|
Since debuting as a cornerstone of George W.
Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, the role of faith-based organizations in
providing federally funded charitable services has been a matter of much
debate. Now winging its way to the Democrat-controlled Senate after passing the
Republican-held House, the “Community Solutions Act of 2001” is sure to kick up
an even bigger fuss.
Among politicians, media-types, and interest
groups anyway. If the public gives a hoot it has slipped my notice, which is
entirely possible; the whole body-piercing fad snuck up on me like a cat in
mittens. I looked around one day and everyone had holes in them. Still, I
haven’t heard a word on the faith-based proposal that didn’t come from a
politico, reporter, or special interest rep. Not at home or around the water
cooler, not even at church, arguably a special interest group.
Why the collective yawn? I suspect few count
on the government to do a bang-up job of managing our money in the first place;
the average Sunday school class could run a better soup kitchen than most
government agencies and most of us know it. Further, we are accustomed to the
good works of churches, synagogues, temples, and the like. No one’s suggesting
we hand over the loot to the Mafia for Pete’s sake, or even the IRS.
The Act would knock down many of
the obstacles to participation in federal programs by faith-based organizations
while requiring that government funds be used only for specified charitable
purposes. Opponents argue this would only free up other church monies for
religious purposes, disregarding the fact that funds for these different uses
are mostly raised and accounted for separately already.
I won’t waste much space on
arguments of Constitutional separation of church and state, an absurd notion
upheld by many courts but all the more ridiculous because it doesn’t exist. I
know a mosque is likely to have a crescent and star around someplace, and a
church a cross. Heck I’ve even heard that people pray at synagogues, and
frankly I don’t care. Those near hysteria about the potential for casual
contact with religion would be better off directing their anxiety at television
programming.
There is the “establishment
clause” of the Constitution, but I’ve heard no compelling case that providing
food and clothing for distribution by the Salvation Army establishes a religion
any more than does funding the Red Cross. Yet many current laws and practices
limit participation by religious groups per se or would require them to violate
their principles, principles that really are Constitutionally protected.
Eliminating these impediments is
admirable, but I’d also like to direct a little soul searching at the
faith-based organizations themselves: In whom, or what, is your faith based?
No less a personage than Mother Teresa drew fire for accepting “conscience
money” from sources considerably more specious than the U.S. government. But
she also shut down her New York City charities rather than comply with
regulations she thought wasteful and in conflict with her mission.
Long-time readers may recall that I had the
honor of volunteering with Mother Teresa a number of years ago in Calcutta. She
told us that every day she needed at least 25 volunteers in addition to the nuns
to make the place work, and that every day they showed up. How?
Faith in the right place, and prayer.
Though I can’t speak
authoritatively for other faiths, the Bible lays the burden of charitable good
works squarely at the feet of individuals. I can’t shake the feeling that too
heavy a reliance on federal funding would be something of a spiritual copout –
and would inevitably come with a hook.
“Free” money can be as addictive
as heroin and as tough to kick. Before taking the bait, providers better be
certain their faith is in the right place.
© 1997- 2002 Brent Morrison
|
