Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

In his speech in Berlin, Barack Obama spoke of 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

[THEhillbilly]

Can't disagree with any of that, but...why did you interject a junior senator into it? Yes, you only mentioned him briefly at the start, but still, that was odd.

"Faith-based" involvement at any level of government sets a dangerous precedent, what with every sect constitutionally promised equal time. Adherents of one religion in particular are obliged to work toward supplanting a country's government with the sect's seventh-century law, and there are over a billion of them.

Anyway, since you mentioned rookie rhetorician Obama, the fact is that their polls led his controllers to instruct him to put on the pietism. It's just another price to pay for some votes.

[letsgetsmart]

I agree with a lot of your statements. I do hands on charity work with an organization that has a religious face. That part I do not involve myself in but they seem to be a group that actually helps the less fortunate and I want to help them also. Maybe an unlikely team but that is secondary to the issue in my opinion. Separation of church and state must have been very important because the founders were living in a society where religion played a larger role in a lot of peoples lives then today. We need to respect and understand (and teach our children) why the founders took this path. There are two things that I consider hard to swallow, how can our elected people continue to say things about each other like the honorable person from ( lets quit throwing around free passes on honor, this is something that should be earned from the people and not from each other) and secondly, the rock stars as you call them should be required to give those earnings to the less fortunate because they received them as charity donations from the public. The help they could provide is much more important then their claim that the message is.

[PumaAnn]

I am completely opposed to his faith-based initiatives.

[PixelMarx]

The restoration of this wall actually starts by doing away with the Pledge of Allegiance continues on through reprinting of our money, removal of prayer in congress...and on. My point is that this wall is already blurry and has been for years. Obama's position, while not my own, is at least better than the past. So you could say, he's already working, slowly albeit, to rebuild this wall.

[commonsensor]

Agreed. Regardless of Senator Obama's intention the potential for abuse has been proven and is far greater than any gains in the social service sector. Furthermore, if the government were doing it's job better in general, it would be patently unnecessary to "share the burden" as much. An economically stimulated neighborhood that sees a return on the investment of their tax dollars is much more likely to take the initiative all on their own to fill in the gaps of need. If our government were leading in a more altruistic manner, community organizations and local Churches would be thriving on their own, without the need for $$ incentive and without further blurring of the Constitution.

[mexamerican]

have you ever lived in a barrio or the projects? your notion that govt can do all the work necessary to revitalize and help the people living there is absurd. creating economic stimulation in an inner city is a long, complicated process. while the folks who live in these places are waiting (and waiting and waiting, ad nauseum) for this economic "stimulus," who is assisting the the children, the youth, the elderly? is george bush working at a soup kitchen? is cheney going to volunteer to watch children at a day care? get serious.

[commonsensor]

As a matter of fact, I grew up in a rather scary neighborhood in Chicago, haved had to live on welfare and in a house without heat in my lifetime. What's your point? You waay overlooked mine.

Here's how I see this playing out. Like any government program, the largest, most politically persuasive organizations will reap the greatest rewards (ie: mega churches - others who don't really need it) while the small neighborhood Church loses it's property to foreclosure and now holds services in a rented strip mall space.

Charity and social services at the human level requires TIME not just money. Most of our current "ills" are manifested and/or worsened by a completely unbalanced and profoundly unfair economic system that currently places the heaviest possible burden on the middle and working class of people and leaves everyone scrambling for survival.

When people are scared about their survival and everyone is scrambling then things like charity, community and empathy get tossed aside in favor of sheer raw survival instincts.

That was my point.

[johnie2xs]

How about shaming these religious organizations into opening up their books and sharing with us just what percentage of the money they collect goes to "good works". I know there are such figures to be had regarding organizations like the Red Cross and the United Way; Why not these Mega Churches, especially. Tithing to most of these people is money down a rat hole. If people in this country want to show their charity, do it in their own neighborhoods. Look for the old woman who may need a helping hand. Look for the young family whose children could use some new clothing. Examples like this will get you more bang for your buck, introduce you to people you otherwise would have never known, and will truly make you feel the goodness of what true charity can accomplish.
We have become a nation of strangers. These Mega churches only compound that. They are nothing but exclusive clubs for bigots, Christian bigots.

[videlicet]

I agree with you, but helping an old lady cross the street is not enough, nor is simply donating clothing. It requires donating time and space, for after-school programs and day cares. Community churches already have a venue for these things, and people willing to work for free. They do not, however, always have the money needed for supplies for these programs. That is the simple point of the initiative: to give these people the resources to both -act- on their beliefs (of helping others) and simultaneously improve the community that everyone shares. This is not the same thing as -establishing a religion-.

The impractical alternative, on the other hand, is to invest x-fold the amount of money in building impersonal, "neutral" locations and paying govt employees to do the same job with much less cheer, a scenario more costly and less effective in improving the community. The other option, of course, is to do nothing, as we've done. But it's sad that anyone could prefer these last two options for the sake of a skewed interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

[johnie2xs]

Videlicet; Thanks for the concurrence. The point of the old lady and clothing was meant to say that the middle man should be cut out of the charity machine of the mega -churches. The small local churches are another thing all together, and on that point I agree with you.
I don't, however, agree with your depiction of "gov't employees to do the same job with much less cheer". I think that there would be many public service employees who would take umbrage at that characterization. Government offices that take on seeing to it that "the public is served", for the most part are dedicated people doing a mostly thankless job without a profit motive attached. They are totally disrespected by many Republicans, and conservatives, when they try to promote the benefits of private sector delivery of these same services. In a perfect world there would not be any need, as we describe, if there were truly a "level playing field". If we had a more equitable and consistent means of education, in this country, desperation would be less of a problem.

[likeicare]

Thank you, Mr. F.

Your observations are long overdue and much appreciated.

[mergina]

Members of this Religion are a pariah to members of that Religion, who in turn are a pariah to members of that Religion, and on and on and on. There is NO PLACE for religion in POLITICS. The hypocritical and destructive nature of RELIGIOUS practice is a dangerous thing to have introduced into politics, especially when most of them hate each other. So whose religion do you pick to mix with politics? In this country it has to be a Jesus religion i would say. Religions, thinking for the deities they claim to worship, shaping life for the rest of us? NOT ON YOUR MISERABLE HYPOCRITICAL RELIGIOUS LIFE.

[presto]

Amen.

[majorian]

As long as the part of his plan for these initiatives where they can't use government funds to proselytize is effectively enforced, I see no problem with it. It's government funding for a set of social works programs that already has established roots in communities throughout the country. There is no breach of the separation between church and state as long as the church does not proselytize, and, that being the case, nobody should oppose this idea of Obama's.

[Retrofuturistic]

I want the separation of church and state restored, and I would like to see churches pay taxes. I also think we need to put a limit on how much money megacults can accumulate. Allowing religious institutions to acquire huge amounts of money adds to their political power. If they're really as "religious" as they claim, they wouldn't be that materialistic anyway.

I will not vote for any candidate who supports faith-based initiatives, even if those initiatives have been "altered" to be more in line with the separation of church and state.

[videlicet]

You see, though, that you cannot require separation and still demand that churches pay taxes and be regulated by the state in how much money they accumulate. The megachurches are not accountable to the state in these ways -because- of the Establishment Clause. And to demand these things from them and still silence them in the political realm constitutes political oppression--even if they happen to be large institutions.

[Zanti]

"I would like to see churches pay taxes,"

Actually, churches can get around this problem very easily--all they have to do is masquerade as Big Oil interests. Or arms manufacturers.

That way, they can get tax breaks AND representation. And no one would complain about their perks. Sound like a plan?

[Zanti]

Just to remind everyone that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the formation of a state church--hence, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It's right there in the wording. It says nothing about denying representation to religion. Representation, after all, is not something we deny in a representative democracy. We allow most other groups and organizations to lobby the govt. on their own behalf, from gun makers to cable providers to Big Oil, and such groups, so far as I know, are allowed to represent their own individual interests without being accused of discrimination, and without their actions being labeled unconstitutional.

To wit, no one would seriously suggest that a cable provider include, in its lobbying efforts, the interests of every other electronic entertainment provider, cable or otherwise. Yet any religion/govt. interaction is somehow supposed to represent all possible faiths, including the Church of Lenny Bruce? Let's review: Our founders specified no state church, no religious test (i.e., requirement for membership in a state church), and freedom of religion. How on earth do we derive all these other things from three extremely straightforward directives?

As for hiring discrimination, religious or otherwise, our founding fathers could have cared less. These are men whose concept of "universal" extended no further than their own group. These are also men who owned slaves. Do the math.

[PennP]

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

If this doesn't amount to transforming some social-service functions of organized religion into extensions of government, I must be misreading. Using religious groups to relieve government of its rightful burden--the welfare of its people--strikes me as a true and dangerous muddying of the church/state-separation waters. Churches become surrogate government social service agencies in this scenario, and even the oversight function is held in private hands. Unless those services are locked in under government contract--more church/state coziness--the churches have license to change delivery as they see fit.

Obama's proposal imposes strict standards that prohibit inclusion of religion with delivery of the social services. His positions clarify and strengthen the separation in this respect. As a nonreligious person, I see no problem in what he is doing, so long as all kinds of faiths are able to participate, and persons with and without religious beliefs are equally eligible for the benefits. Organized religion has many problems, but it also provides many Americans a moral foundation they consider vital to their lives. The practice and place of religion in this country is historically significant, and it remains an important part of how we define ourselves.

[savethecountry]

Hey, Fisher, in the words of the Bard, John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!" Your justification for the government not helping people through non-partisan, monitored faith-based programs is that megachurches with plenty should step in to do it? It would be easier to get a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. People like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and James Dobson are religious in name only, and not in deeds. So poor individuals and families should go homeless and starve, particularly in this economy, while we wait for them to open their swollen coffers to do their REAL Christian duty?

Even you reluctantly acknowledge the good works done by groups like Catholic Charities, good works done without strings attached. There is a delivery system already in place. Obama has presented a reasoned and workable plan to utilize that delivery system. And your response is to wait for the walls of Jericho to tumble down followed by a thousand epiphanies of light illuminating the accounts of 14-percent Christians which will magically be available to the people who need help NOW.

Wake up! As an atheist who understands that churches that TRULY understand what their callings should be are uniquely positioned to help those who need it the most, yours is a dream that this nation cannot afford.

[StillIRise]

I believe Senator Obama did state very explicitly that there would be no proselytizing. Also, unlike President Bush's faith-based program which focuses on religious institutions, and primarily Christian religious institutions, Senator Obama's program extends itself to secular organizations as well, and does not favor one religion over the other. In essence, it is not a religious program that Senator Obama has proposed. It is a program based on outreach, both religious and secular, a government funded program helping those who help others. Hagee, Robertson, etc. are exceptions. Most churches and community organizations do not enjoy their wealth, yet probably do more in service to others in need than the mega-churches do. and are therefore in more need of assistance from the government. They should not be penalized because of the wealth of the mega churches.

[colleen2]

"I believe Senator Obama did state very explicitly that there would be no proselytizing."

The problem with this is that most of the grants have been extended to groups who use it solely to proselytize. For instance, what do you think they mean by 'mentoring' prisoners. Or single mothers?

Churches aren't being "penalized" and the notion that one President will clean up the cesspool of corruption and pandering that is the Office of Faith based Initiatives is insulting. It would cost a fortune to monitor and enforce compliance.

Besides it's been my observation that most church folk despise the poor, blame poverty on poor moral choices and tend to help their own exclusively.

[mexamerican]

that's a rotten stereotype that "most church folk despise the poor." that's absolutely not true. it's the same kind of stupid smear that right wingers aim at liberals as "hating america." it's garbage. i'm as liberal as they come, but i was raised by pastors, my grandparents were pastors, and four of my uncles are pastors. they are ALL poor, dealing w/ poor folks, undocumented immigrants, troubled teens living in VERY tough circumstances. and these people CARE deeply enough that they're out there working with them every day. it's be GREAT if the govt would help to fund their work so long as the money doesn't go towards proselytizing. don't be so close-minded.

[videlicet]

By "mentoring" prisoners, they undoubtedly mean brainwashing them with the idea that someone in the universe still loves them, that they still have brothers and sisters who take an interest in them even after they've lost their family and friends and are living in a prison cell, that there is still some meaning to their existence. What could be more insidious? Indeed, it goes against everything Darwin taught us. Single mothers should also be kept away from such hopefulness. Who put that Bible in their hands? They need some Nietzsche!