John Whitehead's Commentary
Bush's Faith-Based Initiative Will Help Serve the Real Needs of People
The faith-based initiative, which started out as one of the pillars of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservative" agenda, has run into stormy waters. Bush's administration proposed the initiative as a way to allow religious charities to assist in providing services--to the poor, addicted, disadvantaged--traditionally offered by government agencies.
Unfortunately for the people most affected by the debate--those whose real needs could be served by faith-based charities infused with more resources--the Bush team, because of outside criticism, may be forced to delay introduction of its program to expand the funding of faith-based charities.
From the beginning, architects of the plan expected liberals to complain that it violates the First Amendment establishment clause--the provision mandating the separation of church and state. The criticism, however, came from some surprising and unexpected sources.
Religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Southern Baptist leader Richard Land have warned their followers about the downsides of faith-based charities accepting federal monies. For example, one point of contention has been the fact that government funds could be distributed to religions that certain religious leaders don't believe are deserving. Jerry Falwell has specifically targeted Muslim groups for exclusion, arguing that it is a bigoted and intolerant sect.
The irony of this criticism is that Falwell and other religious leaders in his camp are the ones who for years have been arguing that religion deserves a place at the table in matters of public policy. Critics on the left argued that such participation was simply the first step toward a theocracy, a nation run by a Christian majority on purely Christian mores. These Christian leaders have always protested against this characterization. But their actions in the faith-based charities debate seem to say otherwise. Indeed, they appear to be arguing that religion deserves a place at the table--but those places should be reserved for Judeo-Christian religions only.
To listen to the recent public outcry from political and religious leaders, one might think that faith-based programs were a new idea. In fact, they've been operating for several years in a number of valuable and necessary ways in states all across the country. For example, in Illinois, the Department of Human Services has partnered with local religious groups to help move families from welfare to work. An Indiana program enlists the religious community to offer individual attention to unmarried teen mothers and their families in an effort to end their dependence on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). In Texas, one religious missions organization received a grant to provide TANF clients and other low-income families with child-care referrals, vouchers for auto repair and fuel, vouchers for GED test registration, personal counseling and referrals to parent/life skills classes. And in Pennsylvania, a church is working with the state to offer welfare recipients classes in computer, math, literacy, life skills and job placement.
When it comes right down to it, what are the faith-based initiatives other than a modern-day take on the Good Samaritan principle with some assistance from the government thrown in? A strong argument can be made that simply supplying federal funds to faith-based charities for humanitarian ends--ends that are secular in nature--does not violate any church-state concerns under our Constitution. But if the government should actually discriminate among faith-based charities by refusing to fund certain religions' charitable efforts, it would be a textbook violation of the First Amendment. Such a practice would violate the establishment clause, since in essence the government would be favoring "established" religious groups' charities. It would also violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment, since the government would be discriminating against a group based solely on its religious viewpoint.
There are legitimate concerns about funding faith-based charities. The government probably shouldn't be funding efforts that are primarily about proselytizing (although this line may be so gray that it would be impossible to define it). It shouldn't screen out charities that hire based on religious criteria. And it shouldn't fund charities as a first step toward regulating them.
Yet the fact that some non-Judeo-Christian religions will receive funding is not a legitimate concern. Someone once complained to James Madison that a religious liberty initiative he supported would allow "Jews and Turks" to hold office. If the father of our Constitution could endorse such religious pluralism, I would hope that today's conservative religious leaders could follow his example.
But these philosophical red herrings are not just bad for the Constitution--they also obscure the real human need at the core of the proposal. The truth is that there are many people in this country who have been left out of the economic boom times, people who need help accessing the fundamental necessities of life.
President Bush's program isn't about the government funding religion. Instead, it's a realization that the government cannot solve all the human needs in our society. In actuality, it's about the government facilitating millions of religiously motivated Americans who believe it is their duty to serve those who are less fortunate.
Further, no one is forcing those in need to get assistance from faith-based charities. This absence of coercion is a key point of rebuttal to the establishment clause criticisms raised by those on the political left. Rather than forcing needy citizens to utilize religious charities, the government is recognizing that many of those same needy citizens already choose religious charities--and their needs would be better served with some help from Uncle Sam.
The truth is that anytime people find themselves under fire from both the liberal left and the conservative right, it means that the proposal is probably right on target. And so it is with President Bush's plan to fund the humanitarian activities of faith-based charities. The faith-based initiative does not violate the Constitution. Rather, it recognizes the equality of all religious groups, regardless of their Judeo-Christian heritage. And most importantly, it will help serve the real needs of real people.
WC: 988
Unfortunately for the people most affected by the debate--those whose real needs could be served by faith-based charities infused with more resources--the Bush team, because of outside criticism, may be forced to delay introduction of its program to expand the funding of faith-based charities.
From the beginning, architects of the plan expected liberals to complain that it violates the First Amendment establishment clause--the provision mandating the separation of church and state. The criticism, however, came from some surprising and unexpected sources.
Religious conservatives such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Southern Baptist leader Richard Land have warned their followers about the downsides of faith-based charities accepting federal monies. For example, one point of contention has been the fact that government funds could be distributed to religions that certain religious leaders don't believe are deserving. Jerry Falwell has specifically targeted Muslim groups for exclusion, arguing that it is a bigoted and intolerant sect.
The irony of this criticism is that Falwell and other religious leaders in his camp are the ones who for years have been arguing that religion deserves a place at the table in matters of public policy. Critics on the left argued that such participation was simply the first step toward a theocracy, a nation run by a Christian majority on purely Christian mores. These Christian leaders have always protested against this characterization. But their actions in the faith-based charities debate seem to say otherwise. Indeed, they appear to be arguing that religion deserves a place at the table--but those places should be reserved for Judeo-Christian religions only.
To listen to the recent public outcry from political and religious leaders, one might think that faith-based programs were a new idea. In fact, they've been operating for several years in a number of valuable and necessary ways in states all across the country. For example, in Illinois, the Department of Human Services has partnered with local religious groups to help move families from welfare to work. An Indiana program enlists the religious community to offer individual attention to unmarried teen mothers and their families in an effort to end their dependence on TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). In Texas, one religious missions organization received a grant to provide TANF clients and other low-income families with child-care referrals, vouchers for auto repair and fuel, vouchers for GED test registration, personal counseling and referrals to parent/life skills classes. And in Pennsylvania, a church is working with the state to offer welfare recipients classes in computer, math, literacy, life skills and job placement.
When it comes right down to it, what are the faith-based initiatives other than a modern-day take on the Good Samaritan principle with some assistance from the government thrown in? A strong argument can be made that simply supplying federal funds to faith-based charities for humanitarian ends--ends that are secular in nature--does not violate any church-state concerns under our Constitution. But if the government should actually discriminate among faith-based charities by refusing to fund certain religions' charitable efforts, it would be a textbook violation of the First Amendment. Such a practice would violate the establishment clause, since in essence the government would be favoring "established" religious groups' charities. It would also violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment, since the government would be discriminating against a group based solely on its religious viewpoint.
There are legitimate concerns about funding faith-based charities. The government probably shouldn't be funding efforts that are primarily about proselytizing (although this line may be so gray that it would be impossible to define it). It shouldn't screen out charities that hire based on religious criteria. And it shouldn't fund charities as a first step toward regulating them.
Yet the fact that some non-Judeo-Christian religions will receive funding is not a legitimate concern. Someone once complained to James Madison that a religious liberty initiative he supported would allow "Jews and Turks" to hold office. If the father of our Constitution could endorse such religious pluralism, I would hope that today's conservative religious leaders could follow his example.
But these philosophical red herrings are not just bad for the Constitution--they also obscure the real human need at the core of the proposal. The truth is that there are many people in this country who have been left out of the economic boom times, people who need help accessing the fundamental necessities of life.
President Bush's program isn't about the government funding religion. Instead, it's a realization that the government cannot solve all the human needs in our society. In actuality, it's about the government facilitating millions of religiously motivated Americans who believe it is their duty to serve those who are less fortunate.
Further, no one is forcing those in need to get assistance from faith-based charities. This absence of coercion is a key point of rebuttal to the establishment clause criticisms raised by those on the political left. Rather than forcing needy citizens to utilize religious charities, the government is recognizing that many of those same needy citizens already choose religious charities--and their needs would be better served with some help from Uncle Sam.
The truth is that anytime people find themselves under fire from both the liberal left and the conservative right, it means that the proposal is probably right on target. And so it is with President Bush's plan to fund the humanitarian activities of faith-based charities. The faith-based initiative does not violate the Constitution. Rather, it recognizes the equality of all religious groups, regardless of their Judeo-Christian heritage. And most importantly, it will help serve the real needs of real people.
WC: 988
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
