On the faith-based initiative, Obama’s way isn’t Bush’s way

July 1, 2008

The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry, and the rights of those who receive the benefits.

The safeguards were just common sense, and helped make these partnerships legal. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.

So what happened? George W. Bush decided he wanted to re-write the rules. His White House identified those safeguards and renamed them “barriers.” To protect the First Amendment and the interests of taxpayers, the president said, was to stand in the way of churches helping families in need. The safeguards, Bush insisted, had to be eliminated.

I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So, when I saw this AP feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair.

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it’s being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind.

I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush’s approach. In fact, it’s largely the opposite.

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

Whew. The AP article had it backwards. Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and strengthens them, not abandons them.

By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions. From Obama’s speech:

“You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who’ve come together around a common faith, they’re usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they’re particularly well-placed to offer help. As I’ve said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

“That’s why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today – from saving our planet to ending poverty – are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

“I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I’m saying is that we all have to work together – Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike – to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

There’s simply nothing wrong with this. If Obama honors church-state separation and keeps the safeguards in place, as he clearly intends to do, there’s no reason the government can’t partner with ministries willing to provide a secular social service.

That said, that AP feed really got me nervous there for a minute….

I don’t have a problem with faith based assistance. Churches and such have done a good job with helping feed the poor and such, BUT when those services come with the constant beating over the head with Repent and Believe!, that’s when I take issue. I suppose I should also say that I take issue with abstainance only as the further dumbing down of our populace. When young girls believe that bleach and mountain dew will keep them from becoming pregnant, well that’s a serious problem.

  • Further proof that the “reporters” couldn’t report a rainstorm with the water falling on them and get it right.

    As someone who used to be a reporter, it just floors me that these morons have become so goodamned STUPID!!!

  • I almost choked when I read the feed this morning. I thought I was going to have to abandon Obama over this one. Glad for the update.

  • I love the way Obama ties faith issues to social justice issues. Some people think he’s just pandering to religious right, but they couldn’t be more wrong. I think Obama is absolutely correct to reach out to religious voters and make them see how issues like healthcare, education and the environment are also faith issues. For too long, Democrats have allowed the GOP to own religion and to use it as a wedge and, in Obama’s words a “weapon.” Although I’m quite irreligious myself, I see no problem with Obama reaching out to these people in this way. As long as he respects the seperation of church and state, which he clearly does, this is sound policy and smart politics, too.

  • Excellent. Precisely the right line to take.

    And in this instance, the media’s stupidity will actually work for Obama. His supporters will see the nuance and sense in this, but the “low information voters” and “low intelligence reporters” will talk about it as an example of his postpartisan approach as they see it solely as an affirmation of Bush’s policies.

  • I think Obama is absolutely correct to reach out to religious voters and make them see how issues like healthcare, education and the environment are also faith issues.

    Agreed. Especially since the younger generation of evangelicals sees their faith in precisely such terms, too.

    Even if you think the faith-based initiative idea, no matter how nuanced or protected, is a bad idea, remember that this sort of outright will make the empires of Dobson and their ilk crumble to the ground.

  • Its been long acceptable that govt $ can be used to pay for the soup that feeds the homeless. But it can’t be spent on bibles and the like. Cash is fungible, you see. Fund the soup, not the bibles.

    Hypocritically, Bush made this argument for his faith based initiative while simultaneously cutting off family planning services (NGO’s) in Africa. These NGO’s would have to go without and could not be funded because thet may provide some services related to abortion.

    Bush’s rationale was that cash is not fungible. And it was inappropriate to fund them even if they promised not to use any $ for anything related to abortion.

  • Glad it has been corrected, I was in too much of a hurry this morning and didn’t have time to email it around. I guess that’s what we will have to start paying AP the big bucks for;>

  • LSS is now Hague accredited- they have to interact with the government if they want to be agents for international adoption. What the hysteria is about is the sep of church and state-this does not apply- it is more in line with one faction dealing with another and not mutually co-mingling.
    What Bush was doing was empowering those agencies and not keeping them at a neccesary arms length.

  • My first reaction when I read the AP feed this morning was WTF. On the heals of the FISA capitulation and the Clark bruhaha, this could have been the straw to break this camel’s back. Rather than react thought, I thought I’d wait until our expert on these matters CB posted. This is great relief.

    The only question I have is is Obama simply announcing a return to the status quo ante or is there something more to his program? Normally I’d look at the speech to answer this one for myself, but there’s no link.

  • Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya. Sing for your supper.

    My problems with delivery of social services by faith-based organizations are: (1) delegation of social responsibility to churches; (2) mingling to church and state despite rules; (3) quid pro quos are invariably required of those who receive aid, with few alternatives available should they not wish to be proselytized; (4) implication that need for social assistance is somehow a moral or spiritual failing that requires correction by faith-based assistance, since many churches link spiritual and material health in their theology, instead of this being a failing of our economic system; (5) delivery of services strengthens churches financially by giving them a way to support themselves and justify their existence beyond the religious; (6) undermining of secular organizations that might arise to fill this niche, and should be the preferred way to deliver services instead of leaving this to religions to do.

    But Obama likes to do things this way, so Kumbaya, my LORD, Kumbaya.

  • Am I the only one wondering exactly how the AP could make such a huge mistake? Did someone feed it a bogus press release? Is there an enemy operative in the Obama camp? Is an AP reporter a deliberate agent of misinformation, or merely the goat of the Peccadillo State Junior College School of Mass Communications and Word Processing, Class of ’08?

    Crankily curious,
    The New York Crank

  • Do you know why all the confusion?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_el_pr/obama_5

    Look who the author of the AP article is – it’s Nedra Pickler.

    I’ve warned all of you before – don’t trust any information coming out of any AP article with Nedra Pickler’s name on it. She’s a right-winger pretending to be a journalist. Check the information somewhere else before using any articles by her.

  • That said, that AP feed really got me nervous there for a minute…

    Haha, a bit apprehensive after the past couple of weeks, are we?

    Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it’s being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind.

    Just half of it, but at least he seems right on this one.

    When young girls believe that bleach and mountain dew will keep them from becoming pregnant, well that’s a serious problem. -MsJoanne

    Well, if they drink enough bleach, it will stop them from becoming pregnant. And breathing.

  • Mary,

    Why are you such a hater?
    1) There is no ‘delegation’ of social responsibility to churches. The religious organizations themselves choose to provide social services.

    2) the SAFEGUARDS are in place to prevent church/state ‘mingling’. Read Obama’s speech again.

    3-6) Ask anyone who has ever been helped by Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, Lutheran Social Services or the Jewish Social Service Agency whether they were ‘converted’ or whether the State unemployment/welfare agency was somehow undermined.

    Anything to keep hating Obama, though…huh Mary?

  • I also am very suspicious of how the AP reporter got it wrong, given how the subject is well-known enough that blowing the details like this is inexcusable.

  • That said, that AP feed really got me nervous there for a minute….

    I woke up this morning thinking, “Well Obama is our guy and he can’t do any worse than Bush. So I’m going to relax about stuff.” Then the first thing I read was the ap article and I was pissed off all over again. Thanks for clarifying. Nothing wrong with using religious charities with “feet on the ground” (hey Cleaver) in a constutional manner.

  • TPM Election Central has the full speech. It looks like Obama is proposing little more than a return to the status quo ante.

    I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart – it will be a critical part of my administration.

    […]

    With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups – especially smaller congregations and those that aren’t well connected – don’t know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations.

    [..]

    And that’s why as President, I’ll expand summer programs like this to serve one million students And my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will also have a broader role – it will help set our national agenda.

    Basically, he’s not suggesting putting much new money into the program. For the most part, he’s just proposing to help people find the money that’s already there. The exception is the after school programs, but he isn’t explicit about putting up new money.

    As to how AP blew it, my money is on Kuo feeding them the wrong info.

    David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush’s commitment to the cause, said Obama’s position on hiring has the potential to be a major ”Sister Souljah moment” for his campaign.
    […]
    “This is a massive deal,” said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

  • Read Jim Wallis’ interview with the Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad and update your update. Obama is steeped in evangelism, hence cannot be trusted on the separation of church and state.

  • Whew. The AP article had it backwards. Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and strengthens them, not abandons them.

    What astonishing incompetence.

  • You can be an evangelical and still cherish the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment.

    Many deeply religious folks are strong believers in the separation of church and state. Hugo Black was a devout Baptist, and his ruling against state-sponsored school prayer was in fact deeply informed by his Baptist beliefs.

  • # 22 right on point. What’s wrong with secularism? More and more sounding like a populist. He should select Pat Buchanan as running mate

  • Gridlock said: Mary, Why are you such a hater?

    Mary is, and has always been, a Gooper troll. Always, from day one. At first it was Clinton Clinton CLINTON! But if you read the undertones of her comments they weren’t Clinton all the time. Nuanced to be sure but she has always been our own Gooper troll and nothing more.

    And the whole Abortion debate is nothing more than a way to control women. They don’t want any kind of education as to how to become pregnant which in turn makes abortion the only way to not be pregnant. The Dobson’s of the world believe that a woman is always to be subservient to a man and the best way to accomplish that is to make a woman desperate to feed herself and a child. Reduce access to services and a woman turns to desperation beit legal or not. How many prostitutes want to be prostitutes (high enders don’t count).

    Lawrence Britt’s often cited 14 Points of Fascism states:

    5. Rampant sexism

    Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

    http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

    In other words, Men. Rule. Add to that that many churches believe similarly (anti-gay, male dominated, anti-abortion) and that is where the separation of church and state really is needed for women to continue to advance.

    Look at Ledbetter, Alito and Roberts and you need not look any further. McCain’s statements about women just need better education and you have a grim look at the future of women in our society. How long before burka’s become the fashion statement in Amerika?

    Separation of Church and State goes much deeper than simply god in government.

  • What am I missing? Here’s how the opening paragraph that CB quoted now reads:

    “CHICAGO – Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.” The word “some” replaces the word “their.” What else?

    And here’s Barry Lynn’s take on it in the article:

    “Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama’s proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

    “I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” he said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.””

    So I’m not getting this at all. Those on the left opposed Bush’s program. Why is it different now? This article says Obama is expanding it.

  • One of the outcomes that the GOP desired from the faith-based social services programs was to make an inroad into the African American community by making African American churches recipients of federal money, which could then be used to control them. That was their secondary purpose; the primary was to deliver patronage to the conservative evangelical churches, which function as its ground organizations.

  • Fine, so he’s right on employment, but expanding the program still sucks. When faith-based orgs win the contract against a community organization, they do include religious undertones. When ORR used to fund Anti-Trafficking Programs directly, community orgs could decide how the spend the money, what information the victims would receive, etc. Now that that money gets funneled through United Catholic Bishops there is no longer discussion of using condoms. No discussion of divorce. No discussion of abortion. So, yes, grant awards going to faith-based orgs absolutely changes services.

  • Obama Plan Expand Faith-Based Program

    …With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama is presenting a plan on Tuesday to expand President Bush’s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform the work of social services.
    “The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Mr. Obama is expected to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks. “We need all hands on deck.”
    Mr. Obama is proposing $500 million per year to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps for students. He proposes elevating the program to the “moral center” of his administration…..

    That is $500 mil of your money for religious indoctrination. That is money that should go to government agencies who do NOT discriminate on grounds of faith. That is funding that needs to go to states to help fund their social programs that do NOT discriminate on the basis if faith. Obama is talking crap. The Federal and State governments have no business funding religious programs of any sort. In fact, churches should be subjected to property and other taxes.

  • Obama’s measures, while much more sound than Bush’s, are still wrong. Supporting faith-based initiatives requires an extra layer of government to ensure that the religions being funded use those funds in accordance with federal law. Further, they needlessly duplicate the efforts of secular, governmental agencies which operate much more efficiently and divert money from those agencies. Faith-based intiatives are a waste of money. Period.

  • Back in early 2001, Bush knew Congress would reject a bill granting him the authority to establish faith based initiatives on the basis that it violated the chuch/state clause of the Constitution, so Bush did it by Executive Order.

    From the White House site, dated January 29, 2001:

    Executive Order

    Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

    By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows…

    Obama obviously doesn’t intend to rescind Bush’s executive order illegally establishing “faith based” programs, just get rid of Bush’s program and replace it with his own. So much for this declaration:

    Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said one of the first things he wants to do is ensure the constitutionality of all the laws and executive orders passed while Republican President George W. Bush has been in office.

    Those that don”t pass muster will be overturned, he said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/bushs-laws

  • My problems with delivery of social services by faith-based organizations are:

    That Obama thought of doing this, instead of Hillary, and your endless tirades against him are indicative of this.

    (1) delegation of social responsibility to churches;

    Social responsibility is a part of every church’s mission statement. It is a core part of their existence. You should also note that most churches do not receive any funding from the federal Government for such programs, because they (a) do not play the proselytizing game, and (b) they do not do stupid things like pray to giant cardborad cutouts of George (i.e., Jesus Camp—remember those charlatans?)

    (2) mingling to church and state despite rules;

    How Orwellian of you. Been practicing your “two-legs good, four-legs better” metaphors, I see….

    (3) quid pro quos are invariably required of those who receive aid, with few alternatives available should they not wish to be proselytized;

    What part of Obama’s speech did you not read—or are you merely putting another good word in for johnmccain.conjob?

    (4) implication that need for social assistance is somehow a moral or spiritual failing that requires correction by faith-based assistance, since many churches link spiritual and material health in their theology, instead of this being a failing of our economic system;

    You are free to disagree with me on this, but “the failing of our economic system,” with specificity toward those who have wrought that failure for their own greedy ends(a.k.a., the Bushylvanians and their pet rock, McCain), is something I personally and professionally find to be among the most immoral acts ever committed against the People of these United States.

    (5) delivery of services strengthens churches financially by giving them a way to support themselves and justify their existence beyond the religious;

    Delivery of services via federal tax dollars that would, in any other case, still be spent on those services will strengthen churches financially be alleviating the financial burden they were already carrying in social outreach expenses. As a federal dollar goes into a food bank, a church dollar can come out of the food bank account and go into another church-based program. Besides—under Obama’s framework (going back to the pre-Bush policies), a church that blends government-funded social assistance programs with overt proselytizing—or withholds services as punitive countenance for not playing along with the church’s game could, in theory at least, cost that church its tax-exempt status.

    (6) undermining of secular organizations that might arise to fill this niche, and should be the preferred way to deliver services instead of leaving this to religions to do.

    Explain to me—and everyone else hers, if you please—how in the hell can you undermine something that “might arise?” That’s like saying we shouldn’t
    t look for alternatives to oil, because it might undermine Exxon’s ability to find an endless supply of the damned stuff.

  • Obama needs to be much, much more specific about what safeguards he will put in place to insure federal funds aren’t used to support religion. Specifically, needs to endorse the repeal of the Charitable Choice amendment to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which eliminated most of those safeguards. (Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services are organizations created to play by the pre-1996 rules. There’s a Jewish one, too.)
    Even if that is done, however, it’s still a bad idea. I see no reason to accept the premise that a theologian without special training is more competent than a trained social service professional is to administer these programs. It would be nice to see comparative testing.
    I guess it’s nice to know there is something about Obama I detest. It reassures me that I am dealing with reality.

  • The government departments responsible for funding these “faith-based” initiatives would need to establish standards and hire extra people to monitor the programs, something that Bush’s version hasn’t done. Abuses are discovered after the fact and there are still no consequences affecting these grants.

    Why not just shut down all faith-based initiatives and offer social services through government programs as before, and let the churches do their own proselytizing outreach and help with their own personnel.

  • Thanks for the clarification. I was bouncing off the walls and sputtering for a while.

  • OTOH: as aristedes says: why not offer social services through government programs as before? I would prefer government give back to private “charity” if I needed services.

  • When Obama exposes his true color, he is pragmatic. But when Hillary was expressing herself , say for example, during the recent campaign, she represents the same old Washington politics. No one can change color so rapidly like the media. They always have ready made reasons.

  • If Obama believes that religious organizations will not use my tax money to proselytize or to discriminate in hiring or dictate this country morally he must also believe that I am a total idiot. I happen to believe that I am not a total idiot. In the box below I am asked to answer the question: “What color is an orange?” I will write “orange”. What would Obama write in that box? I do not know but I am sure that this “Slick Willy”, which he has always been, will not write “orange”.
    Anyone who wonders what has motivated Obama to make his announcement today, the only correct answer is: Jim Wallis. Wallis, who calls himself a friend of Obama, is a powerful evangelical who can make or break Obama even with Christians other than evangelicals, especially black Christians, who have lapped up his book on the religious change of our country. In an interview with the respected Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad last week Wallis predicted that Obama might expand Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative.” Unfortunately only people like me who can read Dutch were forewarned. Wallis must therefore be kept absolutely, totally happy by Obama by hook or by crook or by both or face defeat in November. Until now all commentators have missed the Wallis-connection. Amazing. I who knew about Wallis am not surprised. I already expected Obama’s move and his prevarication about the separation of church and state. Obama’s campaign claims that a president McCain will be Bush III. It is becoming increasingly obvious that a president Obama will be a Bush 1 1/2 in this respect.

  • I owe you readers who do not speak Dutch my translation of the relevant sections of Wallis’ interview with the Dutch newspaper NRC-Handelsblad. I am sure that the interview was conducted in English, was subsequently translated into Dutch by the paper, and then by me back into English. I have no reason to believe that the Dutch translator had any motives to misrepresent Wallis’ positions

    Q:Europeans think that the role of religion in politics will decrease as soon as Bush has left. Why would that not be the case under a President Obama?
    A:“Because Barack Obama is the most Christian presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter. He regularly talks with religious leaders, he understands the sensitivities; he cites Jeremiah, Josiah, and Jesus without forcing himself. For a Democrat he has a unique talent to connect with evangelicals. And as a grownup he has experienced his own conversion to God which is obviously very recognizable for evangelicals.”
    “Obama is not the kind of candidate that wants to convert the country. However, he will certainly use his own faith as a reference for decisions. He likes to cite Lincoln: ‘I do not know whether God is on my side but I certainly hope that I am on the side of God.”

    Q:Is it not logical to separate politics and religion more clearly after Bush?
    A:“The answer to bad religion is not: no religion. The answer is: better religion. What Europeans often ignore is that faith has always played an important role in our public life. That was also the wellspring of the success of Martin Luther King.”
    “Every large social movement in this country had religion as its catalyst. The fight against poverty, the environment, social inequality, was here traditionally in the hands of groups with a religious background. The error of the past years had been that everyone accepted the religious right as a norm. But they were actually the deviation from the norm.”

    Q:You supported Bush’s initiative to let churches conduct social work. Do you think that a president Obama should do the same?
    A:“I agreed with the principles which Bush presented but not with their execution. I do not say that Obama must take an initiative. He can also stress the fight against poverty in alliance with religious groups. However, I expect Obama to be friendly for the community of faith.”

    Q:Imagine that the Republicans paint you during the campaign as yet another friend of Obama who states that he wishes to unite the country but is, in reality an extreme leftist?
    A:Left and right are not religious categories. And of course Obama is not a left extremist. What is attractive about him is his pragmatism; he judges an idea by its quality and not by its source. I myself work with every part of society. When it concerns the protection of the family I am a conservative. When it concerns social justice I am not progressive-I am radical. Also on the issues of war and peace.
    I am not a leftist but an independent. However, I do not make compromises for the forty million poor of this country. I hope that we will eventually succeed in this country to wed the traditions of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King. That we will organize the Crusades [NRC-Handelsblad explains this term for the Dutch readers] which Billy Graham held to bring people to Jesus to confront the government with the need for more social justice, as King did.”

  • While I can understand Heer Heymann’s concern in this regard, it should likewise be important to understand the core context of Obama’s efforts in regard to this particular matter.

    When “Almost-Ex-President” Bush constructed these faith-based operations, they were designed only secondarily as a transport vehicle for evangelical proselytizing. Their first, and therefore primal, purpose was to remove vast sums of taxpayer funding from the secular provision systems that existed at the time, and place them under the control of a series of profiteering enterprises. The “churches” selected to interact with these “skim” activities are predominantly the big, right-wing mega-churches that require huge sums of cash to pay for the luxurious lifestyles of their pastors and senior church staff. Mansions, gold-flecked furniture, marble toilets, limousines, and twin-engined private jets do not come cheaply, and the opulence of this contemporary “thirty pieces of silver” was a small price to pay, if it meant that the opposition to the profiteers—the in-place secular providers of services—could be wiped from the funding map.

    And such has been the case. The secular outlets that provided the vast bulwark of services to those in need no longer exist; replaced, just as the thousands of professionals who once worked for the federal government have been replaced, by loyalists who would debase themselves to any end for the greater glory of Bushylvanianism.

    If I read Obama’s intentions clearly—and based on his speech, I believe that I have done so, and am continuing to do so—his proposal is to shift away from a no-oversight model that concentrates its efforts exclusively with the big mega-churches, and toward a model that will allow for complete oversight, spot inspections of records and service provisions, and accountability through authoritative enforcement of non-discriminatory/non-proselytory mandates.

    In short: empowerment of neighborhood churches that still know how to serve without demanding something in return.

    These smaller churches can pick up the slack for the short term, and will likewise be more willing to “let the baby grow to adulthood” when the local-church provision is developed to the point that it can function in complete autonomy from the church itself—thus becoming a secular agency. It is the small, neighborhood churches that do not fear losing power; it is the big, corporate-esque mega-churches that would willingly throw out the baby with the bathwater, on the other hand, if they were asked to surrender even a smidgen of their authority.

    Obama’s move here is just as pragmatic on the basis of there being insufficient secular provision entities as it is pragmatic from the point of stripping even more power from the monetary vacuum of Bush’s “faith-based model” that has, at speeds as yet unknown in political history, been sucking the national treasury of the United States dry, and providing, in return, excruciatingly-little service to those most in need….

  • For all of you who think it is okay to provide tax payer funds to churches under the new Obama rules, who do you think is going to do the monitoring to insure that the rules are followed? The federal agencies at HHS do not have the capacity to do this. They barely have the personnel capacity to process the awards. In reality, the Obama rules mean almost nothing because there will be little oversight.

    Advanced countries have national strategies devoted to reducing poverty that express a social consensus that poverty is detrimental for society as a whole. And they provide sufficient funding to try to reach their goals for reducing poverty. Our big national strategy is to give 1/2 a billion dollars to churches with little oversight, further fragementing the social service delivery system. It is obvious that poor people are not the target group for faith-based initiatives.

  • This is so wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons.

    Even AU opposes this kind of government/religious melding.

    First, it diverts money from existing federal, state and local agencies that already are set up to provide services to residents. What happens if even more money is diverted from these agencies? What happens when “average” people – those not homeless, or addicted, or facing other major catastrophes – can’t get services from existing agencies because they have been cut or eliminated? These agencies have already been cut and cut and cut – through benign neglect and deliberate $$ diversions, and through Bush faith-based efforts.

    Second, as much as religious/faith-based groups can help, they are not set up to provide consistent/ongoing, permanant assistance to people who need it. And the money that Obama proposes won’t change that. And again, once money starts being funneled to these groups and away from alreay-established agencies and organizations, what happens when fewer people are being served than were?

    Third, who’s going to monitor these efforts? If any of you have been following Boston Globe’s in-depth series on public funding of developers in Chicago’s low-income housing, you’ll understand the problem: federal/state money funneled to private developers/individuals to “manage” public housing and the housing projects went down the tubes.

    Finally, where does the line get drawn? It seems to me that we keep moving the line between church and state and become more comfortable with each successive 1/2 inch closer the two move. What’s wrong with that picture?

    Just because Obama is a Democrat does not make this okay or acceptable in any way. It is dangerous and presents very serious trouble for existing social service agencies that have been decimated under George W. Bush. We don’t need to finish his job by pushing money into faith-based initiatives — started by him!

  • The federal agencies at HHS … existing federal, state and local agencies that already are set….

    Have either (1) been gutted to the point of being operationally non-existent, or (2) are non-existent, or (3) are packed full of career level, civil service Bushylvanians who cannot simply be fired. One and Two will take time to fix, and Three requires an end-run in order to cut off the flow of funds to the hardcore evangelists—allowing for complete Departments and Divisions of Departments to become “moot points,” thus justifying total defunding and job-elimination. Everyone goes through the hiring mill all over again—and the Bushylvanian “loyalists” no longer pass muster.

    If you would simply invest the time and study your American History, this same thing happened—in 1932. America was “really” on the ropes then, due to the Great Depression, and the vast social programs brought into play by FDR were simply a massive beefing-up of programs already in place at the local level, courtesy of the neighborhood churches. Remember, there was literally nothing in place then regarding “government” social service agencies; we’re talking about Herbert Hoover here. It was easier, at the time, for a single field inspector to provide oversight on forty or fifty little social-service operations that it would have been to put all of those operations under one roof (a mega-church, for example, with layer upon layer of fundamentalist bureaucracy and red tape intentionally designed to thwart any secular-oversight threat to its zealous goal of uber-evangelism—the “join-or-die” mentality that so pollutes the existing agencies today).

    Neighborhood churches also means depth. If one church gets caught proselytizing with Uncle Sam’s money, they’re simply replaced with another church—and face an investigation that could cost them their tax-exempt status, courtesy of a Treasury Department and IRS that would no longer be under Bushylvanian control. If someone “shirks their responsibility” (refuses to do their job), they are summarily dismissed for insubordination—which is something you CAN do to a civil service employee.

    As the initial programs come back online, they can slowly be merged over the course of two to three years and moved into vacant storefronts and offices (we certainly have more than enough of those lying about, given the build-build-build mentality of the past eight years, followed by the current bust-up in demand for commercial real estate). Some areas might even be able to see their social program build-up move into secular facilities within the first few months—or even weeks—of an Obama administration.

    But to argue that everything must go “church-free” immediately is to adopt a reactive, “throw the baby out with the bathwater” mentality—and that simply won’t do, when the end result is people not receiving critical social assistance services. To do so would take months, at the very least, and I don’t know very many people who could go that long right now without medical care for their kids—or housing for their families—or food.

    All that does is secularize the “join-or-die” mentality of the proselytizers—and changes it to “die with patience.” The ones that survive will remember us with a vengeance—every time there’s an election….

  • Recently, A local charity required homeless men to worship before receiving a hot meal. Where are the safeguards to prevent this kind of behavior? This is a charity our family had supported for years. We were very disappointed.

  • Either way, the government is still propping up the operations of some religious groups over others and every religious group should be afraid of this precedent since it can eventually backfire on them. The government is telling them to follow a set of behaviors to recieve sum of money. Those religions that are able and willing to do so will be propped up by this, regardless of “safeguards”. No matter how you establish the safeguard, that organization will have more money to work with and their reputation in the community will be increased over others due to government support.

    Religions that can not or will not gain government funding (i.e. due to religious beliefs that prevent them from doing social work within the current understanding of secular) are disadvantaged in their community compared to those who do accept government funds. That sounds great if you want to weaken a select group of religions, but it sure does undermine the first amendment.

    Furthermore, those groups that use government funds can grow dependent on that money over time and may face difficult decisions as government changes it’s policies in the future. Imagine a religious group that currently gets major funding for sheltering the homeless but they don’t allow homosexual couples to room together. What will happen to that group and their shelter when gay marriage is recognized as a right and the government stipulates that shelters, in order to get funding, may not discriminate against gay families in any way? Some religious organizations would suddenly find themselves less established than others over night. In essence, this policy establishes religions that can fit our current definition of a “secular role” over those that can’t.

    It’s too bad there’s no secularly minded candidate in this election, so I’m going to go with Obama anyhow since he’ll probably do less damage to the courts than McCain will. I just hope some religious organizations realize the perils of this government alliance and manage to have it overturned in the courts.

  • Sad, sad, sad….. I thought Rove style politics was starting to end. Quick question…..
    I worship a rare South American tree frog and was wondering if the faith based initiatives would help me fund my volunteer organization overseas. See, as a former Peace Corps Volunteer during the Bush administration, I am well aware of how Bush’s faith based funding went to popular NGO’s who refused to provide condoms to Africans while instead pushing the “Christian” abstinence approach.
    That said… This is not the tree frog worshiper approach to ending the spread of HIV. Will I still be funded???? or….. Is this just a sad attempt to appeal to the ethnocentric Christian conservatives that have helped promote Bush’s ideals over the past eight years???
    Obama had me until yesterday. He appeared to be a true patriot that although was religious, was able to respect the boundary of church and state. Although he will undoubtedly win the election, now he is just another sleazy politician.
    I never thought I would say this but…….
    TIME TO SUPPORT NADER

  • Bush/Obama Faith Based Government Initiative – Another Power Grab!

    By Dr. David M. Berman http://www.wakeupandsmellthetruth.com

    President Bush came up with the silly idea that the government should have a “Faith Based Initiative.” Translated – government money hand outs to Churches and faith organizations to buy their political support. This is a dim witted idea that only leads to compromise of the gospel. Now Obama comes out with his idea to expand the program and yes you guessed it, the money will have strings attached. Shocker isn’t it?

    The last thing we need is to have the government dictate to the Church what it can and cannot do or say. Obama wants the strings to include “no discrimination against homosexuals.” Once you let the government get its teeth into you, they own you. We already have intense compromise in the Church. This will only add to it. I can see it now. Tons of money given to “faith based” organizations, these organizations become dependent on the money and then are given a choice. Stand for the truth of the Bible or lose the money. They rationalize that they must compromise truth or their “ministry” will not be able to help the needy. There goes the Bible out the window.

    There is a reason that God calls true Christians to start organizations to feed the poor, clothe the naked, and help those bound by the scourge of drug addiction. The reason is not only to show natural compassion. The reason we Christians help people is because Jesus taught us to spread the gospel. I will be compassionate to any person no matter what their religion is. If they reject the message of Jesus Christ I will still love them however my ultimate motivation is to proclaim Jesus Christ to everyone. True Christians do not simply create organizations to serve only the natural needs of people. Our underlining motivation is to serve people so they may have the knowledge of eternal life. Since Christians know that eternal life is ONLY found in Jesus Christ, our compassion is motivated by Jesus’ great Commission; “Go ye into all the world and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt 28:19).”

    Obama is now in a full court press to convince Bible Christians that he is not only sympathetic to our cause, but also that he is a committed Christian. I think is should be obvious to any Bible believing Christian that Obama is not a Bible Christian. Here are just a few of the things he is in favor of; Abortion including partial birth abortion, special rights for homosexuals, hate crimes legislation that would outlaw speech including religious speech, “Liberation Theology” which is Marxism married to religious terminology (Remember Rev. Wright his pastor of 20 years?) This man is a deceiver like almost all politicians. He will do anything and say anything to get elected. This latest embrace of the “Faith Based Initiative” is another political move designed to get support from Churches. I did not like the idea when Bush came out with it, and I do not like it now. It is both a ploy for votes and a further erosion of Church authority and mission. The liberals would love nothing more than to have their teeth in the Church. They want to destroy Biblical Christianity and money is one of their weapons.

    When is the Church going to understand its call to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29)? Do Christian leaders not see that dancing with the Devil will only bring about destruction?

    1 Timothy 6:10 “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (Emphasis mine)

    Both Bush and Obama are using money to buy influence and worse yet, they are using our money to buy it. Not only is the money going to “Christian” organizations but as Obama said in his speech on the “Faith Based initiative”

    “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion,” Obama said. “Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

    So Obama wants to dictate to a Christian Organization that they must hire a non Christian for their Christian organization, can’t preach Christ, and must only use the money for secular programs. Taking money from the government under these conditions is nothing less than selling the Church to the government. Jesus said;

    Luke 16:13 “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money). (Emphasis mine)

    If we allow money to dictate our Christian speech we are serving money not God!!!

    Let me now explain what will happen. All true non compromising Christian organizations will not go for this. We will never be told what we can preach and not preach and so most the money will go to liberal Churches who are already allied with the liberal, big government politicians. The rest of the money will go to Christian organizations that will end up compromising and becoming liberal. All this does is give more money and power to the forces that are opposed to the true preaching of the Bible. No government has the right to tell the Church what it can and cannot say.

    Please don’t buy what they are selling you. It is the classic “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Once they sink their powerful teeth into the Church, they will not let go. Every Church must resist this move against our Biblical mandate to preach the Bible, and Constitutional right of freedom of religious and political speech! Wake up! THE GOSPEL IS NOT FOR SALE!!!!!

    Dr. David M. Berman
    Senior Pastor, Author, Convention Speaker
    211 Whitcomb Road
    P.O. Box 10357
    Swanzey, NH. 03446

  • The problem with faith based initiatives is that the government gets to choose who to give money to and who is worthy of help. I was reading an article recently about the grants the Justice Department gives out to charities. The man appointed to this job was chosen by Bush because he was an evangelical and has given the funds to the charities of numerous friends and political associates, including a organization to teach kids how to golf. What’s worse is that none of these grants were given to the most highly rated programs and there was obvious discrimination in that no money was given to organizations that help gay teens, a group he considers evil. That is the problem with the government choosing what charities to give money to. This represents nearly a billion dollars of wasted money. If we cut this spending individuals who are concerned with charity could donate to programs of their choosing.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5065078&page=1
    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5033256&page=1

    • Comments are closed.