until donations to religious organizations are taxable, you have NO BUSINESS taking our money!

[broilinginhouston]

As an atheist, the prospect of my taxes going to your church is fundamentally revolting. If you can't fund your operations from voluntary contributions, that's just too bad.