A Steeple of Progressive Policy
Faith-based initiatives have gotten a bad rap under the Bush administration, but the problem isn’t the idea—it’s the execution.
By Ben Weyl
July 15, 2008
President Bush speaks in 2004 at the White House National Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama recently announced that if elected he would increase federal assistance to faith-based social service organizations. His plan calls for the creation of a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, an expansion and revision of President George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The battle over faith-based initiatives has long reflected the culture wars between the right and the left. Some progressives may shudder at the idea of expanding the programs—mostly because many believe they blur the line between church and state. But progressives should stop worrying. Contrary to what they may think, working with faith communities is good policy that has been underfunded and abused by the Bush administration. There are ways to make such policies help those most in need. Like other government-funded programs, what is ultimately required is proper funding, oversight, and discrimination-free practices.
A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows a majority of Americans view religion as a “very important” part of their lives. (It also noted that 21 percent of atheists believe in God, but we won’t get into that.) Clearly, religion is an integral part of Americans’ lives and can play a constructive role in strengthening communities. The federal government has long worked with religious organizations like Catholic Charities or Lutheran Social Services to provide housing, clothing, education, and other concrete needs for underprivileged citizens. At the same time, churches, synagogues, and mosques across the country have made charity a priority—or have wanted to, but were hampered by shoestring budgets. In response to this need, Bush’s faith-based initiative program, which was actually an expansion of an executive order issued by Bill Clinton in 1996, was designed to allow religious organizations of any faith to apply for federal social service grants.
After he was elected, Bush declared that the program would be “one of the most important initiatives” of his administration, according to David Kuo’s account, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. Kuo, a conservative Christian, was former deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and left the White House disillusioned by the failure to properly fund the initiative. Just as he did with No Child Left Behind, Bush didn’t fully fund the program he implemented, which has made it difficult to distinguish whether the program has failed because of poor funding or poor policy. Bush pledged $1.7 billion a year to groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen mothers. But by the end of the president’s first term, only $500 million had been spent on the program—a shortfall of roughly $6.3 billion.
Of the money that did make it out of Washington, some worry that much of it was distributed based on politics, not policy. (John DiIulio, the program’s first director, famously referred to some White House staffers as “Mayberry Machiavellis” who trumped politics over sound decision making.) For example, the Philadelphia-based Greater Exodus Baptist Church, led by vocal Bush supporter Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, eventually received nearly $1 million in federal grant money. Lusk, who considers Bush "a friend," allowed his church to be the site for a major rally in support of the president’s conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006. Although there is no evidence that the million-dollar grant Lusk received was used improperly, the accompanying political implications undermined what could have been effective social policy. If money earmarked for faith-based initiatives are used cynically to reward allies—or even if it seems like the money is being used improperly—the programs will lose their efficacy in the eye of the public.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of Bush’s program was that it codified federal support for discrimination. Religious organizations have long been exempt from many civil rights laws so they can observe their religious beliefs. Under Bush’s faith-based initiative program, however, discriminatory practices have been condoned by the government and religious organizations have received federal dollars while maintaining the right to hire and fire employees at will (often on the basis of sexual orientation). Progressives have consistently used the incentive of federal funding as a means to advance equality. Colleges and universities as well as government contractors can be sure to lose their federal funding if they practice discrimination. Faith-based initiatives should be no different.
The program should be carried out as it was originally designed: A faith-based initiative should prohibit discrimination in its hiring, firing, and delivery of services. It should also be open and available to all organizations, not just those cherry-picked for political gain. If such a nondiscriminatory policy is enacted for faith-based initiatives the way it is for other federal funds, it can play a vital role in improving quality of life for some of the most vulnerable Americans.
To be sure, worries about the erosion of the separation between church and state are not unfounded. Americans United, a religious liberty watchdog group, announced after Obama’s speech that although it is pleased his program would bar discrimination, it still favor eliminating the initiative entirely. But Obama’s proposal safeguards a non-discrimination hiring policy for those receiving federal funds, and, as he said in his speech, “federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.” As long as such programs serve individual’s physical and emotional needs—and refrain from attempts at conversion—the church and state will remain separate.
A well executed faith-based initiative can be a crucial tool in the fight for social and economic justice, but we have yet to see one implemented well. In his speech, Obama mentioned Youth Education for Tomorrow (YET), a program started in 2000 that works to combat illiteracy, as an example of the type of program that would be funded by his proposed council. YET is part of a Philadelphia-based public-private venture that seeks to provide concrete social services for the public good. More than half of the children in Philadelphia are still illiterate by the end of third grade, a year that is a crucial point, educators say, in determining a child’s educational future. YET’s programs help K-12 students strengthen their reading skills with the help of school teachers, ministers, and other volunteers in churches, schools and community centers across Philadelphia.
Such programs show that faith communities can provide concrete and practical solutions to social problems. Religious organizations cannot replace government as final guarantor of the general welfare; but since religion already plays a very important part of most Americans’ lives, helping faith communities accomplish social achievements can be an important part of a progressive agenda.
Ben Weyl graduated from Grinnell College in 2007 and is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments
!
So you trust Christians not to try converting anyone along with their social services, just because they say so?
How quaint.
— Joe - Jul 15, 06:24 PM - #I get so bored with euphemisms.
— Marilyn LaCourt - Jul 15, 08:57 PM - #Please. They are religion based initiatives. Call them what they are.
Not only does religion play an important role in people’s lives, religious institutions are often the only stable and trusted institutions that exist in the country’s most impoverished neighborhoods. In an ideal world the government would be able to set up shop everywhere and provide needed services, but the current reality is that often churches are the only institutions willing and able to do the work right now. If we are being realistic about how we can get services to people that need them most, faith based institutions have to be part of the solution.
— Erin - Jul 17, 05:02 PM - #Obama is using the promise of faith-based $$ to buy evangelical votes -plain and simple. This is a quid pro quo, just ask Mayor Daly how his machine works. What Ben Weyl doesn’t seem to get is how disastrous these bogus faith-based initiatives are for women, accurate and comprehensive sexual education, effective pregnancy prevention programs, family planning, sexual assualt victim services, etc.
Catholic Charities are an atrocious recipient of the federal government’s largesse and yet by funding their so called “secular” work, we strengthen an organization that works fervently against women’s reproductive health and rights. For example, witness the U.S Conference on Catholic Bishops – the largest intermediary recipient of sex and human trafficking victim support dollars ($5 million a year) and yet the Conference requires all grantee organizations to promise not to distribute condoms, birth control or to refer victims to abortion providers.
These unconscionable restrictions apply to organizations serving SEX TRAFFICKING victims. It’s an outrage. This isn’t even faith-based funding, but you get my point. As a hard core Episcopalian, I don’t think my church needs or should get federal dollars. Stop believing the hype about ‘faith-based’ (read: misogynist and anti-gay religious institutions) funding.
— agatha - Jul 17, 05:38 PM - #Obama is using the promise of faith-based $$ to buy evangelical votes -plain and simple. This is a quid pro quo, just ask Mayor Daly how his machine works. What Ben Weyl doesn’t seem to get is how disastrous these bogus faith-based initiatives are for women, accurate and comprehensive sexual education, effective pregnancy prevention programs, family planning, sexual assualt victim services, etc.
Catholic Charities are an atrocious recipient of the federal government’s largesse and yet by funding their so called “secular” work, we strengthen an organization that works fervently against women’s reproductive health and rights. For example, witness the U.S Conference on Catholic Bishops – the largest intermediary recipient of sex and human trafficking victim support dollars ($5 million a year) and yet the Conference requires all grantee organizations to promise not to distribute condoms, birth control or to refer victims to abortion providers.
These unconscionable restrictions apply to organizations serving SEX TRAFFICKING victims. It’s an outrage. This isn’t even faith-based funding, but you get my point. As a hard core Episcopalian, I don’t think my church needs or should get federal dollars. Stop believing the hype about ‘faith-based’ (read: mysogynist and anti-gay religious institutions) funding.
— agatha - Jul 17, 05:38 PM - #“It also noted that 21 percent of atheists believe in God, but we won’t get into that.”
Then they AREN’T Atheists. Either you quoted the report wrong, or the report was badly worded and/or badly researched. Sorry, no.
— Karina - Jul 17, 06:40 PM - #Even if Obama were to somehow engineer a faith based initiative that focused solely on charity, without discrimination or proselytizing (highly dubious — what kind bureaucracy could really monitor that stuff, and why should we funnel money into doing that?), even if he’s able to do that, the mere existence of this initiative then sets a precedent where future less progressive candidates can completely re-work it according to whatever pleases their evangelical whims.
Honestly, the faith based initiative should be seen as an embarrassment in American domestic policy. Why is it that countries with some of the most competitive economies in the world — Denmark, Sweden, German, etc — are able to provide for their citizens without resorting to discriminatory religious charities?
— jordan - Jul 18, 08:38 AM - #21% of atheists believe in God? Uh, I must be one of the 79%, and the other 21% must be hiding really well because every atheist I’VE met is pretty adamant about the whole “no God” thing.
— KMM - Jul 19, 03:35 PM - #Faith-based initiatives have been on the rise precisely because corporate-backed politicians on both sides of the aisle have gutted secular assistance programs.
But of course the real solution is neither. We should be working to empower communities and regions to be self-sufficient and run/supported democratically. I think the Black Panthers’ Survival Programs were certainly on the right track.
We shouldn’t want church power OR state power: we should want PEOPLE power.
— For Student Power - Jul 28, 01:26 PM - #these violate the Constitution,
not the minority doctrine of Justice Hugo Black, who was KKK in his youth, “the seperation of C&S.” there’s even a word about this part of the Bill of Rights, antidysestablishmentarianism,
which is what Obama has become — the -ist of it.
however, everyone is perfectly welcome to bring their tenets of what ever faith into public orifice or bureau or works, so long as they don’t enfringe on the constitutional rights of others.
—Cheenysfear, 24/7/51!
— Brian H. - Aug 5, 06:08 PM - #these violate the Constitution,
not the minority doctrine of Justice Hugo Black, who was KKK in his youth, “the seperation of C&S.” there’s even a word about this part of the Bill of Rights, antidysestablishmentarianism,
which is what Obama has become — the -ist of it.
however, everyone is perfectly welcome to bring their tenets of what ever faith into public orifice or bureau or works, so long as they don’t enfringe on the constitutional rights of others.
—Cheenysfear, 24/7/51!
— Brian H. - Aug 5, 06:09 PM - #