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)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If Obama wants my support, he better be very clear about his support of the separation of church and state, and he won't get a dime from me until I like the answer.
I agree, I'm going to have to reconsider my support. While being a believer, I had thought Obama understood the importance of Church/State issues, and the ramifications of a Faith based initiative.
About as much as we need internal and external hemmorhoids with chronic constipation and nothing to wipe with but truck stop toilet paper.
Thanks, mergina, I just laughed so hard I cried. You truly made my day! I hope you have a great weekend.
I had the same cornflakes episode this morning that you did. I hated it when Bush did it and I hate it even more now. We are turning into a preacher nation that embraces religious tolerance, as long as Christianity is at the top of the heap. I'd like to see this whole campaign come to a screeching halt while we address our demonizing of the Muslim religion. Obama is so busy denying any involvement with anything Muslim that he is encouraging a sub-culture of prejudice. We have had flare-ups this year with Jews, Muslims, Black Theologians, Evangelicals and Mormons. This is why religion and politics should never go in the same pot. It's a really bad mix.
You've hit a significant point presto (emphasis mine), "RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE, AS LONG AS CHRISTIANITY IS AT THE TOP..." BINGO! This is what freaks me out lately. Hell, we've already launched the crusades.
Rev. Lynn - thank you for being out front on this. I've been really concerned about the socially conservative shift and I really believe many people were elected to office based on this platform but were otherwise unqualified for the job. It was all about family values and not much else.
Some of these folks believe Creationism should be taught in our public schools. Most American Christians don't want the Book of Genesis to be part of science class . Freedom of and freedom from thing
If you cannot balance your belief in the bible and uphold the Constitution, you are not qualified to hold elected office. While Bush, Cheney and the gang were redefining torture, picking apart the words of the Constitution these guys were lecturing us on morals and using the federal government to save Terri Schievo. They were not just asleep at the switch, they were/are incapable of seeing it and the president ran this country and our principles into the gutter because of it.
If the bible is absolute truth and everything else comes next., that's dangerous for our democracy. Thier agenda is in our domestic and foreign policies. Think about Rev. Hagee and his views of re-emptive strikes on Iran and the purely biblical reason for these views. He's not alone in his absolute beliefs and they have money and votes. If someone believes Creationism wouldn't it be logical they believe the Apocalypse, End of Days or the Rapture? Think about it...
As long as the money is used for non-religious programs, such as feeding the poor or rehab for substance abusers, I can live with it. I'd rather have my taxes go there than for more bombs and bullits.
Slippery sloap. How long before the poor must join the church who got the food contract if they want any food? The problem with religeous people is that they don't know right from wrong. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?
WORTH REPEATING:
"The problem with religeous people is that they don't know right from wrong. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?"
And THAT'S only the tip of the iceberg.
Religious organizations have historically been involved in social services -- a chronic
SUCKING OFF TAX DOLLARS from US Treasury.
Why Not?
The PROFITEERING NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH gets even richer from
tax dollars for "defense", "pre-emptive war", building mega fleets and planes that are
obsolete and cost many billions in OUR tax money, running a corrupt Iraq INVASION and
Afghan WAR, being UNACCOUNTABLY CORRUPT with Bush-Cheney's blessing.
How about those give-aways to the CORPORATE WELFARE QUEENS?
The US Treasury is there to be ROBBED by anybody who's in power in a free for all spending spree. Now we're in an economic black hole while republicans continue CHEERING and back slapping. They should be SLAPPED UPSIDE THE HEAD and thrown out of power for a CENTURY.
Very true--
Barry Lynn's comments are absolutely true. All candidates would do well to listen to him.
BAC
Great piece Barry! I agree 100%.
So we've got a constitutional scholar from that bastion of knowledge, Harvard University, that is so stupid that he thinks that the state can give money to a religious organization without that being state support of religion.
And, sad to say, he is the better choice for the office!
When Ronald Reagan was elected president, I thought it couldn't get any worse, but apparently it just keeps getting worse.
I am afraid that America deserves all the misery it will soon experience!
this is silly.
the government has always used faith organizations to help provide social services. they are often the only wants who want to, who are in certain neighborhoods, or who residents trust.
bush gave them his Orwell name, but it was nothing new. What was new was the no rules against preaching or using the money for non-secular acitivities.
Obama just wants to restore the restrictions and make sure the money is really spent helping neighborhoods that need it. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that. I work for government and know we often have to contract with faith organizations because they are the only ones who step up to the plate.
Why can't we get away from religion in this country? It makes look weak and stupid. Worse yet, it makes us look uneducated. In order to be a truly progressive nation, we need to keep this garbage out of politics. The last thing I want to see this country stoop to is electing a liberal George Bush and a continuing dynasty of fundamentalist leaders. I hope Obama can come to his senses.
Barack Obama sure is a masterful politician. He's managed to get me from feeling pretty excited and hopeful about this election to so apathetic that I might not even bother to vote. I know mccain is WAY worse, but I'm not sure I care anymore. Simply reeling in a few of the most disastrous attacks on the Constitution just isn't enough anymore. If more religious bullshit and unconstitutional programs are what we can expect from President Obama I don't even care anymore.
"No one wanted to pay taxes to support some other person's religion." ???
In colonial times, I didn't think it was an issue of religion. Usually it's described as taxation without representation.
"the idea of taxing people to pay for religion is scary"
Especially if the religion is Scientology.
Just shows that Obama can pander with the least of them. Next it'll be "Drill ye terriers, drill!"
we don't need them but cowards like obama do not understand that we do not contribute tax dollars to religious organizations whose members have separated themselves from other people in a democracy because their deity is the right one--how Christian of them---! government and religion have been separated by reasonable men who had previously suffered from their fusion---
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
