EDITORIAL Faith-based plan needs watching
In the days after President Bush
established a new White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives,
the fear of theocracy was thick on the talk shows and the front pages.
It may turn out, however, that the fear was more a flailing at a
perception of what Bush intends than opposition to what actually will be put in
place. For, the only thing clear at press time was that the administration had
released few details beyond an executive order to establish the office and
another order, again lacking in specifics, that government departments work to
eliminate obstacles to funding faith-based groups providing social
services.
In addition, one need only look as far as Catholic Charities,
Catholic Relief Services and Lutheran Services in America to find long-standing
models for how government and religiously affiliated groups have worked well
together to meet a wide range of human need here and abroad.
Still the fear is real, and for good reasons. Bush should be aware
that, noble as his intentions might be, gaining consensus on the proper role of
religion in service of the state could be as difficult as getting the pope and
Bob Jones to agree on Marian doctrine.
Understanding exactly what Bush wants to accomplish is tough to
get at because so few details are available. The proposal has yet to be
fashioned into legislative language, and his aides say that many of the details
dealing with elements that have drawn fire from those concerned about
church-state separation will be ironed out as the plans are refined.
In the meantime, the din over church and state matters may well
have diverted attention from some of the more plausible, if latent, threats in
the latest initiative.
The bottom line of the new initiative will be money. The main
question is whether more money will be available or simply more agencies will
be competing for the same pot. Those religious groups long-established in
delivering social services with federal and state money are concerned that
proposed tax breaks for donors will mean no increase, or even a cut, in funds
for programs.
It may be an appealing notion to some to speak of church groups
delivering faith-based help on every street corner, in competition with
secular agencies. But the potential for trouble is great. In
working out the details, the Bush administration must be certain that agencies
receiving money are staffed by competent professionals. Credentials and
experience in delivering services should rank high among considerations for
those receiving money.
If the criteria for receiving funds are not clear, if the
standards for staff and counselors in those agencies are not set at a high
enough level, the administration is asking for trouble and embarrassment in the
coming years. Accountability and professionalism should not be compromised.
Any plan to expand the activities of religious groups in
delivering social services should contain strict rules against proselytizing as
part of the delivery process. An instructive maxim is cited at Catholic
Charities: We dont do what we do because the people we serve are Catholic
or because we want them to be Catholic, but because we are Catholic.
If the government does not soften the rules and there is no easy
money to be had, the Bush administration may find that a lot of religious
groups weed themselves out of the process. Many fear involvement with
government money because of the rules; others fear lawsuits and still other
small denominations dont want to go through the steps to set up the
separate agencies that the Catholic church and other mainline denominations
have established to handle social services.
The government should not see a new emphasis on church groups and
individual donors as a way out of a commitment to fund growing needs. As Joanne
Negstad, president and CEO of Lutheran Services in America, said of the new
plan: Church and state are separate, but they are bridged by a common
desire to help the countrys most needy. We are encouraged by President
Bushs actions and hope that he intends to do more than wave from his side
of the bridge.
In the same way, Sharon Daly, vice president for social policy at
Catholic Charities USA, emphasizes that the real question is whether
there will be more federal dollars there to help the poor so that they can get
out of dead-end jobs that pay minimum wage. This is the richest country in
human history, she said, yet there are couples making $6 to $8 an hour
and spending 60 percent to 80 percent of their income on rent because of the
lack of affordable housing.
The religious community should be cautious about taking government
money. One of the essential functions of the religious community is to
challenge the government from a faith-based perspective on policies that might
be perpetuating poverty and despair.
Policies on labor, education, welfare reform, job training,
minimum wage, child care, health care and a host of other areas all can have an
effect on whether people stay in poverty or rise above it. The religious
community must be careful that it does not get so focused on keeping the
federal grants rolling in that it becomes hesitant to speak to systemic ills,
challenging policies that make life more miserable for poor people, who have
few other advocates on Capitol Hill.
One of the difficulties in discussing any partnership between
government and religion, though that partnership has existed in various forms
for a long time, is that so much of our religious language has become loaded
with political meaning. Indeed, visions of theocracy do dance in some of the
heads of the most extreme religious right in the Republican Party, and it is no
secret that Bush owes that wing of the party for its dutiful silence and
obedient disappearance during the convention and much of the campaign.
But that wing of the party has also shown itself adept in the past
at stealth activities at the grassroots level. In fact, its success in running
stealth candidates for low-level party offices was a principal
route to power within the party.
So a healthy dose of skepticism is certainly in order as the
details of the plan fall into place.
National Catholic Reporter, February 9,
2001
|