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
Should the government hand out tax money to churches? Nope.
How many federal grants have you applied for, Rev. Lynn? Should I be discriminated against for a federal grant to buy food for my food pantry just because I am religious and the pantry has a religious-sounding name stemming back 80 years? But that has historically been just the case. It's not a separation issue. Not even close.
Why can't we have an agency that promotes reason-based intitatives? In this world, the less you depend on faith - which is a euphemism for dumb luck - the better off you will be.
Exactly.
But you assume we can be a nation of adults. We are not, unfortunately.
why should religions be entitled to tax money? they don't pay any taxes.
Religious institutions provide many services that are secular in nature or could become completely secular if that was a precondition for federal funding. There's no reason to believe that religious institutions provide superior social services compared to secular institutions, but vastly more Americans go to church than to the Boy and Girls Club.
With so many existing or emerging social and economic crises, it's important to make pragmatism the guiding principle of political reform. Simply put, organized religion is a proven and effective vehicle for getting much-needed support to the communities that need them. This is the foundation of Obama's bottom-up vision of progressive government: empowering the community and the institutions that serve it.
Obama's policies will apply equally to religious and secular institutions of all denominations and causes, and they will fund purely secular initiatives that address poverty, hunger, family, and more. This is consistent with the Establishment Clause, and it's consistent with the progressive commitment to providing support and opportunity to the economically disadvantaged.
If Pastor Bob's congregation is made to pay it's own way, then shouldn't we all swear by YOYO economics? Why are progressives so libertarian on faith?
"a precondition for federal funding" ???
Churches want to be pigs at the public trough.
You missed a crucial point made by Barry Lynn: there is no evidence that faith-based groups do any better than their secular counterparts.
Then why go through all this trouble of giving them money, and then having a system to check if they are really complying with the conditions imposed on them?
That, and there is also the issue of separation between Chruch and State.
Nope! Obama's position on this makes absolutely no sense.
NO!!
The real meaning of "faith-based": God help you.
I recently published a book entitled SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Humanity http://Sim
No presidential candidate can today survive as an atheist, and Barack Obama is certainly not one. However, he sees some religious resistance to McCain influenced by that conservative squabble. He must be trying to get some of that vote. While I ate my cereal with no problem this morning, I do feel somewhat disappointed for his need to say what he did.
The issue is not whether a candidate is religious. The issue is whether taxpayer money should be given to religious organizations.
I have no problem with faith based iniatives IF 1) they do NOT discriminate 2)If they ONLY USE the monies to help the under-privelaged and needy 3) As long as the monies are NOT used in any way political/lobbying etc...agai
"If we have to have a faith-based initiative". We don't have to have any.
In addition to my right to have freedom OF religion, we should all demand our right to be free FROM religion. Spare us, also, from a president who makes faith-based decisions - about war, for example.
Thank you Barry. I have almost always agreed with you and am definately opposed to the government sponsored Faith Based Initiative. It smacks of voter purchasing with public funds and is a clear infringement on our Separation of Church and State clause. If we do not soon acquire a better process of governing that cleans up this mess, we will lose our Democracy - it may already be gone. We can not continue year after year stacking our policies and funding towards less than eficient programs and groups.
To answer your question No.
Right on, Barry! I hated hearing that this afternoon when I was at the gym. I am not an xian minister, nor even xian, and I've been a member of AU for many years! We do not in the least need any office of faith-based initiatives. We need to fortify the separation of church and state, not continue to destroy it as the current administration has done.
Way back when, I sent a letter to all the candidates asking them their views on the faith-based crap (I was not that derogatory, lol). Only one candidate answered me and that was John Edwards. It was a canned response, but it did address church and state issues and I was pleased to read that Edwards fully supports separation and feels that his own faith need not enter the political arena.
What I long for is the day when a candidate will not mention religion AT ALL. Will not answer questions about it ("It's a personal belief and one I leave out of the public eye."), will not talk about Jaysus or doG or the babble, none of that. Unfortunately, it seems to be the only thing many people care about.
So many things are more important than praying!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
