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

[LeonBNJ]

"Faith-Based" also means exemption from many labor laws that a private organization would have to obey. "Faith-Based" would mean potential or current employees who are gay or Black or illegal or not of that faith's belief may not be considered for employment, discrimation as to services and so on. Then there is the mandate to listen to a sell job of a given faith for a benefit and the dominate use of faith to change certain beheaviors such as alcoholism or drug use. It is also a slippery slope leading to subsidies of religious based schools and other constitutional violations of the separation of faith organizations and the state. We need to keep the money in non-religious organizations to offer needed services to assure fairness for all.

[RobtBrock]

I think that it has potential. What I want to see is evangelicals taking government money and subsequently helping people - such as passing out clean needles to addicts and what not.

[itmaybetoolate]

Didn't Jesus ask his followers to sell everything they had and follow him? Wonder what Jesus would have to say about this?

People can believe whatever they want but I expect them to pull money out of their own pockets, not mine.

[NABNYC]

No, we don't. Churches are supposed to do good deeds. They don't pay any taxes, and the money their members tithe is supposed to be used for good deeds. The idea of my government forcibly taking money from me then giving it some religion, one in which I am not a member, maybe I don't even support them, is appalling. This is so close to having a national religion which we are forced to support so they can go around and proselitize and try to get more citizens to join their church. It is theft of my money, it is a violation of the constitution, and it is an appalling system of graft and corruption set up by Bush to buy more votes from the religious folks in exchange for big cash contributions from the U.S. treasury. Obama's support of this is another absurd bowing down to the right for votes.

[PuppaX]

This is not about faith-based VERSUS secular; it's about funding them all. This is about local organizations being more adept at serving local needs than national ones.

[steamboat]

Hey Barry, if you read this, could you let me know if you claim tax-exemption for being a minister?

And did you protest when people like Rev. Wright were receiving govt grant money?

-----LET US KNOW?

[DoctorJazz]

Right, we need to drop this cynical Rovian euphemism, so eagerly adopted by all lapdog media. "Faith-bas­ed"="relig­ious". It has no other meaning and the only reason for using the term is to circumvent the Constitution, once again.

[clevelandchick]

I am right there with you Mr. Lynn. What I don't get is why can't the churches who need money for philanthropic projects get in line with all of the other secular non-profits who have to beg for grants? Why not set aside an extra pot of money for all non-profits - secular or religious to go for? Why should churches get a special set aside pot of money while other groups who have no religious base that have been doing God's work without the label for decades don't?

I've got a friend who is director for Volunteers for America here in Cleveland. They help Vets who become homeless get back on their feet. His faciliity is barely getting by, he has to spend all of his time writing grants, finding donors and he's freaking out right now because people are donating less and less because of the economy and the government is giving them less. They had to start their own vegetable garden this year to help defray the cost of food. I am part of a community garden program and we receive free plants so I gave him all the plants & seeds we didn't use so they could start the garden.

It is wholly unfair and unconstitutional in my opinion that religious groups get special funding from the government. I think Obama is making a huge mistake.


.

[PuppaX]

Who said faith-based gets preference over secular?

[clevelandchick]

A special fund set aside for 'Faith Base' initiatives IS the very definition of favoring religion over secular.

[Marlyn]

"why can't the churches who need money for philanthropic projects get in line with all of the other secular non-profits" ???

Why can't our government instead, pour money into improving our public schools so that the needed services can be provided through the schools? That way we can avoid this whole approach instituted by the Republicans of doling out the money to their friends, and instead serve the local community as a whole by improving the schools.

[Gma11]

Personally and spiritually, I prefer Obama's model.

My husband and I have organized and led international humanitarian projects for over 30 years, the most permanent and annually attended being five dental clinics in Nicaragua and six in Bolivia. Although we are nonsectarian, nondenomination, we could not do this without the assistance of the faith communities in the remote places we've been - whatever that religion might be. The same is true of our local community. Local secular programs depend upon local churches as well as our one synagogue and one mosque to meet and administer a variety of programs. Often in conjunction with the local faith communities. I'm all for a partnership. I suspect that is what Obama is suggesting as he has so much experience as a community organizer.

[Giordano Bruno]

Excuse the religious response, but, AMEN to that one. This pandering to folks who would trade our democracy for a theocracy is disgusting, and is very off putting. Reminds me of the pandering of "Lt. Kerry, reporting for duty". The pro military folk will vote for McCain, irrespective of his inexplicable abandonment of the needs of our servicemen and women. And the Religious kooks are going to vote for him too when all is said and done, because of his stand on their single most important issue: right to life, to which he is a late convert. Meanwhile he weakens the fervor of his own supporters by pandering to voters who will in the end, vote against him. Not only that he loses the "moral high ground." It is a sad commentary that politicians feel as though they must pander to such divisive and retro forces. Giordy

[Oilygarch]

Faith-based is not bad; provided it's a true representative spectrum that is allowed to participate. Under the Republican Administration, if you supported a faith-based initiative and it happened to be Muslim... Oh, well, not only did that faith not count, you'd also get tagged for aiding and abetting!!

I look forward to seeing a fuller spectrum of participation in such initiatives, that, to tell you the truth, it would be nice if people participated simply out of the kindness of their own hearts and without any other agenda than to simply do what is good and right.

These initiatives appear to usually pick up after where the Government falls short. So, at least until the Government can get its act together..­.

[RobinSeattle]

Call Obama the Boss of Tabernacle Hall. Tammany Hall existed to pay locals off for votes so that it could then weave a web of lucrative corruption, Obama is, like Bush, paying off religious bosses for votes in hopes that those prelates would lean on their parishioners to pull the lever for Obama.

Thi is not the bifurcated ideal of rendering unto Caesar what is is Caesar's and unto God what is God's, but Caesar rendering unto God and God has his hand out. Who does Obama think he is? Emperor Constantine?

Truly religious people should view this with alarm. Religion is being corrupted by money in the same way it was before the Reformation. Those federal funds do not come without strings, either implicitly or explicitly. It is the sellout of religion to government. It is like a corporate merger between Sodom and Gomorrah Inc. and the Garden of Eden LLP.

Of you are willing to finance Judeo-Christian groups, don't you also, in the name of equality, have to finance The Friends of Xenu (Scientology) and "I am the new and improved Jesus" that is Reverend Moon's organization? Moon already has enough of a hold on the GOP and we shouldn't be rewarding him with money form a Democrat Administration.

I hope that this will be like Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. Devise a program, make a big p.r. to do out of it and then don't fund it. Otherwise, this is a farce.

[nef72]

Barry-it is never going to happen in America. Now more than ever the religious zealots will have their way in this country. When things are difficult economically and times get tough-Americans think that god will see them through-because afterall-America is god's chosen country-this is the bile that the theocrats leaders have been saying for decades on TBN, independent low power stations on television and radio as well as the gigantic megachurches that dot the abysmal landscape of suburban America. Obama had to pander to them as he has no choice in his view- too bad that it diminishes his message and his voice even further-pushing those of us on the true left- even farther away from him. He will be pandering even more to the religious reich. You haven't seen anything yet.

[gwpriester]

Sadly it's called politics. Trying to be all things to all people.

And given the fact that a close election goes to the republicans who will do anything to steal it, Obama needs every vote he can get. Even the so-called religious right.

Sad but true.

[Zeje]

But didn't Gore lose because of Nader? Isn't that what everybody says? So why do the Democrats think they need right-wingers rather than progressives? OBama got where he is because of progressives, and now he turns his back.

[kkuate]

I have not read Obama's complete statement on this issue, so it is hard to make a reasonable comment on it, however, I'll add my two cents to the notion that churches ought to be supported by their parishioners and members... The government in all its levels has no business financing any religious activities. I'd much rather see those government funds, which is actually the people's monies, to pay down the national debt and State deficits.

I hope Obama stays away from this losing venture of creating new expenditures, specially the Faith Based Initiative, instead of reducing these...I hope Obama is different from the typical politician.

The problem with politicians of all sorts is that they promise and they promise, and most of the time they don't deliver, and when they do deliver, is only to burden the American people with additonal debt.