Just watched the president’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast and thought I would see what people think about this issue. On the one hand Obama’s been pretty clear that he thinks these sorts of programs do tons of good for struggling communities and that is why he supports them, despite protests of hiring discrimination and whatnot, yet on the other hand he also made a point of stating that he was going to stick by the separation of church and state as set up by the founding fathers, and as thoroughly (in my opinion) trampled upon in the last 8 years. This seems to me to be sort of a tight-rope act (as is everything political these days) and Obama seems to be walking it pretty well. But what do you think? Are these sorts of programs only going to encourage discrimination, religious or otherwise, or do you think, as I do, that they are worth funding as long as steps are insured to make sure that these initiatives maintain a realistic, humanistic approach to their efforts? (by the way this is my first thread and the PC in my name stands for personal computer, although I’m sure it could be argued otherwise…haha)
It is a step in the right direction, but not enough as far as I’m concerned. I’m not comfortable with any federal money going to actively faith based organizations, regardless of how much good they do. Still, the fact that he keeps making a point to mention secular groups gives me heart that he’s going to undue some of the damage of the last eight years.
They should not be part of any president’s agenda. He needs to stop it; I don’t care what good it does for struggling communities.
There’s nothing wrong with saying both “I salute all those church groups that do essential community work” and “The government should not fund these groups.” The first is about personal recognition of good work, the second is about government endorsement of a particular religion or religions.
Why not? Even in Bush’s FBI, there was very strict restrictions on proselytizing (IIRC, there was some controversy over Catholics wearing or displaying crosses, or Jews displaying stars) and the effectiveness of secular organizations doesn’t even compare.
I am not a fan of this - in fact probably whatever would be the opposite of a fan. But I knew he favored this and I support him nevertheless. So I’m disappointed, but by no means surprised.
Our secular government ought not to support any organization that has any kind of religious test for membership, employment, or services, or that proselytizes for any religion (or for religion in general). If a church or any group of people of the same faith wish to form an organization that has a religious test or includes proselytizing as part of its mission, let them support it through tithes or solicit donations.
If a charitable organization does not proselytize or discriminate based on religion in any way, then I don’t see why they couldn’t be treated like any other charitable organizations.
Religious organizations are indeed good at doing what they do. They can continue to do so based on private funding. But if the government is going to endorse (through financial aid) a group, the group should be secular. There’s no reason to relax the rules.
Oh, there are plenty of reasons - government organizations often cannot get the same work done with equal efficiency, and neither can secular organizations. Many people who have lived through natural disasters have stories about the Red Cross showing up days after the Salvation Army, for instance.
About ten percent of the hospital space in this country was built by the Catholic Church, with other religious groups having contributed a great proportion of the remaining hospital space between them. Would you have Medicare and Medicaid stop reimbursing these hospitals? Would you have these hospitals stop taking Medicare and Medicaid patients? That would be a bad deal for everyone, wouldn’t it?
There’s a lot of misunderstanding about FBCI. It doesn’t fund religion, it allows churches and religious groups to compete for funding to administrate secular programs. For instance, the federal government may decide to supply funding for homeless shelters in a given city. Various groups then submit applications as to why they should get the funding to administrate the shelters. FBCI allows church groups to apply along with secular groups. Part of the condition of getting the funding is that the group who wins the grant can’t use any of the money for religious purposes, can’t discriminate in services, or in employment at the site, and they can’t proselytize at the point of service. The money also can only be used for the purposes it’s awarded for and can’t be mixed with other church money.
No taxpayer money gets used for any religious purpose. It gets used for soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, rehab centers, halfway houses, after school programs and the like. Some of the organizations who are best at running these sort of programs. Salvation Army and Catholic Charities are as good as it gets, they know the rules, and it would hurt communities to remove the federal funding they get for some of their services.
These conditions are monitored and adhered to. I’ve volunteered in some of these programs. If anyone would be sensitive to an inappropriate or covert religious agenda, it would be me. It isn’t there. These programs can get in a lot of trouble and get defunded if they get complaints, and they know it. There are also federal monitors who go in evaluate these programs “undercover,” to see if there are violations going on. It keeps them on their toes.
There’s a popular image that FBCI is all about the government going around handing bags of money to churches and saying, “here, do charity stuff.” I used to think that too. My wife, who is a government grant writer had to pound it into my skull that I didn’t know WTF I was talking about.
I should also reiterate that FBCI only allows religious organizations to compete for government grants. It’s not money that’s specially set aside for them. They have to make a case as to why they would do a better job at running a soup kitchen than anyone else who’s applying for the grant. If a secular group can make a better case, then they get the money.
Thanks, Dio. I stand unignoranted (if it came from a people’s brain, it’s a word).
Then why call it “faith-based?”
Bush thought it sounded good. My understanding is that W originally envisioned it as being more aggressively religious until somebody explained the Constitution to him.
By the way, the full name is actually “Faith-Based and Community Initiative” (FBCI). So the full name is supposed to encompass both faith-based and non faith-based community programs.
There is no separation of church and state as set up by the founding fathers. The founding fathers had no problem with a clergyman, paid in federal tax dollars, offering a prayer in the Capitol building. They had no problem with state governments designating a church as official and supporting it with tax money. As discussed in my recent thread on the subject, the only justification for not allowing federal funding of faith-based initiatives requires that the meaning of the Constitution changed over time. In short, opponents argue, the founding fathers intended that the meaning of the establishment clause could be expanded over time by future generations, hence it was legitimate for 20th century courts to impose restrictions that had no precedent from the founding fathers.
My personal opinion is that I’m all for it. Many people are suffering in this country, and many religious organizations have experience and proven ability to address hunger, homelessness, and other problems. Fretting about the Constitution is a luxury that the rich can afford. Those who are starving, freezing, or sick probably don’t care very much about whether it’s constitutional to help them.
Yes there is a separation of Church and State. The First Amendment says so and Thomas Jefferson said so, and the Supreme Court says so.
That’s a different argument, thiough, since FBCI doesn’t violate it.
Well, you can always keep the poor warm by burning copies of the Bill of Rights.
I appreciate this post as well. If that is pretty much how it works, it’ll give me one less thing not to be so upset about.
Thanks…
They never add that part!
Obama is going to run up against some of the same 2 problems Bush did; 1) Can you proseltyze on the job, and 2) Can a faith based organization use faith as a criteria as a hiring decision if it gets federal money.
Bush took the position that if all were treated equally, then it really isn’t endorsing any religion.
Obama seems to be taking a different route. He will decide on ‘case to case’ basis. Faith-Based Program Gets Wider Focus - WSJ
and
Now, to me, it seems that Obama’s position comes closer to violating the Establishmen clause. Bush wanted to treat all equally, whereas Obama is basically going to choose which ones get the OK for hiring policies/proselytizing.
Bush did not want to treat all equally. That’s false. He wanted to exclude a number of religions, including Islam and neopagan groups.
You also need to look at the weasel wording used in the WSJ column. It refers to funding for “secular portions of programs that also include proselytization.” Not sure exactly what they mean by “program,” there, but as long as the “secular” parts remain secular, then there’s no violation. No funded services will include proselytization. The law is clear on that. It won’t happen.
These issues have to do with what these groups can do in their hiring and dscrimination practices outside of the services they’re getting funded for. Bush basically imposed no restrictions at all as long as they believed in Jesus (in his mind, that’s "treating them all the same). Obama is considering a little more stringency. Leave it to the WSJ to put such a misleading spin on things.