Change Believers can Believe In? Obama's Leap of Faith

Senator Obama's announcement to expand President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative returns attention to a heated public debate about the role of religion in government. Negative reactions from the left and the right demonstrate that a liberal candidate engaging religion will not ease the polarized positions between secular liberals and the religious right. With this ever heightened animosity, can Senator Obama's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships be what he calls the "moral center" of his administration?

Critics are right to point out problems that the current administration's Faith-Based initiative has yet to resolve. To date the office has overwhelmingly funded conservative Protestant and Evangelical Christians. Minority religious communities have been neglected. How the initiative stands up to our constitutional separation of church and state remains mired in the courts. And the question of where to draw the line between faith as a component of good citizenship and self-help, as opposed to proselytizing, is tricky business.

Senator Obama's background as a community-organizer could very well enable him to leverage the interest and commitment of people from religious communities to define and engage his call for "moral center." To do this, his plan will need to encourage partnerships between a wide range of local religious groups and their secular counterparts. Despite the vociferous cries from the far reaches of the left and right, there appears to be a growing recognition that these interfaith partnerships are both possible and effective. In fact, our recent surveys of religious leaders from politically, religiously, and culturally diverse backgrounds found that 70% of leaders believe working across religious lines improves their effectiveness as leaders. Nearly 100% believed that such partnerships improve relations across communities.

Obama's re-imagination of the faith-based initiative is a healthy step in the right direction. By including neighborhood partnerships as a strategical focus, Obama is using his community organizing knowledge to highlight an important sociological fact: faith-based organizing happens in particular localities, where partnerships create powerful social networks that help the common good.

But two major sticking points remain. First, how will the program keep religious groups from proselytizing, or only serving their own? Second, how can a government program that gives funds to religion do so under the rubric of a church-state separation?

One strategy is to require religious groups that receive government funds to work with religious communities from faiths different than their own. Instead of funding a church to feed the homeless, fund the church and the mosque across the street to feed the homeless together. Instead of funding a synagogue's domestic violence program, fund a Jewish-Hindu-Muslim program that battles domestic violence. Instead of a blank check to a religious group, encourage them to share funding, and programs, with similar Jewish and Muslim projects. This way, every constituency will feel safe and be cared for.

This is called interfaith partnership. It is the awareness and practical acceptance of religious diversity, and the mutual commitment by those involved to learn about one another, respect differences, and work together for the common good. Faith communities are increasingly articulate about their unique aspirations and commitments to serve those in need across religious lines. They are likewise required to do so by law if funded by the government. Therefore they can certainly work with religious others to serve all people and fulfill their religious and legal obligations.

Encouraging or requiring these kinds of interfaith partnerships will have serious positive effects. First, diverse religious communities will learn about each other while simultaneously helping those in need. Economic and social partnerships foster tolerance and allow for communities to remain religiously distinct. Imagine: through partnerships for the common good religious groups will learn that there is indeed a common good to work towards.

Second, the program will stimulate civic participation and build social capital, both key components in fostering American democracy. Social scientists recognize this process, but also argue that groups can grow dangerously insular and polarized. The interfaith requirement will encourage religious organizations to reach out to one another, bridging social, political, and cultural divides.

Third, the danger of proselytizing and social service exclusion by government funded groups will be reduced. This is indeed where the question of church/state separation is the most serious. With the likes of Billy Graham calling Islam an evil religion, and then seeking to "help" Muslims, the danger is real. But by symbiotically partnering every Christian group with a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist group they will keep each other in check . Interfaith helps safeguard the constitution.

Fourth, while the Faith-Based initiative will remain controversial, the interfaith component will remind both parties of imperatives we all agree upon. By insisting that every religious community receive equal share in the program, something that is now not even symbolically attempted, there is protection against the tyranny of any one "church" influencing the state: the reason for our constitution's clause. This goes to the heart of earlier court rulings against Bush's initiative.

But will it work? Will conservative Christians, not to mention Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Buddhists work together? Again, or experience working in Chicago and New York, is that religiously different groups can work well together, in spite of political and theological differences. This is counter intuitive to both liberal and conservative commentators who would like to think we have a "culture war" on our hands. Instead, on the ground, interfaith works well.

This interfaith strategy is hinted at in Obama's plan: thinking about faith-based projects in terms of neighborhoods and partnerships leads one to conclude that it should be an interfaith venture. We live in the most religiously diverse nation in the world. As a nation, we have always argued, both constitutionally and historically. that diversity is the source and dynamism of our democratic tradition. An interfaith approach to the Faith Based Initiative will significantly enhance our collective resources to reach disenfranchised and immigrant communities and will simultaneously foster tolerance and civic participation. What better way to bolster our tradition of civic engagement as the engagement of citizens across lines of difference?

Many on the left fear Obama's plan as a political stunt to woo evangelical voters. But something greater is possible: a new framework that engages the populace across the political spectrum. This could teach us all a great deal about working together. If the Faith-Based initiative is legitimately for all, then all faiths can legitimately work together. The step of an uncomfortable partnership with those religiously and politically different from oneself takes a courageous leap of faith. It would be a patriotic one, as well.

Matthew Weiner is the Director of Programming at the Interfaith Center of New York. Travis Rejman is Executive Director of the Goldin Institute based in Chicago.

Comments

[SwampeastMike]

Gentlemen:

Have you never traveled more than 100 miles from an airport in "flyover country"? Do you have any idea of the religious faith makeup in the bible belt?

Cape Girardeau, MO. A town of about 35,000 that has been visited by most presidents of my lifetime. President Clinton kicked off his re-election campaign here and Senator Obama made his first stop after being declared the presumptive nominee. Senator Clinton won the nomination by a large margin in this public University town.

Places of worship In town and surrounding community (about 50,000):

Synagogs: 0 (the one in town, unused for decades, is now for sale). The closest is likely St. Louis about 100 miles north.

Mosques: 1 (about 3 years old--again likely the closest in St. Louis)

Metaphysical: 2

Christian: 171

1 Latter-Day Saints; 9 Catholic; 80 (est.) evangelical; 5 (est.) black

Do you know the racial (from a black-white perspective) make-up of these churches on a typical Sunday? 100%

"Interfaith" around here means Southern Baptists working with General Baptists. The "black" and "white" churches might as well exist on separate planets.

I am extremely wary of any federal funding to churches. Their tax-exempt status is evidence of an agreement by the people that their churches are separate from their government even when attempting to meet the same humanitarian goals. Churches do not support the government via taxation--in turn they receive neither funds nor interference from the government.

[Zanti]

"Churches do not support the government via taxation."

Neither, apparently, does Big Oil, based on what I've been reading. Tax breaks for business are part of the American Way, yet we on the left are somehow more concerned about religious perks. I think our priorities need some fine-tuning.

As for churches not paying taxes, have you considered the fact that church-goers DO?

Correct, the Bible Belt is not a place for religious diversity. It's well known for not being one. But, overall, America is home to an incredible variety of faiths and faithviews. Something the anti-religious (I'm sorry, state/church watchdogs) don't wish to face and, therefore, don't.

Historians of the future won't be citing favors to religion as the reason for our culture's downfall. It'll be more like favors to polluters, favors to the gun lobby, and favors to the rich.

[SwampeastMike]

"Correct, the Bible Belt is not a place for religious diversity..."

You missed the point. Does 171 churches in and around a town of 35,000 (at least 5,000 of which are non-local college students) not sound like, "A lot of churches?"

The diversity of worship styles is staggering even though all are deemed--occasionally rather loosely--"Christian". Mixed congregation associations--nearly all segregated sexually--aboud. While most are within a single denomination, a few are interdenominational. Parochial schools are abundant as are daycare and interdenomination, inter-racial, summer schools.

Just as the church groups naturally segregate via sex, they do so by general belief and race. Such is the natural way when such great diversity of worship styles and so many congregations exist.

Churches here provide a wonderful and essential support structure for families with children and do so without direct government support or interference because they are financed by their own congregations.

What many unfamiliar with the area see as homogenous and intolerant with regards to religion is in fact remarkably diverse and surprisingly tolerant--to include non churchgoers. Obey common law, keep your lawn presentable, never act "weird" towards children and few could really care what religion--if any--you claim to follow. You'll move in different circles--just like Catholics, Jehova's Witness, Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Pentecostals, Africans, etc., etc., etc.,

[SwampeastMike]

"As for churches not paying taxes, have you considered the fact that church-goers DO?"

Much of the bible belt--and this region in particular--is considered poor yet churches that require donations to operate thrive. Why? Because these generally poor people see that the money they give to their congregation directly and positively services and impacts their and their children's lives in the most efficient and least expensive manner.

Are thunderstorms blocking the view down from your tower?

[bichn]

Why not INCREASE funds to the social programs already in place by the government? Congress keeps gutting these programs and now we are supposed to allow our tax dollars to go to churches for the same purpose. Is there nothing we won't privatize????? Again, if we can bail out Bear Stearns, we can feed the hungry!

[repearwo]

If liberals should have learned anything over the past 40 years it should be taht large centralized anything has a tendency not to work well. The people are the Goverment and the local level is just a better place to get things accomplished.

IT makes no sense from a liberal point of view to send money to Washington only to have it return back to local governments. There are two major things wrong with that. One is that the money usually gets lost along the way in salaries of the people who collect and return it to you and often the money get spent elsewhere on Pig Bridges.

Supporting narrowly focused projects through churches is not an establishment of a State Church and that was the only intent of the framers of the Constitution. There is already an infrastructure of aid to the needy in place, why should the Governemnt duplicate what it can not effectively duplicate.

[texanna]

Obama's plan to increase Bush's faith-based inclusion in our government is his confirmation of the NEOCONS' contention that our government is not capable of doing its own work. This idea has led us to our current state of government by private contract and we all know how well that's working --- just ask any of those soldiers electrocuted in Iraq or the people in New Orleans who have been poisoned by the FEMA trailers. If he believes that the best social work is done at the neighborhood level, then contribute to these types of efforts by our city governments by increasing direct funding or by increasing matching funds or grants. This would be a huge help at this point as cities are having to slash those programs as their tax revenues shrink with the real estate downturn.

[PATina]

While I'm not opposed to faith based initiatives... I really like your idea of directly funding local governments.

[booksnmore4you]

>Senator Obama's announcement to expand President Bush's
>Faith-Based Initiative returns attention to a heated public debate
>about the role of religion in government.

The only reason it does this is because the teeming masses seem more intent to give knee-jerk reactions to the very thought. Don't bother confusing with the facts. Any two sentences in which "government" and "religion" appear together is enough to send forth the howls.

By the logic of the knee-jerk reactions of the, er, knee-jerkers, the government has been funding religion for score and has long ago trampled under foot the doctrine of separation.

* Every time a student uses federal student aid to attend, say, Yeshiva University, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, or a seminary.

* When USAID funds WorldVision to run food aid and water programs, or Samaritan's Purse to train rural physicians in the Niger Republic.

You get the point.

All this Faith-Based stuff does is rhetorically package a fundamental Constitutional concept: that religious people should not be discriminated against when it comes applying for federal funds to carry out secular programs. Secular programs, secular programs, that benefit all, period.

[Zanti]

Good post. You know, I wish that contemporary progressives would get half as lathered up over, say, energy interests being allowed to write environmental policy as they do over the latest instance of a (gasp) politician citing the Bible. Or the fact that some televangelist was (gasp) allowed to enter the White House.

You'd think there'd be a call for separation of business and state. But, no. Corporate rule is already a partial (but large) reality, and all we hear are complaints about religion.

Why on earth do people think that their concerns are in any way unique to religion? We don't want sports, education, the military, or business running the land, either. But any call to ban state contact with those institutions would be greeted with measurements for a strait jacket.

[Dave24]

**Here's a simple solution: Taxpayer money does not belong in the bank accounts of religious institutions under any circumstances. What is so hard to understand.

Instead of funneling money through these local bigoted - sorry, I mean faith-based - establishments, the US government should simply set up branches and contact points directly, so there will be a direct line of oversight with regard to the allocation of funds.

Keeping religion out of politics is critical for the freedom of all believers and non-believers, especially when it's their money that is involved.

As a self-proclaimed Constitutionalist, I expected more from Obama.

[bacq]

Agreed.

[leftLibertarian]

The government has too many tasks and should mind it's own business. I don't want it telling me what I can and can't do. And this faith based stuff is just nonsense. It's bad enough I have to fund state based murder in Iraq, so I don't want to fund anyone's faith.

[Freesia2]

In many communities from inner city to rural towns, the church is as much a social center as a place of worship. It is often the first institution to recognize need. And whether it's a soup kitchen, hospice, or afterschool programs, they usually serve the food, give the ride to the hospital and pass out the crayons
to the person standing in front of them without question.

Your ideas were good for oversight, in requiring different faiths to share the goods. Another option might be to require an independent, totally secular overseer of the programs to make sure there is no bias.

The church-state separation, that's a little trickier. How about the funds are given directly and only to the specific program rather than directly to the church it's housed in, again with an independent, secular administrator or committee who administers the funds and audits the use of the money?

I just think it is all a great idea. Why reinvent the wheel? If a church, synagogue or mosque is already addressing a need and has already a thriving volunteer staff doing the work, why not subsidise them and help them grow rather than waste half the funds paying for a redundant second program.

Funny, people who want to keep the church out of the state often don't realize that the church is just as anxious to see to it that the state keeps out of their church. :-)

[Zanti]

"Funny, people who want to keep the church out of the state often don't realize that the church is just as anxious to see to it that the state keeps out of their church. :-)"

Actually, it's hard to think of an institution that *wants* government to butt into its affairs. That is to say, as we define church/state separation in the 21st century, we could substitute "insurance industry" or "entertainment" or "hair care" for "church," and the statement would be just as valid.

See what I mean?

[Dave24]

By bridging the two, it potentially allows particular ideologies to fuel and influence national policy - and this is the danger each of us faces.

Though the Church doesn't want the government to "butt in," the majority, I'm sure, wish to impose their versions of morality upon everyone using that government, arguing things like "majority rules" as we are a nation of Christians. Unfortunately, these people also don't understand that this does not make us a Christian nation; and in a democracy, everyone is equal, especially the minority believers of other faiths and non-faiths.

As Hitchens would say: Build up that wall.

[Freesia2]

Yes I see what you mean. The thing is though, that while freedom of religion is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, there is nothing mentioned about the rights of Blue Cross Blue Shield. Definitely nothing about haircare. (Maybe because the Founding Fathers wore wigs? :-) ) But the freedom to observe faith, or the freedom to not, was considered basic to American ideals.

And to Dave below, you mention "it potentially allows particular ideologies to fuel and influence national policy" And that surely is a valid concern. I think we have the evangelicals to thank for that. But Priests standing up in their churches instructing on how to view immigration reform, or denying communion to somone who votes in opposition to the teachings of the church could be viewed the same way. The same for rabbis who use the synagogue as platform for promoting the interests of Israel.........So separation of church and state gets complicated. How would you stop it? Have the State march into every church, synagogue or mosque and tell people they can't discuss politics? That would be the State interfering with Church. Neither side, church or state, operates in an ideal separateness. Never have.

I just think, that carefully overseen funding to existing programs in church communities could do an awful lot of good. And the money saving aspects of it would also help circumvent that label Democrats often wear of being tax and spend-spend-spend. (I'm an Independent by the way).

[strangelet]

I have to admit that I skimmed this post. However, I did notice one point that struck me as, well, pointless: " Instead of funding a church to feed the homeless, fund the church and the mosque across the street to feed the homeless together." In the real USA, the only place where there might be a church and a mosque across the street would be in a really big city.

While there are definitely many human-services issues in big cities, the most effective way to address them is, still, direct government intervention. The arenas where faith-based programs are most effective are smaller cities and rural areas (because there the free volunteer labor is critical). But those areas are also not likely to support a diversity of faiths.

I support Senator Obama. I will vote for him. But I don't think his faith-based services initiative is a good idea.

[darthdarcy]

It is the purpose of government to Serve the People...that's the only justification for man to submit to government if you've read our Founders and the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment...

We have already seen how many of these Preachers and Reverends cannot be trusted with the money they receive from donations so now we're going to give them tax payers money..without government oversight...?

I'm not buying it, I see this as Obama buying votes with these promises to these congregations...

[meanguy]

i would tend to agree with you about preachers who can't be trusted with the money from 'the faithful'...fo course, i've yet to meet a politician i'd trust with my money, either...

[KingCranky]

And anyone who thinks that other religions will be getting the same amount of taxpayer funding currently being shoveled to conservative "Christian" groups is hopelessly naive to an aggressive degree.

I guess atheists and agnostics need not apply.

[Liberoservative]

Let's look at the Constitution first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Jefferson's letter: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the govt from helping ANY religion in its desires to help the poor. There is Faith and there is faith.... an established religion and also the basic precepts of almost every religion to care for the lesser amongst us. I have no problems in funding these initiatives because they are the grassroots of our great nation... they can be based on faith (not FAITH) or just an overwhelming agnostic/atheistic desire to help your brother and/or sister.

[SilviaMaria]

I have always believed that Religion and Government should be separated. It has been scary how some politicians would use religion for their own advantage (Bush and the Evangelists for instance). However, I find myself not disagreeing with Obama, he has had a lot of experience in Chicago, so he has seen how these churches can do to help people (Trinity Church has 40 programs). I think though that if the Government is to give money to this religious groups to perform social programs (elderly, after school, computers, substance abuse, training, etc.) these groups should hire the right people for the job regardless of their religion, it should not be discrimination and of course it should not be proselytism either and they should be accountable; these social programs should be free of course for people participating. Also, when these religious groups ask for financial assistance, they should clearly state what kind of programs they are going to have, etc. It has to be some control in order to make sure that these groups are not just getting money for nothing.

[roadrider]

There isn't enough lipstick you can put on this particular pig (taxpayer money for religious charities) to make it pass Constitutional muster or even a common smell test. The most telling sentence of this post is:

To date the office has overwhelmingly funded conservative Protestant and Evangelical Christians. Minority religious communities have been neglected ...

In their efforts to be ecumenical the authors include Islam and Hinduism in their interfaith proposal. But let's be honest, unless you're also willing to fund charities run by all comers, including Mormons, Wiccans, devil worshipers or Scientologists, Obama's initiative is no less about a government handout to groups with socially and politically palatable "faiths" than Bush's was and is thus just as un-Constitutional.

Furthermore, believing that these faith groups will refrain from proselytizing and will not discriminate in their hiring rather than set up the equivalent of sham accounting tricks to put on appearance of doing so is highly naive. Most likely there will be a "don't ask, don't tell" convention adopted so everyone can save face.

But what the hell, Obama already voted to gut the 4th amendment, I guess the establishment clause of the 1st amendment won't be too much heavy lifting for him when he takes office.

[Zanti]

The establishment clause forbids the formation of a state church. And any requirement for membership in same. Mission: accomplished. In our day, the state/church separation idea is about as anachronistic as the no-British-rule principle that inspired our founders at least as profoundly.

Granted, we still don't want British rule. Or a state church. But neither possibility looms quite as large all these years later, I think you'll agree. Go around yelling "The Redcoats are coming!" and it's time for a Breathalyzer. In my opinion, the same response should accompany the nonstop call for freedom from a state church. The first question anyone should ask: "What state church??"

Hiring discrimination doesn't seem to be addressed by the establishment clause. If so, where? I doubt that our founders, who owned slaves, would have grasped the concept of biased hiring, let alone cared about it. Had we lived in their day, we likely would not have been in their elite group--thus, we wouldn't have had the chance to even discuss the issue. They'd have had no time for the likes of you or I.

I'm not suggesting hiring discrimination in faith-based programs is Constitutional--just that it's not an establishment-clause issue. Unless allowing such behavior would somehow result in the formation of a state church. I know it's fashionable to treat religious rule as something on tomorrow's schedule, but fashionable and rational aren't always the same thing.

[roadrider]

The very act of appropriating tax dollars to a religious organization IS considered as going toward the establishment of a state church. Otherwise there would be no issue in government funding of private sectarian schools. And the expectation, which I think most people would agree with, that the money will only go to charities run by politically safe religions while those considered out of the mainstream need not apply means precisely that government will be favoring a subset of faiths which is what the entire concept of church/state separation is about.

Your attempt to dismiss the selective hiring issue is risible. This is obviously a key point and even Obama has addressed it as such. If not the establishment clause then what part of the Constitution would it violate? These organizations can clearly use preferences in hiring when it's their own dollars that are being used, so it's not a general discrimination issue - it's only when tax dollars are involved that this comes into play.

I'm no constitutional scholar but I believe that it's badly mistaken to assume that the founders intended the principles they embodied in the Constitution to apply only to the immediate issues of British rule or the influence of the British state church. I think most people would recognize that these principles were intended to be a guide in the on-going evolution of our society. To think otherwise is to agree with Bush that the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper".

[wheresthebeef]

If the various religions want to work together, let them. Just as long as they keep their snouts out of the taxpayers' trough.

[lwfky]

I agree completely. This administration's idea of "faith" has cause me to lose any that I ever had.It doesn't matter what religion you look at, they all have their agenda and it needs to be kept out of my government.

[Makesense]

Nice

[LSJ]

I've been supporting Obama with $ all year. I was VERY hopeful. His endorsement of spending tax dollars to "faith based initiatives" has now cost him my financial support. With his endorsement of nuclear power I may not even vote for him, this may be the first election since 1976 that I don't vote. While the nuclear issue is negotiable because, in the short term we may need that technology (though I doubt it) the separation of church and state is not negotiable. The founding fathers couldn't have been more clear. Getting government involved with religion threatens the integrity of spirit in all traditions. If Obama's support for faith based initiatives is pandering he doesn't deserve my support and if it reflects his true position he wont get my support. Frankly, I feel very let down and somewhat dismayed.