 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Wednesday, January 31, 2001
Regarding President Bush's initiative to funnel billions of public dollars into faith-based social service programs, here's the public policy dilemma of the week:
If the Branch Davidians want to open, say, a family reunification agency in Waco, Texas, will the federal government fund it?
And if the government says "no" to the Branch Davidians but "yes" to the Southern Baptists who are proposing to do the same thing, is that religious favoritism, discrimination or an invitation to litigation?
Say a fundamentalist church wants to open a shelter for battered wives. It will feed, clothe and protect its clients -- but also share the pastor's conviction, based on his interpretation of the Bible, that the more women submit to their husbands, the more peaceful and happy their homes will be. Is that something most folks can see their tax dollars supporting?
How about a Jerry Falwell counseling center for gays and lesbians based on the notion of "reparative therapy" that purports to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals through faith in Jesus? Or a drug and alcohol treatment center run by the Church of Scientology, where addicts not only receive standard therapy but also are encouraged to study the writings of L. Ron Hubbard?
Before dismissing these as extreme scenarios of the sort that hysterics wave about in order to scare people away from new ideas, consider this: Government funding for faith-based social services is not a new idea. It's been going on for years, reaching millions of needy people all across the nation.
But that funding has come with certain rules. You had to serve everyone on a nonsectarian basis; you had to eschew proselytizing; you had to follow nondiscriminatory hiring practices that don't otherwise apply to religious institutions.
The faith-based component of these programs did not lie in preaching, but in the motivation of the program's sponsors, who work to improve the world because they believe that's what God calls them to do.
"We do follow Catholic social teaching, but we have not had a major conflict between what we profess and the receipt of federal dollars," said Pat Cairns, executive director of Catholic Charities.
"For us, if you're talking about proselytizing, it's through example rather than word," said Fred Just of the Mount Nazareth Center. "It's indirect."
So what's different about the core of President Bush's new push? Clearly, he intends for something else to happen with federal money than has been happening already.
Is it the insertion of religious content into the programming that makes the difference? The initiative's supporters say no -- but that's a little hard to buy, because faith in the power of God to change the human heart is, in fact, at the core of some of the programs Bush touted in Texas.
That's what made them different (and what brought the lawsuits against them). So it stands to reason that that's what the Bush administration wants to promote more of through this initiative. Denying that seems a bit disingenuous.
Furthermore, this plan will allow religious organizations receiving public funds to hire only those people who share their beliefs -- after all, an atheist couldn't very well make a case for the healing power of Jesus. So if the government chooses to fund a Baptist program that hires only Baptists with public money instead of a Muslim program that hires only Muslims, is that not favoring one religion over another?
Bush didn't address any of these questions in his remarks, and it will be interesting to see how they will play out. But one thing he said really jumped out at me.
"When we see social needs in America, my administration will look first at faith-based programs and community groups, which have proven their power to save and change lives," he said Monday.
That word "first" is a telling one. Why, for example, would the government look "first" at, say a church-run adoption agency when there are many other non-religious programs already doing excellent work? I can think of only one reason, and that is the incorporation of religion as a component of the adoption process.
Maybe there's another reason I haven't thought of yet. I sure hope so, because I'd much rather see my tax dollars placing children in permanent homes than defending a barrage of religious discrimination lawsuits.
Sally Kalson's e-mail is: skalson@post-gazette.com