Faith-Based Initiatives

A proposal by President Bush for federal funding of work by religious organizations has stirred no little controversy. Some ask if giving tax dollars to groups that proselytize is not a violation of the concept of separation of church and state? On the other side are groups doing good work that feel they could do more good work if only they had the money. Yet some of these are also skeptical, concerned that the one who runs the soda fountain gets to choose the flavor of the drink. I'd like to consider these positions, as well as pose what I hope is a useful framework for analyzing the president's proposal.

While some are quick to point out that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution, the concept has nonetheless become as basic a concept in judicial interpretation as "innocent until proven guilty." Regular readers of this column are aware that I am a follower of Jesus, and that I believe Judeo-Christian principles are good for society, promoting fairness in law and discouraging destructive behavior. Nonetheless, history teaches that the marriage of a religious groups to a government is an unholy union, encouraging abuse of power on both sides of our "wall of separation." Generally the religious group is corrupted, as the money and the authority become objects in themselves, and the government acquires an unwarranted moral authority that enables it to coerce citizens in implementing bad programs. Religious freedom disappears as moral precepts become a matter, not of the conscience but of the rule of law. The Constitution sets forth a right of free exercise of religion. That means any religion.

Rolling in bucks

A small church in Georgia, considering how to handle an unexpected $60 million bequest, recently decided to give away more than 95% of the money, retaining only enough to endow a fund to replace the $100,000 annual contribution the deceased had given the church each year while he was alive. Their decision was wise. In business and in government, a surplus of funds leads to burgeoning bureaucracy, inefficiency, and a loss of mission. Similarly, religious organizations that are chronically short of funds are forced to use efficiently the little they have. Being lean and hungry tends to keep the focus on the vision.

Some religious leaders are concerned that receiving government mammon means bureaucrats control how the funds are used. Their concern is well-placed. One prerogative of the provider of largesse is to determine how its generosity is employed. A humorous restatement of the Golden Rule says, "He who has the gold makes the rule."

A sensible approach

What is President Bush trying to accomplish here? The problems of poverty, crime, failing schools, and family breakdown are all ultimately spiritual in nature. Therefore, government programs are largely ineffective in addressing these issues. Recognizing this fact, the Bush administration wants to combine the resources of government with the spiritual resources of faith-based groups. In theory, the idea has merit, but in practice it fails, as we have discussed. Is there a way to make the idea workable?

Past experience has shown that less government involvement means greater efficiency, and often greater effectiveness. We still complain about airline service, but the fact is, air travel is far more affordable today than it was during the 1970s, before deregulation. In the current topic, much of the discussion has centered on government becoming involved in religious activity. We need to refocus on how government can efficiently and effectively accomplish in the social arena what we as a society have decided are worthy goals for government. For example, who can keep a straight face while claiming that the various federal and state programs that provide for the poor are well-oiled machines that make good use of the funds they spend?

Last fall, California voters agreed to allow the State to seek outside bids for engineering projects. The State will no longer be restricted to using its own employees for what may be done better on the outside. Similarly, federal and state legislatures should also be allowed freedom in administering welfare programs, evaluating bids from faith groups to run social programs. Moreover, just as Planned Parenthood offers abortions along with the other services government pays them to provide, faith groups should be allowed to offer spiritual counseling as they administer government contracts, but they should not provide such counseling while in the public employ, nor should counseling ever be a prerequisite for a client to receive public services.

Religious organizations are a national treasure. Americans support them generously, with a heart to share the abundance that we as a nation have received. The idea of asking faith-based groups to do more of what they are already doing is laudable, but in implementing any partnership with public agencies, we must be careful to protect the interests of government, of clients, and of the religious groups themselves.

President Bush, faith-based, faith, organizations, religious, government, separation of church and state life and death, Jesus, church, Christian, Bible, bccddde, cddeeef President Bush, faith-based, faith, organizations, religious, government, separation of church and state life and death, Jesus, church, Christian, Bible, bccddde, cddeeef President Bush, faith-based, faith, organizations, religious, government, separation of church and state life and death, Jesus, church, Christian, Bible, bccddde, cddeeef President Bush, faith-based, faith, organizations, religious, government, separation of church and state life and death, Jesus, church, Christian, Bible, bccddde, cddeeef