The nonprofit organizations that make up the faith-based initiative took in 10.6 billion dollars during the Bush administration. An article in the Washington Post, Faith-Based Office To Expand Its Reach, records Obama’s plan for the growth of the faith based offices. The change will include allowing for the faith based group’s input in policy decisions, a power not given to them in the Bush administration. The focus of this group has shifted into interfaith relations, strengthening the family, and reducing the number of abortions while pushing civil rights issues to “later times”. There seems to be a broad issue that arises with an expanded faith based office; the line between church and state.
The article states that currently faith-based groups can receive funding to hire members of their own faith but the Obama administration says that these issues will be reviewed on a case by case basis as problems arise. These groups are part of the faith-based team collected together in order to help social welfare programs funded by the government. One the one hand, someone might claim that by allowing this discrimination in hiring that is connected to the government is unconstitutional based on laws against discrimination in the workplace. Also, to allow it would be blurring the line between church and state. But I think that if the government is going to bring faith-based organizations into the government, then the leaders of these religious groups should be allowed to hire those who hold the same beliefs as themselves. To require a religious organization to hire people of different faiths would be an insult to the beliefs held by the organization and the people it represents. For organizations that hold such strong principles such as religious ones, asking them to overlook what they see to be fundamental truths and requirements is offensive to what they believe. By this forced hiring you are trying to take the religion out of religious groups and therefore out of the government which cannot be done; you cannot deny that religious organizations are religious and therefore it is obvious that religion is undeniably intermingled with the government for as long of this faith-based initiative is in effect. The claim by the religious is that the government is not able to tell people they cannot share their faith with others (claiming freedom of expression and religion) and that sharing their religious teachings could help the organizations reduce poverty and the number addicted to drugs.
The truth is this: the government is contributing money that eventually leads to the advancement of religion. The only question is, is it acceptable? I think that the good done by the faith based nonprofits through the faith-based initiative outweighs the potential harm regarding the separation of church and state. The court case, Zelman v Simmons-Harris, upholds my stance. The court allowed for the giving of school vouchers to students in poor performing schools to attend private religious schools. That decision was made because the law itself was meant to help the children receive a better education, a secular purpose even though government money was eventually going to the instruction of religious principles. The faith-based initiative program is meant to help the poor and underprivileged in society even though it also leads to religious instruction. It is completing its secular purpose and should therefore be allowed to stay.
If there are people who do not want the government paying for the exclusive hiring of these organizations or the advancement effects of the monetary support, making them hire people of diverse believes is not the answer. If it is an issue, the only real solution would be to not have these faith-based offices at all. Either let them stay as they are, keeping the principles they have intact, or eliminate them, there is no halfway option.
Obama claims that his decision to expand the offices will not “blur” the line between church and state, and it obvious that even the very existence of the organization has done that.
Posts
1 comment:
I find Obama's choice for the expansion of this program interesting. It is a definite commitment on his part to provide help to those who need it. Ideally, the government would function such that faith-based welfare groups become unnecessary, but clearly, this is not the current situation. For this reason, we should move towards making the faith-based program unnecessary.
The article brings up how some groups contest that Obama's support of this program breaches the wall dividing church and state. However, I think these faith-based groups should be viewed as a means to an end. Yes, they include direct involvement of religious figures and teachings, but they also do what the government can't, or doesn't have enough funds for: feed and shelter the homeless, and provide resources and a welcoming atmosphere for those who need it most. Perhaps some day, the government will be so efficient and successful that they will not need to outsource these tasks to faith-based organizations. Until then, though, these groups fill that void left by the government's current inability, and I feel that instead of complaining about the separation of church and state, we should applaud them for making our society a better place.
However, this does not mean the organizations should be free use the federal funds as they please. I also agree with Obama's new plan, which calls for policing of the organizations as it becomes necessary. This way, the bureaucratic process does not become necessary until an organization makes a mistake, and is completely unnecessary for those that do not do so.
Additionally, I find it interesting that Richard Stearns, the president of World Vision, was selected as a member of the advisory council, and fully support this selection. Other members of the council have more evangelical ties, and while I am unsure of the religious background of Stearns, I have worked with and for World Vision programs, including the 30 Hour Famine and Child Adoption programs. Having reviewed the organization, I feel it has an excellent understanding of the need that the faith-based organizations can fill in our country at this time.
Now one question remains: Will it actually work?
Post a Comment