Clinton called this practice “charitable choice” , so I have to hand it to him as far as messaging. “Faith-based initiatives” is a little clunky.
President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to “rally the armies of compassion,” establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
But an analysis by POLITICO found that at least $140 million in stimulus money has gone to faith-based groups, the result of an unpublicized White House decision to spend government money, where legal, supporting religiously inspired nonprofit groups. And that decision was just the beginning.
Unlike Obama, Bush, Clinton and Gore, I’m not comfortable with faith-based initiative funding. I thought it was barely acceptable when religious had to create a secular non-profit to get federal grants, and keep the two entities wholly separate, and they no longer have to to do that. I like a wall.
I have a whole laundry list of objections, everything from concerns about preferential treatment being given to the “popular” religions, to honest confusion about why it was such a huge outrage that ACORN, a secular social services and civil rights organization was (partly) federally funded, with no mention of the fact that we pour hundreds of millions into Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, and all the rest. I don’t know why people who object to Big Government aren’t secretly filming those low-level workers. I don’t see a bit of difference between ACORN and a religious organization that operates with federal funds. Makes me wonder.
Those are my concerns. But, are there objections or concerns about this the other way, from religious? Any fear that religious (or religion) might be captured and lose the traditional role as independent from government if they’re lining up with every other lobbyist for grants and funding?
Maybe this is a poor comparison but I’m sometimes paid by the county to defend an individual who is being prosecuted by the county, and I don’t feel I’m compromised or captured there, so I’m willing to accept that it’s not a concern, that religious can retain independence (or even opposition to federal policy) while relying on federal funding.
I’m asking.
balconesfault
Great comparison between Acorn and churches, particularly given that many Christian Conservative denominations are engaged in partisan politics to an extent that would have drawn indictments for Acorn management.
scarshapedstar
Catholic Church: thousands of employees molest children and are protected by mafia-style intimidation and a Pedophile Relocation Program, formerly orchestrated by the Pope himself.
Funding: allowed.
ACORN: half a dozen employees harmed no one but were tricked into saying things calculated to made them look silly after dubbing over and splicing the video tape, and many proceeded to call the police after finally getting rid of Wingnut Ali G.
Funding: denied.
Yutsano
If you take the idea that religious groups have to line up in the queue just like any other institution and lobby for their funding, then I have no objection to that. They don’t just show up and get a check just because they have a faith behind their name, they have to prove they’re worth funding. Just because an organization is run by a religion doesn’t mean the work that they do isn’t worth funding. The caution I think you and I both share is when groups, in the course of their work, also take the time to proselytize to those they are assisting. It’s a horrible position to put the assisstee in: saying no to the hand that is getting you through a hard time. That to me i sa terrible abuse of power. So for me it’s a trust but verify situation there. You get the money, but none of it goes towards advancing your faith. And if you get caught, you lose it. At least that’s how I would get around that discomfort.
kay
@Yutsano:
Exactly. They’re vulnerable, right, their clients?
I see the practicality argument (what Clinton relied on) and I see the “level playing field” argument (Obama); the religious agencies are up and running on the ground, and they can’t be denied funding, or it’s not a level playing field, but I have to say, it worries me. A lot. I don’t want a state religion. How am I protected there?
Yutsano
@kay: The only real way of making sure federal secular dollars are properly used by religious agencies for only doing their works and nothing else is to regulate the fuck out of them. Give them a strict no-nonsense set of rules and enforce it to the teeth. There really is no other way of guaranteeing the interests of the vulnerable in these situations without that. And if you don’t like the regulations, go to your congregations or private funders.
joe from Lowell
Yes, you do. You stated it quite clearly: you’re ok with federal funding going to groups with a secular set of beliefs, and not with federal funding going to groups with religious beliefs.
I think that a soup kitchen is a soup kitchen is a soup kitchen, as long as the money is spend on the approved mission.
I don’t want any groups to be given funding because of their religious beliefs or identity. I don’t want any groups denied funding because of their religious beliefs or identity, either. I want them treated just like everyone else.
Bobby Thomson
The problem isn’t government capture of religion. As if. Religious capture of government, on the other hand, is entrenched.
The problem is that the most vulnerable are subject to religious litmus tests, which, while illegal when the religion gets state money, are pretty damn hard to enforce against.
scarshapedstar
@joe from Lowell:
You can’t have mandatory prayer in a school that is funded by the government.
You can have mandatory prayer in a faith-based soup kitchen that is funded by the government.
Discuss.
kay
@joe from Lowell:
I’m wondering why ACORN wasn’t given the same deference that religious groups are given. I think that’s an indication of preferential treatment. One indication, granted, but there it is. If a federally-funded religious org had been given the ACORN treatment, do you think there would be political ramifications for that? I do.
Shane in Utah
What’s with using “religious” as a noun?
And to Joe from Lowell:
Well, no, it’s not. A soup kitchen where recipients of the soup are pressured to attend Bible study, and pray with the organizers, and accept Baptism and communion, has no business receiving taxpayer dollars. Period.
Bobby Thomson
@scarshapedstar:
Is this an empirical claim or a normative one for discussion?
“You” “can” have mandatory prayer in a state-run school if you’re willing to break the law. I don’t think it’s legal in the soup kitchen example, either.
Nor should it be.
But I don’t think that was Joe’s point.
jacy
@joe from Lowell:
I agree totally in principle. The problem I see occurring is that religious groups are not treated like any other group. They often get a pass on bad behavior under the umbrella of religion. The problem in America is that if you’re one the “good” religions, you immediately get a bubble placed around you to protect from what some “Christians” see as religious persecution. Gay rights is the brightest example. You can’t call someone who is a bigot a bigot because they claim their bigotry is a protected religious belief.
If religious groups are held to as strict a standard as secular groups, fine. But there numerous examples where that doesn’t happen. And if they were actually held to these standards, I imagine some religious groups would opt out of the federal funding.
MattR
@joe from Lowell: You seem to have missed the context that Kay made that statement in. She was commenting about the freakout by the right that ACORN was receiving federal money to do good things for the poor while there is silence about religious groups receiving that same money.
Kay – I think the difference is that the right will allow helping the poor if it will also help them come to Jesus. There is probably also a racial component, but I do think that if ACORN had been promoting Christianity in addition to its other services then the freakout would have been much less.
ornery curmudgeon
I don’t understand why we must revisit things like this, which are basic what-it-means-to-be American issues. The arguments and facts haven’t changed, only labels and the people behind them are different.
The reason for the separation of Church and State is so we don’t become Saudi Arabia. That we have to scratch our heads and puzzle out whether handing our tax-payer dollars to a proselytizing, NON-tax paying organization is just an indication of how lost we’re becoming.
Churches don’t pay taxes, yet enjoy the benefits of civil society … and they don’t have to report how they get their money. (Perfect laundering centers?) They get a huge advantage over the rest of us already and are not responsible to government. NO THEY SHOULD NOT GET FEDERAL FUNDING.
Religions cannot be in politics, because of the trump card they have with too many (which they always come to use) … vote the way we say because it is God’s will, and you don’t want to be damned for eternity, I betcha, too, also.
As we’ve already seen, religions are eager to take government money and use it to attack the government. No matter how wonderful the doctrine and some of the members are, the top Pharisees are interested in power, not caring for the poor.
kdaug
To me it’s the same issue as tax-exemption for churches. They’re not “allowed” to advocate for political candidates from the pulpit in exchange for their exemption, but who the fuck do we think we’re kidding?
IMHO, the wall between church and state should be 1000 feet thick, made of adamantium, and reach into the ionosphere.
Nothing, either in the tax code or in grants, should be given to any religious enterprise whatsoever. The word “church” should be found nowhere in our laws. “No religious test” means exactly that, both ways.
But I’m just an old curmudgeon, I guess.
kay
@MattR:
Because there are a lot of Christians, and politicians generally tread carefully around religious groups?
With the exception of conservative politicians attacking Muslims, of course.
Suck It Up!
If they can help the poor I’m all for it. From what I’ve seen in the past couple of years, this might be the easiest way to get Congress to approve money for poor people.
As for proselytizing? I could be wrong, but I would think that most of the people that approach church groups for charity are already religious themselves.
MattR
@kay:
I would rephrase it to say that politicians generally tread carefully around Christian religious groups. Jews are second on the list only because of the Holocaust and the role of Israel in the end times prophecies of the Bible. All other religions are tolerated at best if they stay out of the spotlight (or outright attacked as you point out about Islam)
Maude
I don’t like faith based anything.
The faith based programs that get federal funding have to follow federal laws. It would be good to find out if they are following those laws.
licensed to kill time
@Shane in Utah:
I like it, it’s all-inclusive. A kind of kay shorthand.
kay
@MattR:
Okay. If you were Bush, Clinton, Gore or Obama, would you be thrilled to launch some sort of inquiry/audit into a religious org?
Or would you be a little worried about the political ramifications of that? I think they’d pass that off so fast our heads would spin. It’s littered with political minefields.
Beauzeaux
No tax money to religious outfits. None. Not a penny.
The tax-exempt status of churches is offensive enough.
joe from Lowell
@scarshapedstar:
No, you can’t – not for the people eating at the soup kitchen. That has been held to be unconstitutional.
Chuck Butcher
I think that government is pure poison for religion – and I say that as one who is not in the least religious. You will get religion in government as long as you elect people who are religious, keeping it from being codified is the problem. In the opposite direction, government in religion, the problem gets a hell of a lot more complicated and subtle. Money cannot be distributed without an influence attached, direct or indirect. You could write entire books about it and I’m not gonna.
MattR
@kay:
Depends on the religion. If it is a Christian group, the violations would have to be super egregious to result in an investigation. If it is a Jewish group, the violation would have to be egregious. For pretty much any other religion I don’t think there would be any political ramifications (the exception being that the Right would cheer any President who investigated Muslim groups for any reason – real or imagined)
Chup
No funding for religious groups and no tax exemptions for them either.
After all, if they are truly following their religion, (especially “conservative” Christians) they wouldn’t want anything to do with the gummint. It’s amazing how quickly they change their tune when their wallets might have to be pried open to maintain their megachurchs.
Chup
No funding for religious groups and no tax exemptions for them either.
After all, if they are truly following their religion, (especially “conservative” Christians) they wouldn’t want anything to do with the gummint. It’s amazing how quickly they change their tune when their wallets might have to be pried open to maintain their megachurches.
joe from Lowell
@jacy:
How’s Jim Baker’s church doing these days? How about Jimmy Swaggart’s?
Are you claiming that a secular organization that denounced gay people would get in trouble for it, and have its federal funding taken away? Example, please.
joe from Lowell
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton sure have been protected from criticism because of their avowedly-Christian identities, amirite?
stuckinred
@joe from Lowell: Protected from criticism by who? You’re kidding right?
joe from Lowell
@kay:
If you replace “religious” in the first ‘graph with “civil rights” or “minority,” you get a statement that you could hear on Limbaugh’s show.
Nobody can criticize anything a black group does, because of the minefields! And that isn’t true, either.
joe from Lowell
@stuckinred:
Of course I’m kidding. That’s the point. A number of commenters ,and the writer, are asserting that nobody would dare go after an organization with a Christian identity, and that idea is just silly.
“Amirite” is something people put after a statement to indicate sarcasm.
Mike G
Black blackity blackblack seckritMooslinTerrists.
Bush’s stooges openly bragged about steering all the “faith-based” funds to right-wing Xtian evangelical groups and denying all applications from Muslims, Buddhists, etc., the same crony-driven corrupt sleaziness they brought to every department of the federal government.
KCinDC
Religious institutions should get tax exemptions the same way nonreligious nonprofits do. Separation of church and state means the government shouldn’t discriminate against religion any more than it should discriminate in favor of it. That means religious institutions should not get tax exemptions if they engage in activities that are not allowed for similar nonreligious nonprofits, such as supporting candidates.
Mnemosyne
@ornery curmudgeon:
To me, that seems to be the problem — giving religious charities government grants frees money up for them to go into politics. Money that the church would have used to fund Catholic Charities instead goes to the Council of Catholic Bishops so they can try to block healthcare reform.
scarshapedstar
@Suck It Up!:
From my experience, most of the people who walk into a homeless shelter are mentally ill. Some of them are quite fervent in their beliefs; I know one guy (“Father John”) who claims to be a priest, as well as the former dictator of a banana republic, among other things.
Incidentally, I guess that might be what bugs me the most. The one-two punch of Reagan tossing all the crazy people onto the street, and a series of Presidents deciding that churches should be the general-welfare-promoter of last resort. As if there wasn’t enough evidence that mental illness and the supernatural do not mix.
LunarMovements
@Shane in Utah: I wanted to make an objection to the repeated use of ‘religious’ as a noun instead of an adjective. But I’m a bit shy about that kind of thing. Thanks for doing it for me. :-D
Three-nineteen
@joe from Lowell: I’m pretty sure the Bakkers were brought down by the whole Jessica Hahn thing, not anything the government did.
Three-nineteen
And a Wikipedia refresher tells me Swaggart was also plagued by sex scandals. Oh, and his ministry is apparently doing very well, thanks:
scarshapedstar
@LunarMovements:
Do you object to phrases like “youth is wasted on the young” or “kill the poor”? ;)
For the record, though, it ought to be “the religious”.
HRA
I think what is forgotten in this debate happens to be the “boot on the ground” so to speak. If some of my money goes to feeding the needy, I am all for it. It sure beats my money going to build up Iraq and Afghanistan.
scarshapedstar
@LunarMovements:
I do, however, strenuously object to “September THE Eleventh, Two Thousand AND One”.
(Watch till the end. And if you never saw these, the two sequels are 10 times better.)
scarshapedstar
Sweet, double-ply link protection!
jacy
@joe from Lowell:
The Catholic church seems to be chugging right along. I’m not talking about illegal behavior, i.e. embezzling or malfeasance or untoward behavior by a front man. I’m talking about groups who receive federal funds being able to use a religious litmus test in helping others.
I’m not Catholic, but my husband is, and my kids go to Catholic School. He and his family are active in Catholic charities If you don’t think Catholic and other religious charities turn people away or try and coerce their behavior in a heavy-handed way, I’ve got some ocean front property in Wyoming you might be interested in.
I’m not saying all religious charities are bad, there are some great ones, but I don’t trust the government to be in the business of funding them.
Church Lady
@Three-nineteen: Jim Baker didn’t go to jail because he was banging Jessica Hahn.
Zuzu's Petals
@Chup:
Well, as their tax exemptions are generally the same, and subject to the same rules, as those given to all nonprofit groups, upon what basis would you exclude them?
adamchaz
The problem is most people in American will not agree to help someone unless they have something in common, being American isn’t enough. You need to be the same race, same religion, same sexual orientation, same economic background, same something.
So the traditional way people organize themselves is by religion.
scarshapedstar
@Zuzu’s Petals:
On the basis that religious organizations are not required to file annually with the IRS to prove that they are not, in fact, profiting from their activities. The expectation that faith-based organizations follow tax laws is, quite frankly, faith-based.
And all they have to do is state that they believe (which cannot be proven) in some kind of supernatural power (which need not exist).
Thus, the spectacle of the Church of Scientology selling a pair of tin cans for $50,000 and claiming not only that they’re not profiting from the transaction, but that their follower is making a charitable contribution.
Shame we can’t look at their books to see who actually sells the tin cans, where the money goes, etc. Unlike, say, when you buy two tin cans at Wal-Mart, or when you buy a canvas shopping bag from the Sierra Club.
Maybe we should fix this first.
West of the Cascades
The brilliance of the first clause of the First Amendment is that it’s a two-way non-entanglement street: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As a (very liberal) Christian I have serious concerns with the possibility that receiving government funds would restrict free exercise of religion — a supposedly neutral funding law that, for example, requires that any services provided be provided every “working” day of the week (Monday-Friday) could force those for whom Friday is a holy day (followers of Islam, for example) to chose between receiving federal funds that could serve their community and serving the community on a day of rest.
But, contra starshapedscar, I think if there’s federal funding of religious organizations to carry out secular purposes, government can and must prohibit mandatory prayer or proselytizing to the recipients of the federal aid. IF those lines are clear, then, yes, religious organizations are some of the best established and most efficient providers of social services in the U.S., and our society is well-served by funneling some federal funding for social services through those organizations. The Salvation Army would be a fair example.
4jkb4ia
I thought the rule that you cannot proselytize under the guise of social services is a good one.
The Jewish Federation would fund social services even if there was no federal money for them because they are services for the community, so the government should realize that there is as much a community purpose as a religious one when the federation does ask for it.
Nellcote
You need to look at what the funding was for. From the Politico article:
Evolved Deep Southerner
Late to the thread, and several (if not all) of these points have been addressed above, but three questions/observations:
1. Has anyone ever suggested removal of tax-exempt status for churches as a deficit-reduction measure?
2. If they removed churches’ tax-exempt status, I’d have absolutely no problem with a preacher standing behind his/her pulpit and saying “Vote for Sarah Palin or bust your ass in hell for the rest of eternity. Period. Let us pray …”
3. Faith-based iniatives: “Give your heart to Jesus, right here in front of me, or no soup for you!” Are variations on this theme – even sitting through a churching just to earn your gruel – allowed under current statutes? I simply just don’t know, but it’d be an interesting question.
Chup
@Zuzu’s Petals: Religious beliefs. Very straightforward — you use $$ for religious activities, it’s not tax-exempt. Supposedly, they would continue to pursue charitable activities because of their religious beliefs. If they only contribute because of the tax breaks, their beliefs aren’t very strong, are they?
If they contained their spending of tax-exempt money to ONLY assisting people in need and not to building super megachurches and playgrounds for themselves, one could make an argument for retaining the exemption. But as a rule, they have taken advantage of this exemption. I live in mega-church land here in Tejas, and the folks here all claim that the huge cuts in aid to the poor and sick coming up that will be passed by the GOOPers in 2011 will be offset by charitable giving. This is, of course, complete and utter bullshit — the churches around here talk a good game, but they would rather build an activity center for their congregants than help a poor person. Why should they have a tax break for building indoor basketball courts for their own folks?
Zuzu's Petals
@scarshapedstar:
Well any nonprofit can profit … just that the money must be used to further the nonprofit purpose and can’t be used to enrich individuals. Of course unrelated business income must be reported and is taxed.
As I understand it, churches are exempt from annual 990 reporting requirements, as are religious orders. But general religious organizations must report unless their annual income falls below a certain amount – an exception applicable to all nonprofits, I believe.
However, my question was more along the lines of why they would be excluded from the category altogether, not whether they should be subject to certain requirements.
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
To clarify : by “they” I mean religious organizations as opposed to churches.
Zuzu's Petals
@Chup:
Yes, it seems that years ago the government decided that churches benefit the community generally and pretty much left it at that…a pretty hands-off approach.
But I’m thinking more along the lines of religious organizations, which generally are subject to the regulations applicable to all nonprofits.
I guess one could question why the government sees religious activity as worthy of exemption, but then again one could question why scientific or competitive sports activities are worthy of exemption too.
As to the last question: why should a private school get a tax break for building indoor basketball courts for its pupils?
scarshapedstar
@Zuzu’s Petals:
You have to actually prove that you’re doing research. There is no comparable test for religious activities. You can just make shit up, like priests have done since time immemorial. As far as the property tax exemption, I think you’re missing the fact that most labs are funded by the government. It doesn’t really make sense for the government to buy you millions of dollars worth of equipment and then tax you on it forever.
Competitive sports, on the other hand, are a racket.
Zuzu's Petals
@scarshapedstar:
It is true that the govt declines to consider the validity of an organization’s religious belief, probably because of First Amdt considerations, but the organization must still meet certain thresholds. For instance:
But my point really was the idea of qualitative worth…why one activity would be considered worth exempting but not another. I agree it is objectively easier to show the public benefit conferred by scientific research than that conferred by religious activity, but the latter would likely involve a certain level of entanglement the govt wants to avoid.
As to property tax exemptions, they are administered by the state and so would have little to do with federal grants anyway. Second, private research facilities aren’t exempted from income tax or property tax because they are govt facilities (which they’re not), but because their activities fall within the exempt categories…regardless of their source of funding.
Chup
@Zuzu’s Petals: A valid question — but then again, most people wouldn’t like my answer. I’m completely against private schools. In my experience, they breed exclusivity, intolerance and wall people off from their communities, quite often to the detriment of public schools.
I know my hopes of no private schools will never come true, but a guy can dream, can’t he?
Zuzu's Petals
@Chup:
I guess that could be a thread unto itself.