I noticed a couple of high-profile bloggers weighed in yesterday on how the Dems can and should approach faith-based initiatives, in general, as part of a broader message of support for religion. I think both were on the right track, but were missing a key piece of the puzzle.
Chris Bowers at MyDD, for example, said he’d like to see Dems support a general move towards faith-based funding.
…”I think it is a good idea to eliminate some of the barriers that prevent the federal government from working with relief and charity organizations. Certainly, we do not want federal money going to those in need only if they attend bible study, but at the same time do we really want to deny people help because of an abstraction? I think Democrats running on keeping, even expanding, faith-based initiatives is a good idea. Shouldn’t we encourage the efforts of those with faith to help people? As long as the funding isn’t going to abstinence-only programs, which do not work, or with strings attached about attending the church / temple / mosque in question, which would be an establishment of religion, I think it is a good idea.”
Similarly, Pandagon’s Ezra Klein said funding faith groups can be part of a progressive social agenda.
There’s no dissension over the idea that Democrats need a coherent values narrative and an understandable and competitive religious angle. Our determination to care for the least among us, to help the lowest ascend society’s ladder, fills those holes. But if we’re going to lay claim to compassion on the one hand and banish ministry-based help with the other, we come off as either unserious about social work or simply against religion. The former invalidates our whole narrative while the latter makes our references to Jesus’s economic populism and concern for the needy seem disgustingly calculated.
Because I have some experience on the issue, I’d like to take a moment (OK, maybe more than a moment) to add some information to the discussion.
Both Chris and Ezra seem to be alluding to some kind of compromise or “middle ground.” We can continue to embrace the First Amendment’s church-state principles, while offering support to religious charities that provide valuable social services. But neither Chris nor Ezra seem to realize that they were endorsing the position Dems already take and federal policy as it existed before Bush became president.
Dems have never supported, as Ezra put it, “banishing ministry-based help.” Indeed, for decades, faith-based charities received public funds, with Dems’ blessing, to provide social services to families in need. Bush’s faith-based initiative, however, wasn’t about helping break down barriers; it was about re-writing the rules to weaken the church-state line while creating a federal mandate for publicly-funded proselytizing.
The great myth of this debate, which Bush helped spread, is that religious groups were discriminated against before he got to the White House. Nonsense. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, for example, thrived on public funds long before Bush even found religion. There were, however, safeguards in place for all relevant parties.
Under the old system, which Dems embraced, groups that received funding could not discriminate against beneficiaries, nor against employees hired with public funds. Groups also had to create separate tax-exempt entities to accept and manage the public funds, so that ministries could not mix religious and secular work, and to allow government auditing to ensure tax dollars were being spent properly. Moreover, since these religious organizations were contracting with the government to perform secular services, the government required that the groups accepting public funds remain religiously neutral. In other words, no proselytizing with our money.
Bush identified these safeguards, which he called “barriers,” and sought to eliminate them altogether. That, in essence, was what the fight over the faith-based initiative was all about. This wasn’t a controversy about whether to fund religious charities; it was a debate over how to fund all charities.
Chris and Ezra, though slightly off-base about the policy debate, do raise an important point: selling our positions properly. The fact that these two left-leaning writers even believe that Dems are somehow hostile to faith-based groups suggests we need to do a better job of crafting a coherent message.
Here’s my pitch:
* Dems can say that they embrace a faith-based approach that offers aid to families in need.
* To protect the ministries’ interests, our plan would have faith-based groups create separate accounts to deal with public funds.
* To protect taxpayers’ interests, our plan would guarantee that no public money can finance religion or subsidize discrimination.
* And to protect beneficiaries’ interests, our plan would mandate that mandatory religious exercises cannot be a part of any social service program that receives public funds.
* Otherwise, religious groups are free to compete for the same government contracts as secular groups — with absolutely no “discrimination.” Faith-based groups who want to help disadvantaged families are encouraged, under our plan, to be part of a progressive team that reaches out with a helping hand to those who Republicans turn their backs on.
How does this plan differ from pre-Bush public polcy? That’s the point; it doesn’t. Dems already embrace the policy I laid out above and have spent the past couple of years battling Bush to make sure the safeguards stay in place. In other words, when it comes to an even-handed faith-based initiative that helps families in need while honoring the separation of church and state, Democrats are already where they need to be.