Obama's Faith-Based Initiatives Won't Pass the "Lemon Test"

I always disliked Karl Rove's Republican patronage system that masqueraded as federal "Faith-Based Initiatives." Barack Obama's apparent embrace of this blurring of the line between Church and State, like his stand on the FISA bill and other moves lately, is a disappointment. It illustrates that too few of our political leaders take seriously the "establishment clause" of the Constitution that forbids the enactment of a state religion. Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago so he knows better.

Long ago the Supreme Court Justice William Brennan devised criteria for discerning whether a law (or executive order) violates the "establishment clause." Justice Brennan called it the "Lemon Test" because it refers to Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). He included the following criteria: 1). The law must have a secular purpose; 2). It must not advance or inhibit religion; and 3). It must not result in the excessive entanglement of government and religion. Both Bush and Obama's "Faith-Based Initiatives" clearly fail Brennan's "Lemon Test."

I don't think people who find themselves in poverty should have Bibles stuffed down their throats before their own government will give them a loaf of bread and some powdered milk.

In a country where 60 percent of white evangelical Christians, according to a 2006 Pew Forum survey, said they believe that the Bible, not the will of the people, should shape U.S. law, any president who pushes "faith-based" welfare programs is playing with fire. There are armies of hard-core fundamentalists out there dedicated to the Christianizing of American public institutions.

If religious institutions, i.e. churches, are going to receive tax dollars from the federal government to administer "charitable" programs (that are supposed to be part of their mission anyway), then Congress should revoke their "tax exempt" status. Churches that receive government handouts should pay taxes like any other non-governmental organization.

Obama is apparently following the conventional general election strategy of "moving to the center." But he is wrong to do so. He is not moving to the "center." He is really moving to the right. In 2008, there really is no "center," there is only the right and the far right. "Moving to the center" in the post-Reagan era invariably means Democrats capitulating to Republicans.

I suppose Obama is trying to neutralize a small percentage of evangelical voters. He might be able to make inroads with younger people of faith. But he tried this tactic with the National Rifle Association recently and it didn't work. Obama gave his lukewarm support for the Supreme Court's terrible ruling on handguns and the NRA rewarded him by freeing up $40 million to smear him as the "anti-gun" candidate in the fall.

Obama's decision to embrace Bush's "Faith-Based Initiatives" will also fail. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Rod Parsley and all the other money-changers in the temples are going to urge their flocks to smite this black man who dares seek the highest office in the land while he and his feminist allies from NARAL-Pro Choice America kill millions of innocent babies.

Meanwhile, Regnery publishers, the same right-wing outfit that produced the book by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is preparing to release next month their hit piece on the Democratic presidential candidate: "The Case Against Obama." I don't think "moving to the center" can ever assuage the Right.

It's time for Obama to dedicate a little of his time to the care and feeding of his base.

The Obama campaign might be beholden to the mistaken belief that it can take progressive voters for granted and is probably already looking to the 2010 midterm elections. Evangelical voters will be a force to reckon with in 2010. If Obama can run a 50-state campaign and assist down-ballot candidates, as well as cleave off some of the younger evangelicals and other recovering Republicans, he might be able to sew himself some coattails. The Democrats must increase their majority in the House of Representatives to give them a cushion going into 2010 when they are sure to lose some seats. No one wants a repeat of 1994, the first midterm after Bill Clinton came to power, that gave us 12 miserable years of Republican misrule in Congress.

But the current political situation where a candidate who stands for "Change" begins to sound a lot like Joseph Lieberman is not entirely Obama's fault.

I think the current state of affairs reflects the overall weakness of the left, the labor unions, and progressive organizations generally. We on the left couldn't stop the war in Iraq before it was launched, and we still can't stop it even when the latest polls show that 68 percent of Americans are over it. We couldn't stop Bush from being reelected. We couldn't get a raise in the minimum wage for 15 years. We couldn't get health care for poor children. In the 1990s, we couldn't even stop a Democratic president from devastating working people with "free trade" agreements and welfare "reform" that punished the poor. We've gotten our butts kicked in election after election, and we can see the social and economic wreckage all around us, including an extremely right-wing Supreme Court. Even in 2006 the Democrats didn't win big majorities in either chamber of Congress. The American Left suffers from all sorts of sectarian divisions and identity beefs, and it inflates its own influence in American politics periodically. How else can we explain the last 30 years of right-wing dominance?

More than many other progressive commentators, I have been willing to give Obama a lot of wiggle room because I've seen firsthand the excitement among young people he has unleashed. But he is treading on thin ice. If he continues to move to the right he's going to alienate his most enthusiastic supporters; he will lose precinct walkers, phone bankers, voter registration campaigners, and other activists who were responsible for catapulting him this far. He's going to need those people in November. I hope he backs away from this "centrist" strategy and pays more attention to the grassroots. The exhilaration he generated could dissipate overnight. Even the most eloquent speeches are only effective if people believe what you're saying.

Comments

[brighterside]

I respect your stance on this Mr. Palermo. But I have to respectfully disagree with your judgement.

This is what you wrote:

1). The law must have a secular purpose; 2). It must not advance or inhibit religion; and 3). It must not result in the excessive entanglement of government and religion. Both Bush and Obama's "Faith-Based Initiatives" clearly fail Brennan's "Lemon Test."

Now I just want to find out how did you come to the conclusion that O-bama's faith based initiative will ressemble anything like Boosh's?

O-bama stated that he plans to dismantle the Boosh faith based initiative and put a more improved version which aims in fighting poverty and helping those that are in real need. An initiative that will actually help those in the streets and not the evangelical cronies of the Boosh administration. If O-bama's initiative differs from Boosh would you still be opposed to it?

Secondly, what if the religious organization can meet all of these goals that you specified? Are you willing to say no to these programs that needs funds to continue?

The problem I see is that our government has failed miserably in trying to fight poverty. Yet, religious institutions have been fighting poverty with little or no resources. Poverty is winning in our society. And for such a rich nation such as ours, we have so much poverty. What would be your solution in fighting against poverty?

[rehtul]

"The exhilaration he generated could dissipate overnight. "

It did for me!

[arvay]

As an atheist, I have to face the annoying reality that because of the failure of several American institutions, some of these "faith-based" initiatives are performing well for the US.

The best example is the Catholic school system, which consistently outperforms public schools, and most glaringly among poor and minority children in progressive bastions like New York City.

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/269

What does that mean? Unless and until progressives confront the reactionary teachers' unions who oppose important reforms such as merit-based salaries (imagine that, being graded on performance!!) these kinds of situations will continue.

Many minority parents know that if they send their children to these schools, they'll get a better education than they can receive in the public schools. Little nuns manager to keep order in classrooms that challenge "professional" teachers.

Other services, such as health care, mental health and elder care are also provided by these groups as a result of the Social Darwinism imposed by Republicans. Many of these will require continued government support until President Obama and a solidly Democratic Congress can reverse course -- which will take some time.

[rabrophy]

The Catholic school system can reject any student it wants to and expel any disruptive student. the public schools can not.

"Merit-Pay" is an unexplained buzz word that is use in sound bytes.

And those "Little Nuns" teach kids sex is vile and sinful, Jesus is magic and the pope is always right.

[fchongrutherford]

We've had 8 years of essentially the same argument. As a voter and volunteer, it's getting harder to take my fellow progressives seriously on this 'issue'. There's a lot of grand talk and worry about the separation of church and state. Because to be blunt, I don't think most of the people arguing in the grand and abstract have taken a look out of their windows and really seen the poor and desperate hanging on by a thread.

This line of argumentation ignores the REAL problem. Where are the progressive voices saying, "As an alternative to the faith-based initiatives, I propose this program, which will cost X amount of money , require Y amount of resources, and take Z amount of time to create and administer"? Nowhere. Instead, we have tears about separation of church and state.

Take the Union Gospel Mission in Seattle, WA. They're short $300,000 this year. They've been around since the Great Depression. I'm not a Christian. They do good work for Seattle's homeless and needy population. You've got progressive voices saying take money from charities without offering an alternative. The end result is the same as a Republican who doesn't help poor people.

As it stands, this piece and a lot of the responses read like people who want to cut off their nose to spite their face. And it reads like people who don't give a damn about the people who really need help in this country, right here, right now.

[Cryos]

"He is not moving to the "center." He is really moving to the right. In 2008, there really is no "center," there is only the right and the far right. "Moving to the center" in the post-Reagan era invariably means Democrats capitulating to Republicans."

This to me is a prime example of liberals today. Their idea of "compromise" means to show the republicans the error of their ways or politically blackball them into voting for liberal policies.

Liberals have become what they claim to despise about conservatives: intolerant and unquestionable. It appears liberals who used to be fiercely independant have lost their independant streak and just tow the party line. It is unfortunate since I used to be able to have good debates with liberals but not the unquestionable idealist eutopian liberal god doesn't allow logic to get in the way :(

[Doofus]

'Faith-based initiatives' coming out of our government
are just a major bad idea, given that the government
is SUPPOSED to be totally secular, but OF COURSE
always in a respectful, god-fearing sort of way.

I heard Obama allude to 'believers & non-believers'
the other day, as if they were two sides of a major
religious schism. Oh well... When 85% claim to be
believers, this is what you get.

Am I disappointed? Sure. I'll get over it.

[mountainmama]

Don't get over it, Doofus. Use your disappointment in Obama to speak out. I believe him when he says that the power is with US and not with him. I believe him when he claims he wants US to hold his feet to the fire. This is not just about his promises. This is about the Constitution. And it is also about how those of us without this thing he calls faith can be included in initiatives that the government pays for and that the community works for. My community is not a church. My community is not faith based. My community is where I live and who I live with: my neighborhood, my town, my school district. I AM a member. As a nonbeliever I am assuring my neighbors that I have no beliefs about the inferiority of their beliefs. As a nonbeliever and come to our problem solving with as open a mind as possible.

As a nonbeliever or atheist or whatever "no" word the believers call us, I practice that much-admired method of rising above smaller minds when I turn the other cheek. Sticks and stones . . .

[WASanford]

Ladies and Gentlemen; Barrack Obama has left the building! The stage has been abandoned and the only progressive voice left on it is Ralph Nader"s. Therefore, what little support I can give will go to him.

I knew far too little about Obama to give him my full support and I"m little inclined to make excuses for any of these candidates. In my mind, Barrack confirmed my suspicions when he opted out of public financing. He has to be getting money from somewhere. I"ll leave it to you to guess where.

I don"t think the issues he's broulght up are just right wing ideology, they are divisive! Bringing them up only drives a wedge between those Obama claims he wants to bring together.

As for the faith based community; where are they as we try to raise the minimum wage, make food stamps available to more needy families,or make section 8 housing available to more of them? The wait for this housing assistance is currently measured in years! Why do they always describe public health care, public transportation, and child care as "wasted" money? And, why don"t they stand with us as we fight to improve public education? The schools where the vast numbers of our children get their education are in a shambles. They want a grant? For what?

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I have watched since the Reagan era AFDC eliminated (by Clinton), government programs designed to help the poor either zeroed out or stripped to the bone, and "welfare" become a nasty word -- and then all of sudden we're going back to 19th Century England where Churches are the welfare state. About 16 percent of Americans are committed secularists and do not belong to any church -- what about their rights? The "establishment clause" of the Constitution is clear -- tax money should not go to any religious institutions. They do great charitable work. But they don't need to have their hand out for Uncle Sam to give them tax dollars. Why should my money go into James Dobson's pocket? He hates gays and lesbians, doesn't believe in evolution, and loves the war in Iraq. Really "Christ-like" views. The solution is to reinstate AFDC and expand the welfare state, secular state, and provide people health care and job training and day care so women can work -- we don't need legions of bible thumpers doing that -- I for one am not shopping for a used religion right now. I was raised Catholic and I love Thomas Merton and Daniel Berrigan -- but I don't care for Antonin Scalia or John Roberts.

[united1]

Finally, a common-sense response. I wish I could be as concise.

I've never seen so many selective beggers. The group on this site would rather strave liberal programs and bite-off the hand that feeds them.

Nothing will ever be perfect, and people that write to encourage "perfection" promote nothing in the end.

[LordKelvin]

Mr. Palermo

You wrote

" More than many other progressive commentators, I have been willing to give Obama a lot of wiggle room ......."

I think you should be prepared to build a mansion to wiggle in.

Once you remove an empty suit off the rack it will not walk even if you place it on prosthesis.

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

[united1]

Criticize it all you want. Obama isn't looking for you to tell him what won't work, he's looking for ways to make it work. I believe the worst kind of person only complains and waits for government to come to them. Historically this is the case, so historically we have government catering to the needs of the lobbyists and the wealthy.

So, how long are you going to wait for Obama to fit your expectations?

You can wait until your mother breaks her hip and you can't care for her, and then a church program is allowed to help her. You can wait until groups can no longer bring elderly a meal because gas is $6 a gallon, and then the church can help. You can wait until the economy nose dives and our churches become soup kitchens.

If you expect us to listen to your 'expert analysis', I ask you, when can the churches join the effort in what is right with this country? How bad do things have to get before you can stop pointing your accusing finger and start lending a hand? How deep must this country sink before we can put the pride of our nation before the pride in our party?

It's far greater to follow a leader with a list of dos than a pundent with a list of wonts. You are the later.

[timm0]

My old nuns would say to me as a child, "Use the brains god gave you!" I encourage you to do the same.

NO ONE has said churches can't do charity. NEVER, NOWHERE, NOBODY! Your persecution complex radiates in your words.

The issue is that public money, as per the CONSTITUTION, is NOT to fund religious activities. I have no religious affiliations at all, but I have personally donated to churches to support some of their charity work (clothes, canned food, etc.). My kids have helped with collections, "adopting a family" around holidays, and other things that were administered by churches. I have no issue giving some of my stuff to a church and accept the church's administration of that "stuff." But I will NOT support tax money going in that direction. It's the murkiest of muddy Constitutional waters - stay out.

[united1]

So, I'm 'not using my brain' because you say the church can't perform non-secular functions? Thank you Timmo! There's still some hope for you to go Republican. :-)

As far as the murky waters, yes, they are already murky now. We have ridiculous organizations (some religious/most Bush friends) being given government money. There's funding for Christian Youth Golf (like golf will keep troubled kids off the streets...) Bush is the king of government waste for a Christian cause.

I do see the conflicts you raise as if they are new, and I admit there could be some area for misuse, but 'don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.'

As far as tax exemptions, I don' t know why we've let so many churches become health club and fitness centers without taxation either. Since we're watching oil companies drain this country of it's capital (after providing $8B in annual subsidies), it seems odd that were arguing over helpful churches receiving money to help more to respond to a crisis.

[brighterside]

Thats exactly what the constitution says. But it doesn't mean that a religious organization can't receive funds if they stay away from religious activities. In this case religious organizations that do secular work.

[compassionone]

Question: Who is going to do the best job of distributing beds, foods, clothing and essentials to people that need them. Many faith based non profits excel at this. Why not put them in the pool of other non-profits that use government money to do just that, and only that!

[timm0]

Sorry, but those are bogus questions. Prior to the idiot emperor's reign, religious groups raised their own funds to do the charity work they wanted to do. All the aid work was done without federal funding. Anything they "excelled" at is irrelevant. The entire initiative was a reward to those evangelicals who felt that they could run things like methadone clinics just as well as secular groups. The only reasonable play on your question's point is, "Why won't these dedicated people operate their service outside of the auspices of a church so that they can get federal funding?" It's not like funding mandates operators convert to satan worship!

A big problem I have is that religious groups who were funding their own clinics and shelters would, once freed from the "burden" of taking congregational money for these operations, have far more money to do "other" purely evangelical things. In this manner, public financing of "faith-based" things is a flimsy paper accounting game shy of public financing of religion which is a clear violation of the Constitution.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way to walk the line on this. The program needs to be scrapped.

[tompoe]

Eliminating administrative costs by using administrative resources found in religious organizations means a bigger bang for the buck. Those churches that didn't get to participate previously, because they refused to sign on the K Street dotted line, are positioned to help a lot of folks caught out on the street as a result of Bush's raping and pillaging of our country. Just a thought.

[calluna]

Nicely put, Timmo.

I would also add that there's been little talk about how faith groups would be monitored under Obama's, to make sure they are abiding by the restrictions he proposes. That will create an additional layer of bureaucracy, which will cost more money, and creates, I think, a dangerous precedent in allowing government oversight of religious groups.

I would prefer to see the Gov't spending its efforts in improving it's own social service delivery (FEMA, for example, could use a little work) and let the religious-based groups continue as they have in the past.

[LittleBrother]

Well stated!

[brighterside]

And this is why Barack plans to scrap the present Boosh faith based initiative and revise it to a plan that will work for the benefit of those that need help. Remember the constitution says that government cannot fund religious activities. But if the activities were deemed secular what then? Do you not give funds to these groups even though they have proven they can stay away from evangelizing and prostelyzing?

There are organizations out there that go out and try and stamp out poverty throughout our nation. Most don't get paid and those that receive salary get very little. Yet they are able to do work better than most of their secular counterparts.

Poverty still exist in our country and its even more prevalent than it was just decades ago. No one cares really except those religious institutions.

We have to do something to stop the poverty from growing in our country. So therefore, do you have a better solution than what Barack has at the moment?

[compassionone]

"If religious institutions, i.e. churches, are going to receive tax dollars from the federal government to administer "charitable" programs ... then Congress should revoke their "tax exempt" status. Churches that receive government handouts should pay taxes like any other non-governmental organization."

NO! You are assuming that the agenda of all faith based ministries that do social services is to push a religious agenda. You are wrong. Obama laid down tight requirement to receive government funding,

...they must act exactly like a regular non-profit at the point of delivery to qualify. This may be hard to police but the policy is clear.

[hopeless277]

He lost me at FISA. I'm sick and tired of Democrats championing far right policies. At this point, Obama would have to retreat on FISA, faith based policies, gun control, and the death penalty to get my vote and my support. He won't so I won't. Obama has betrayed us. All of us. This country is over.

[compassionone]

Actually, this is a very liberal policy if done this way. It forces the organizations to strip the faith based retoric from their social ministries if they want access to the funds. Further, he would wouldn't segregate funds to just christian groups as it is now with Bush.

This is not an endorsement of religion by the state, since it isn't endorsing any one religion.

[brighterside]

You are correct compassionone. These christian groups will have to act secular. They will need to put away their Bible and take down the cross. They will need to stop evangelizing and work on social services. This actually does tear down the religious aspects of the organization and forces them to conduct themselves in a secular fashion.

I for one was in charge of getting funds for such an organization. We were disqualified the first time because we had christian material as handouts. We revised our operating procedures and ensure that we were not going to prostelysize. Periodically, they came and checked and even asked some of our clients questions whether they were prostelysize in any way and made sure those funds did what it was intended to do.

Its not as easy getting these funds. And you also have to provide proof that you are operating correctly in a secular fashion if you want to maintain receiving funds.

[LittleBrother]

[continued-- Part 2 of 2]

[...] The New Deal gave progressivism a boost, at least domestically. The Democratic Party engaged and to some extent welcomed progressives. Now there are a handful of progressives among the political elite, e.g. Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold, remaining as tokens-- but they're all stigmatized for their progressive inclinations, and have been smashed down by a progressive "glass ceiling" that is more like the trunk of a car slamming down upon our heads.

Reducing progressive ideals and politicians to junk in the trunk has certainly contributed to the impotence you correctly deplore. If the Democratic leadership hadn't decided to make common cause with the Republic elite instead of We the People in the first place, the so-called "center" wouldn't be as right as the pinky that just typed this "p".

Finally, I've recently learned some things about Obama's personal history that confirms that he really DOES have an antipathy towards the Sixties, and particularly "romantic" Sixties political values centered on the broadest understanding of civil liberties. Since I'm very much an unregenerate Child of the Aquarian Age, I thought I was just overreacting to various comments by Obama dissing or outright rejecting the politics of the Woodstock Generation.

Now I see Obama as decidedly a Roundhead, and not just a Third Way, well-groomed Cavalier.

PS: HuffPo administrators, please consider expanding the max limit to 300 words!

[wheresthebeef]

You're right that the liberal/progressive cause has been pushed further and further to the right over the past 70 years or so. Unfortunately, no one, Obama included, is going to be able to bootstrap it up and plop it willy-nilly back into the center or the political scene. So, as unhappy as my perfectionist, progressive, idealistic self may be with Barack's "centrist" positioning, I still recognize a step in the right direction (i.e., away from Reaganism/Bushism) when I see one. I probably screwed up big time by not voting for Hubert Humphrey. As much as I'd like to see him espousing more "progressive" ideals and programs, I won't make the mistake of not voting for Barack.