Do you have any cites to back that up?
As I’ve pointed out in the past, Lemon-test-observant programs of faith-baeed groups (churches and interchurch ecumenical efforts) were not new with FBCI – both Barb amd I used to volumteer and to serve on boards for a storefront outreach mission supported by most of our hometown’s churches. It received government surplus food for its Food Pantry, on condition that Pantry recipients did not get evangelized; it got funding for a G.E.D.-tutorial program from the DOE, on condition that those funds were kept purely separate and that the person and office space they paid for could not be used for religious purposes whatsoever. The programs were, IIRC, instituted during the Carter era, though we got involved during the Reagan years. In any case, it long predates GWB’s initiative.
The Lemon test (best definition of the ‘wall of separation’ for constitutional purposes) does not require absolutely no channeling of govearnment funds to religious bodies – instead, it requires that such bodies use the funds for the secular, charitable and disaster-relief purposes that they were allocated for, and that the religious groups keep their ‘religionizing’ separate from their charitable work.
Further, because such groups have gained expertise in doing as much as possible with inadequate chairtable-gift funds, well-administered religious charities are often the most efficient, minimal-ocerhead way of getting help where it’s needed, and often leverage additional community help. (“Total annual expenses for Program X are about $36,000. A government grant underwrites 70% of that, and St. Swithin’s has covered another 10%. We’re asking your church to consider a pledge to help make up the roughly $7,000 deficit to keep it running.”)
I thought it was in david Kuos’s book, but I might have been mistaken. My googling shows Evangelicals like Falwell and others demanding that Islam and other non-traditional religions be excluded, but I may have been mistaken in think it was something Bush himself initially wanted to do. I can’t cite it in any case.
What I do know is that the FBCI under Bush has been more ineffectual than anything else. It removed some restrictions that truly were irrational, but it didn’t actually increase the amoint of monet faith-based organizations were getting, and it originally included a lot of tax-incentives for charitable giving that were scrapped in favor of eliminating the estate tax (which affects only the extremely wealthy). When Tom Daschle (as Senate Majority Leader) later offered to suppport a legislative package which included many of the charitable tax cuts and community oriented incentives that Bush had campaigned on, the Republicans in Congress blew him off.
To be fair, the Democrats did their part to demagogue the SOCAS aspects, which also hurt. As Kuo put it, “The Republicans were indifferent to the poor, and the Democrats were allergic to faith.”
As a result, Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative didn’t end up actually accomplishing much. but it didn’t hurt anything either.
It sounds like Obama actually wants to pump some air into it and do the things with it that Bush promised to do but never delivered on.
In any case, getting back to the WSJ piece, it’s misleading in its implication that Obama wants to allow federally funded programs to discriminat in services or employment on site. It’s saying that Obama might be taking a more careful look at discrimination that occurs independednt of the funded services and may take it into consideration when it comes to funding. My understanding is that he’s considering this as a way to deal with potential of radical groups like Nation of Islam or White Supremacist organizations seeking funds.
We discussed this at tremendous length before. Please remind me - what is your response to the belief that this aids religions by freeing up the portion of their budget that they would otherwise have spent on such initiatives, to instead spend them on religious programs?
They would not have otherwise spent money on these programs. Without the federal funding, they just wouldn’t exist.
Cite?
Federal funds are going exclusively to entirely new programs that previously did not exist? Or are any funds going to fund/expand pre-existing programs?
Money spent on these programs - whether on facilities, salaries, utilities, supplies, community outreach, or whatever - will have absolutely no positive impact on the institutions’ religious goals?
Why don’t you cite otherwise? You’re asking me to cite a negative.
Yes.
If a program is already being funded without federal funds, it can’t qualify for a grant. You don’t apply to get funds for something that’s already up and running, the government says “we want to start X,” and then various groups submit applications explaining why they should be the ones to run it. Pre-existing programs don’t enter into it, and any pre-existing program which is already being funded by a church without federal help is ipso facto ineligible for funding anyway.
I guess that depends on how you define “religious goal.” If going to Heaven or helping the poor are religious goals, then maybe federal funding has an impact. It has no effect on evangelical goals if that’s what you mean.
It’s pretty easy to dig up. Here’s an example annual report for Catholic Charities in Hawaii:
http://www.catholiccharitieshawaii.org/Portals/_ExpressSite/pdf/annual_report.pdf
Page 5 shows that only 1.5% of their money came from the local diocese, while over 60% came from Government and foundations. United Way actually contributed more.
Thanks for the responses. I’ll look into it further, and consider whether I wish to revise my current opposition.
I asked all the same questions you’re asking and put my wife through an inquisition about all of this stuff. I’m not as good at explaining it or as knowledgeable as she is, but suffice it to say that if I can be pacified, anybody can.
After reading Diogenes and Polycarp have said, I can only agree that (whether or not some tweaking may be required) those programs cannot be intrepreted as endorsing a religion, but simply acknowledging “these guys are good at this”.
I recall you saying this before. And I acknowledge that my prejudice is undoubtedly colored by my extreme dislike for organized religion.
Despite what you say, it is hard for me to imagine that an organization does not derive at least some benefit from providing such services. Are they handing out meals or providing daycare or job counseling in facilities otherwise used for religious purposes? Are they able to advertise services using the religious institution’s name? (Free soup at St. Pederast’s - use rear entry!) Exactly how are they able to segregate resources?
But I suspect I do not feel sufficiently strongly about this to look too far into it - in which case I should probably keep my prejudices to myself.
My preference would be to see the property and income of organized religions taxed. And my prejudice would tolerate considerable inefficiencies by public provision of such services, instead of anything that could conceivably benefit organized religions in any way.
I really REALLY dislike religion.
No. They’re not allowed to use those facilities for religious purposes.
Not directly. They are allowed to answer questions about religious services if somebody asks, but they can’t proselytize, all they can do is tell the person where to go if they’re interested in a religious service. They are allowed to give out pamphlets if requested, but we’re not talking about Chick Tracts, just times and locations of religious services. No actual preaching in thepamphlets.
They’re done in buildings and facilities which are separate from the religious facilities. The money can’t be transferred away from the federally funded facility. There can’t be any discrimination in services or hiring at the funded facility. They’re like little secular islands away from the church.
I’m not a fan either, but being religious should not be a disqualification for wanting to administrate a secular public service. I agree that churches should be taxed, though. That’s a scam if ever there was one.