The White House Council for Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (WHCFBNP) [formerly known as the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives] was established by former President George W. Bush in early 2001, and (it is predicted that) it will now be headed by Joshua Dubois, a 26 year old pastor who worked closely with President Obama during his campaign and the presidential transition. Dubois’s duties have included religious voter outreach as well as conducting religious/charity research regarding legal precedents put into place by the previous administration.
Despite the rhetoric, I am still having trouble getting past the fact that this office exists in the first place. Does an office like this one have a place in the White House?
The first two leaders of the Council (then the WHOFBCI) resigned and have both come forward and criticized the Bush administration and the council for its use of the committee. Reportedly, the office was never given enough funds to be successful in its mission but was rather used to mobilize religious voters for whatever was necessary, a truth that was masked to the media and the public “in part because so much of the debate [concerning the council] centered on issues of separation of church and state” (Larsen, MSNBC). Irony at its best.
As the New York Times states, Dubois was involved in Obama’s campaign so that he could “convene house parties and religious voters across the country to present Mr. Obama as a man motivated by his faith.” Ultimately, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, there is no denying this is done because it is what is necessary to sway religious voters.
Therefore, even under new guidance, is it feasible to reform a council that was created for the wrong reasons and has consistently failed to live up to its original ideals? Since every action sends a political message I think it is unrealistic to think that this council could be terminated, even though it appears that this is the necessary action. Even if it is under the proper leadership, it seems inevitable that the WHCFBNP will continue to be used for political rather than humanitarian purposes. Is it really possible for this council to succeed AND avoid manipulation by everyone around it?
Also cited: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Though I do in principle agree that an organization like WHCFBNP goes too far and in ways violates the principle of separation between church and state, I feel that the changes that Obama is making in its mission and leadership are a positive move towards making the Council a less controversial organization. For instance, by coming back on president Bush’s decision to fund even those charities that practice religious discrimination in their hiring policies, the new president has made the WHCFBNP more acceptable.
I for one feel that if a charitable organization (like some of the religious charities funded by the WHCFBNP) is able to fulfill its mission better than its secular counterparts without letting its religious background interfere with its prime goal, which must be humanitarian action, then it must be encouraged by the government for the job it does, regardless of motives.
And from what I have read about the work of the committee under Bush, including an article by one of its directors, a democrat, this organization, whatever its political motives and the controversy that surrounds its very existence from a point of view of church and state separation, has done just that: a good job at actually helping people. As for David Kuo’s book that suggests that this office was all a machination to help with the Republican Party’s campaign to rally religious voters, it seems to me to be quite an untrustworthy source. It would not be the first or last time that a disgruntled ex-aide who probably got fired from his job made a desperate attempt to spark a controversy to sell a book.
And even though I personally feel George Bush was a lousy president, (that’s probably an understatement of what I feel) I don’t buy this theory that the White House created the office never giving it the funds to run properly, and only using those funds for political reasons. Maybe there were some political motives behind the creation of this office, but whatever those were, this should not divert us from the real debate: does or does not the existence of this office (even with the changes brought in by Obama) violate the principle of separation between church and state?
Post a Comment