This Week in God

July 19, 2008

First up from the God machine this week is a poll that didn’t get a lot of attention, but was actually pretty important.

A Quinnipiac University national poll released on Thursday covered quite a bit of ground when it came to “culture war” issues, and perhaps most importantly given the recent campaign discussion, produced some interesting data on faith-based federal funding.

American voters support 53 – 41 percent giving money to faith-based organizations to help them run social programs. But voters say 77 – 16 percent groups which receive federal funds cannot discriminate by hiring only members of their own faith.

This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, that 41% of Americans don’t want faith-based groups to get social-service grants is a surprisingly high number. There’s a perception, which I’ll admit to buying into on occasion, that these kinds of partnerships and contracts — which have been around for years — are overwhelmingly popular. A poll like this suggests there remains some discomfort about mixing church and state, which I find encouraging.

But that second part of the question is even more striking. The NYT’s Bob Herbert, in a misguided attack on Barack Obama recently, argued that Obama is “promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it.” That’s simply not true — Obama’s policy is premised on key safeguards that Bush’s program intentionally sought to remove.

And at the top of this list was religious discrimination. Obama believes groups that receive public funds can’t discriminate when hiring employees to do the social service work. John McCain, just a week ago, said the exact opposite, insisting that faith-based organizations should get funding and discriminate in hiring with tax-dollars.

So, on this issue, 77% of Americans prefer Obama’s approach, while 16% prefer McCain’s.

Also from The God Machine this week:

* More religious trouble for McCain: “A Catholic group has written to John McCain to ask him to remove Deal Hudson from the Catholics for McCain National Steering Committee because of allegations that, in 1994, Hudson solicited sex from an 18-year-old woman who was a student in one of his classes at Fordham University. ”

* Guns & God: “An Oklahoma church canceled a controversial gun giveaway for teenagers at a weekend youth conference. Windsor Hills Baptist had planned to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle until one of the event’s organizers was unable to attend. The church’s youth pastor, Bob Ross, said it’s a way of trying to encourage young people to attend the event.”

* As if the dispute in South Carolina weren’t enough, now license-plate controversies are spreading to Kentucky: “The official Kentucky state motto is ‘United We Stand, Divided We Fall.’ But that’s not the slogan that Gov. Steve Beshear is proposing for a new alternative license plate. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Beshear will push for legislation next year authorizing a special ‘In God We Trust’ plate for vehicles in the Commonwealth.”

July 19, 2008 at 11:44 am

I don’t care if Obama’s plan tries to safeguard the separation between church and state. It will require oversight to keep the wall of separation unbroken that just isn’t provided for. Social Services were government-provided for many decades and did better than Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” per all the analyses.

Religious groups are already tax exempt. Why don’t they use their own money to “help the poor and downtrodden” rather than requiring taxpayers to fund them? Leave formal Social Services programs to the government.

…Gov. Steve Beshear…

I’m shocked. By now, I’d have thought him to propose an alternative plate that said, “BELIEVE OR DIE!”

Maybe Herbert was being a little devious in his criticism of Obama, indicating that liberals aren’t *always* happy with him.

But that second part of the question is even more striking. The NYT’s Bob Herbert, in a misguided attack on Barack Obama recently, argued that Obama is “promising not just to maintain the Bush program of investing taxpayer dollars in religious-based initiatives, but to expand it.” That’s simply not true — Obama’s policy is premised on key safeguards that Bush’s program intentionally sought to remove.

Gobbledygook. I’ve got two words for you: accounting fiction. All the safeguards in the world for hiring in provision in social services can’t change the fact that the idea that the funds given for social services don’t subsidize religious practice is a complete fiction. It’s not a dollar-for-dollar subsidy, but it’s not that far off.Churches that see social services as part of their mission will provide services with or without government funding, and government funding of church social services thereby frees up church general funds to be used for religious purposes.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. ~Lazarus Long

According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, Beshear will push for legislation next year authorizing a special ‘In God We Trust’ plate for vehicles in the Commonwealth.”

Talk about a photo-op. Just imagine a multi-car pile up with all the vehicles bearing these plates. Ooops.

One of the funnier things about the faith-based initiatives is that the very idea of it undermines longtime conservative dogma. They insist that poor people don’t need government assistance and that if the government stopped helping these people, churches and charities would step into the breach and do a better job at it. Yet…many of these same people insist that we need the government to give religious groups huge gobs of money in order to do the smaller job they’re already doing.

So we’re to imagine that religious charities are actually better at providing for the poor than the government is and the government should just get out of the helping people business, while these groups can’t even provide enough services without government assistance as it is. And btw, the conservatives I’ve talked to about this aren’t just speaking of providing food and shelter, but also imagine that religious charities can solve our healthcare problems too, paying medical bills for poor people and whatnot; all without any government assistance at all. Magical thinking leads to magical ideas.

As someone who actually delivers social services in a secular not for profit agency, I end competing for funds with religious organizations. You might think I’m against funding for these organizations, but I’m not. This is because my highest obligation is to the downtrodden people I serve. Many of these folks are religious. Their faith is a powerful tool that motivates them. Some would not get services they need if it wasn’t for faith based organizations. As long as Obama’s administration provides oversight to prevent hiring discrimination and requires program evaluation to prove results, I am all for funding a variety of organizations. This is hard work. The people who provide direct service to the needy don’t get paid well. They do the work out of a strong desire to help their community. Some times that drive comes from faith. It doesn’t in my case. There is too much need to leave the work to secular agencies alone, and I know of plenty of faith-based organizations who do a wonderful job.

Um. I’ve been flipping through my Bible but I can’t find the part where Jesus takes one bullet and provides semi-autos to the masses.

Do I need to point out that if this were attempted in an area where there was a high minority population Rush Limpbags and pals would explode?

Friday evening, Ross said the gun giveaway had been canceled. Pastor emeritus Jim Vineyard, who ran the event, injured his foot and wouldn’t be able to attend.

[Insert about accidental discharge here.]

I’m not religious or a church-goer, but for a few years I did belong to a UCC church in Montpelier, Vermont and it was always trying to help people in the community. Much of our annual budget was for community services of one kind or the other. This church was not at all unique, as most churches provided similar services and, as far as I know, without proselytizing. I know that the mega churches with hateful and intolerant philosophies get most of the attention, but small churches in small communities very often provide essential services and if governments could work with them, it would be a win-win-win. And I support candidates who understand that.

The ironic side of this is that religious organizations are far better at fundraising than secular organizations to begin with. After all they are much better at asking for money regularly and effectively.

Government should use the “faith based initiative” funds to make their badly needed social services more efficient and more encompassing. The churches can lend a hand as their donations and contributions warrant.

TV preachers worth billions indicate they would have no trouble collecting funds for that purpose without the government’s official help. How about regulating the salary of the CEOs of each religion so their decadence could be funneled into charitable services?

How can the government set about dismantling services like Medicaid for lack of funds and turn around and throw money at churches to offer charitable services. The government system is already in place and extremely effective for millions of poor, disabled and elderly citizens. Pandering for voters defies logic.

BTW…I want to start a new National lottery where the winning number gets to demand the job of one of its states representatives. Should be extremely lucrative with funds going for public campaign finance. In MO. it would be a toss up between McCaskill-=D and Kit Bond-R as they are so similar in voting records (Bond has the longer history of selling out the people)…if only

Obama believes groups that receive public funds can’t discriminate when hiring employees to do the social service work. — CB

Hasn’t there been some court decision (perhaps even Supreme) passed recently, which says such organisations *can* discriminate on religious basis? That would make what Obama (and the majority of the public) might want kind-a moot, no?

Besides… Suppose, for a minute, that one of the more rabid, proselytizing Christian denominations *does* hire a fully veiled Muslim, because the law says it has to. How long would she last, between everyone else preaching at her (or else you burn in hell) and staring at her odd prayer practices? But, if she quit because of a hostile environment, it would no longer be considered discrimination in *hiring* (or even firing) practices.

Nah. Religious charities already get our money — if indirectly — through tax exemptions. They shouldn’t be getting any extra. We shouldn’t just keep a wall between church and state; we should slam an iron curtain between them.

Thank you, scarolina. Many people have the mistaken idea that all churches are wallowing in money and that their ministers live in million-dollar mansions and have their own private planes.

Yet church attendance and memberships nationwide are in decline. Many church employees, pastors included (many of whom have advanced degrees), make far less than they would in the private sector with the education and skills they possess. (And by the way, churches DO pay payroll taxes; they are not truly tax exempt.)

The homeless shelter in my town, that was founded by a retired minister and originally had its home within churches (only during the cold winter months), has expanded to year-round. It is full. There are families with children who live there. Most everyone has a job, but cannot afford a place to live. There is no religious requirement to stay, only that folks are sober, law abiding, and non-violent. Yet budget cuts have forced the elimination of key staff positions (some of the staffers are residents themselves). The shelter itself is threatened with closure. Church members are still pitching in, providing meals and staffing as well. But we need additional funding. This is the type of project that is worthwhile, but you cannot expect church members alone to fund it. Especially when they are providing other services within town: providing meals for the hungry, helping with job training and job searches, housing other programs such as Head Start and services for the elderly.

Church members are more than willing to volunteer their services, but those of you who would deny us additional funds so we can do even more are just being spiteful. Especially when your opinion isn’t based in reality. We Democrats/Progressives are supposed to be reality based, right? Of course there must be oversight and there will always be those who break the rules. But why throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Sasha: not all churches are good about asking for money from their members. And not all members have the means to give. Church members are also ordinary people who have to deal with increased costs for everything, with stagnant wages, with job cuts.

~~~

And the giving guns to kids thing? Utterly irresponsible and appalling. Not what Jesus would do.

joey: who is talking about dismantling Medcaid? It is funded thru payroll taxes.

Agreeing with: #8
I did foster care for both Lutheran Social Services and Woodbury County in Iowa in the 1970’s. Lutherans did a better job of looking after their charges than the county did. I sometimes had a terrible time trying to reach a case worker for a county charge. I never had the least problem contacting a LSS case worker since they visited regularly and did counseling.

If some tax dollars could help a faith-based group that’s doing a good job do that good for some more people, then I’m all for it. Sometimes greasing a wheel is better than trying to re-invent one.

A lot of churches would do social work anyway, but now can get grants for it — thus enabling them to use more of their money to run their religious programs.

I have to agree that assisting those groups that have success in helping with social issues… Lutheran family Services, Salvation Army, Catholic charities, Jewish organizations… is a win-win commitment. They have had the organizations in place for decades. Why would we be dumping the responsibility on to the federal government when the programs are underfunded and social workers end up with 3 times the case loads they should have? There is no way these dedicated people can do the job effectively. Obama is trying to get the results we want and use resourses that are available.

Comments are closed.