Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

In his speech in Berlin, Barack Obama spoke of the many walls that need tearing down. By the count of New York Times columnist David Brooks, Obama used the word "walls" 16 times, and in 11 of them, he was talking about walls coming down.

Now, I haven't talked with anyone, of any political persuasion, who's not in favor of those walls coming down, as unlikely as that may turn out to be.

But there's one wall that Barack wants to pull down that I think needs to be affirmatively left in place, or, to be more precise, reconstructed. That's the wall between church and state.

That wall was demolished by George W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The Constitution notwithstanding, the Bush Administration installed faith-based programs in the White House and in a dozen government departments and agencies. The President was forced to use Executive Orders to get this program started, because Congress refused to allow prospective recipients of taxpayer funds to practice religious discrimination in hiring.

We all know how the Bush Administration cynically used its faith-based initiative to solidify its relationships with the Christian Right, a critical part of its base. Now, in an embarrassingly obvious pander to these so-called "values voters," Senator Obama has proposed his own version of a faith-based initiative. It's true that Obama's version contains major differences from Bush's program. As Jim Wallis points out, Obama's proposals contain necessary protections for religious liberty, pluralism, and constitutional safeguards.

But we are still stuck with the central (and unanswered) question: Why is the federal government involved at all? Doesn't the First Amendment to our Constitution make it clear enough that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I hate to sound like one of those "government should just get out of the way" conservatives, but I have to say that this seems to me to be one of those instances where federal intervention should be just plain unnecessary.

I want to be crystal clear. I am very much aware of the fantastic work done by many faith-based groups, both at home and abroad. These groups work at the grassroots. They work to help real people with real problems. They work on issues ranging from housing to poverty to homelessness to literacy to social justice to prison mentoring. Abroad, in my development work, I have over many years seen firsthand the totally professional work done in many disciplines by organizations like Catholic Charities - without even the tiniest hint of proselytizing.

Yes, there have been some pretty outrageous breaches by a few religious organizations - like the outfit that distributed King James Bibles to Muslims who had just lost everything to the Tsunami. Or the charity that used our tax dollars to run an "abstinence only" family planning program.

But that's not the point. By and large, the work of these groups has been exemplary, necessary, and often far less expensive and far more efficient than government efforts. The disastrous governmental response to Katrina would have been immeasurably worse without the tireless no-strings-attached help provided by unpaid volunteers from churches and church-related groups, large and small, from all over the world.

The point is that the major players in the faith-based community are awash in money and they ought to be encouraged to share it with their smaller and often struggling brothers and sisters.

I'm talking about the multi-billion-dollar faith-based rock-star empires amassed by people like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, James Dobson, and many, many others.

Not that I would want this megaclergy to take on the role of grant-makers. Heaven forfend! That would surely lead to the total politicization of good works.

I am suggesting that, in the best spirit of peace on earth and goodwill toward men (and women), those with much should share it with those who have little save the desire to help their fellow human beings.
I am suggesting that the megaclergy commit to contributing in perpetuity part of their annual revenues to finance the kinds of projects now paid for by tax dollars. And I am suggesting that they should do that under the watchful aegis of some professional, ecumenical, credible, non-partisan, non-governmental organization, perhaps the Interfaith Council, or one of the great foundations such as MacArthur, Rockefeller, Pew, or Ford.

Let that outfit make its own rules without interference from donors. Or from the government. Let it develop its own priorities, its own criteria for awarding grants, its own monitoring and evaluation systems to measure effectiveness, its own plans to ensure lawful behavior, ethical conduct and real accountability.

It could start with only a few immutable principles: No proselytizing. No partisan politics. No ideological or scriptural agendas. Just help for those who need and deserve it.

As to the issue of employment discrimination, there shouldn't be any. In the unlikely event that some staunch right-to-lifer wants to work for Planned Parenthood, let him/her! And what could be more instructive than a practicing Muslim working for the Southern Baptist Convention! And my advice to orthodox Jews who are only comfortable working with other orthodox Jews, or Muslims with Muslims, or Catholics with Catholics: get over it!

At a practical level, I doubt that such a non-discriminatory employment policy would deter many faith-based groups from applying for grants. The reality might just be that people at polar opposites could actually learn something if they stopped talking past one another and worked together to accomplish important things.

It would be naïve to underestimate how hard it will be to get the Pat Robertsons of the world to sign on to this new kind of no-strings-attached philanthropy.

But that's exactly the guidance the Bible gives. Consider Deuteronomy 15:11: "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land."

And if that unambiguous Biblical injunction happens to fall on deaf ears, perhaps there is a role for government after all. The bully pulpit of the White House gives the president a powerful weapon - which even the likes of Pat Robertson will find it difficult to ignore.

Whichever works, it will then be time for the government to, as they say, get out of the way.

Comments

[Zanti]

By the way, for some unknown reason there's a duplicate of this blog post, complete with another thread numbering (at the time I type this) 48.

Very strange.

[Zanti]

Oops. "Cable interests from lobbying on behalf of themselves."

Beware of shifting grammar when revising....

[Zanti]

"That wall was demolished by George W. Bush's White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives."

I missed have missed that announcement. Wow. Do we now have a state church? If so, where is it centered? Who runs it? Is it taking new members?

And I presume that, along with a Church of the United States, we have a religious test for office--i.e., a requirement that one belong to the Church of the United States.

So, when can we expect a documentary on our Church of the U.S.?

Needless to say, on the job discrimination, religious or otherwise, isn't covered by the Establishment Clause, which forbids the establishment (exact word) of a state church. In fact, I doubt our founders had any concept of, or concern with, such discrimination. These were men who owned slaves, men whose concept of "universal" rights meant their group, and their group only.

Personally, I think we should extend our concept of no religious representation to other areas, such as the cable industry, for instance. To wit, we can forbid cable interests from lobbying on behalf of itself, requiring it instead to include the interests of all related industries and co.'s when it seeks govt. representation. This wouldn't go down very well, I'm sure, especially if we tried it with Big Oil or Big Energy. However, fair is fair.

[Raymondf]

Seperation of Church and State only means that the Government will not be ruled by the church anymore that's all.

[doctorwang]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

[Zanti]

Exactly. In other words, Congress will not establish a state church. That was an important issue to our founders, of course, since they were keen on separating from England and the Church thereof.

Hence, the wording: "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Hence, no religious test for office, i.e. no requirement for membership in the official church.

[sclucie]

Mr Wallace, You seem well informed and your record is amazing. But what I don't see in your record is any evidence of community organizing, public health, education, substance abuse, AIDS, domestic violence... or any evidence that you've worked on any domestic issues. If you had - you might have a different take. There are communities where government programs simply do not work - because people have had horrific experiences with the US government. Cervical cancer, prostate cancer. breast cancer. alcoholism. drug abuse. battered women. latino imiigrants. I am not a church-goer and my husband is an atheist, but faith-based programs can save lives. hundreds of thousands of lives. without crossing a single constitutional boundary. do some research. go to nih. go to cdc. go to jama. go to emory where their impact is studied. they don't discuss rev hagee or jesus. they discuss how to reach people - and in the south - that is how you reach people. they educate members THROUGH the churches - they do not proselytize. bush undeniably abused this concept to promote his own ideas - as he abused our foreign policy to promote an insane evangelical war plan. but these programs existed under clinton - and there were in-depth discussions WITHIN the programs on how to keep church and state separate. do some research. these programs save lives. these. programs. work. is it honorable to watch women die of cervical cancer and latino children separated from their mothers because of your ignorance?

[akhinaten]

OK to all who say Obama should do this or that, maybe you SHOULD run for office

[RedDogBear]

I am an Obama supporter and I don't really agree with Mr. Fisher that much but your argument is pretty weak. Are you saying that all of us who support Obama should now just shut up and keep giving money unless we quit our jobs and run for office ourselves? That sounds like a neocon mind set. Just put your faith in big daddy and stop rocking the boat. Actually, it also sounds inconsistent with Obama's themes of breaking down walls. How do you expect different constituencies to find common ground if we can't reasonably critique each other?

[WorkingClass]

The rule of law means the law rules and not the president. The highest law is the constitution. The first amendment to the constitution means that Obama's (and Bush's) "faith based initiatives" are unconstitutional. A surprising number of people will agree but then say the constitution doesn't really matter. If you think the rule of law is important. If you think the constitution and the bill of rights matter. You might be a "strange bedfellow"

http://accountabilitynowpac.com/

[repearwo]

Strange Bedfellows are people who have no clue, in real terms about the constitution. Jane and Glen have lost their bearings, (assuming that Jane ever had any). The Constitution says what each successive generation says it says.

The prohibition of the State to Establish a Church certainly does not prohibit the state to work with all churches. The Supreme Court has upheld that consistantly over the years.

I am not a big fan of Federal Money being given to churches or secular charities, I would prefer that the incentive for faith based action be on the other end, tax credits and tax deductions. Let the people decide where they want to spend their money. We already have that and it works, just strengthen it. If you want to give to Red Cross, United Way, a local charity, or a local church, it should make no difference.

We have this already why re-invent the wheel. The more we allow the our representives to take our money and return it to us, the less power we have, and we are the government.

[gvc]

What's wrong with contracting out social services and why is it worse to contract such services to a church than to a corporation? Both require regulation to prevent abuse; however, I'm not sure why one is inherently better or worse than the other. Notwithstanding the self-serving mega-churches, the former have more proven expertise in the delivery of social services than the latter.

[JennyJay]

I am 1000% in agreement with this article. I am very religious, but smart enough to know that
religion DOES NOT BELONG ANYWHERE NEAR GOVENMENT. Obama is great, but this is a
very bad idea.

[sclucie]

then you have never had to sit and read a set of public health statistics in the carolinas - and record the number of african american women who died that year of cervical cancer - a completely curable disease. and you have never watched a well-run public/private or public/faith based program save other women from the same death. in america. there are places that faith-based programs can go - and people they can reach without crossing constitutional boundaries. i am fiercely american - and i follow every new supreme court decision as they are made. but i have watched these programs save lives - under the clinton administration. i have watched them save lives when there was literally no other way to reach rural black women or migrant workers.

and i'm confused by some the disconnect in the no-faith argument. if church and state cannot meet, why do we send $4 billion dollars a year directly to a religious state - and have for decades? that one i will agree with. i want that money going to college funds, building bridges, building treatment centers - and not straight into the idf coffers.

[Zanti]

Um... because the state in question is ours, not someone else's.

We don't write other countries' constitutions. Well... normally, we don't. Iraq being kind of an exception.

At any rate, the rules we write for ourselves apply to us, to what we do. I guess we could call that the separation of state and other states.

[RedDogBear]

"and i'm confused by some the disconnect in the no-faith argument. if church and state cannot meet, why do we send $4 billion dollars a year directly to a religious state - and have for decades? " I totally agree -- we should stop sending any money to any state that is based on or favors a specific religion. Actually I think we should stop virtually ALL so called aid to other countries since the vast majority of it is used for those countries to buy weapons.

As for your other argument about the Carolinas, there is a simple test here: does the money given to these programs in any way promote religion or do those programs only provide services (or better services) to people of a specific faith? If the answer is yes than it is unconstitutional. Period. If the answer is no than there is no conflict. That is the difference between Obama's view of the program and Bush's and it makes all the difference.

BTW, I'm personally an atheist but I have no problem with Obama's faith based programs because they are set up to be constitutional unlike those of Bush.