Bush has emphasized religion in various ways throughout his administration, establishing a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that dispenses U.S. tax revenues to religious groups to use for various social programs. In 2005, the Bush Administration awarded more than $2.1 billion to programs operated by religious groups. On March 7, Bush signed an executive order creating the eleventh "faith-based office" in his administration--in the Homeland Security department. See Executive Order. See also Elisabeth Bumiller, Bush Urges More Money for Religious Charities, Mar. 10, 2006 New York times, at A16.
In setting up the new office, Bush noted his confidence that "the faith community is achieving unbelievable successes throughout our country" and urged corporations to give more money to support faith-based initiatives. The White House has decided that large foundations are not doing enough to support religious groups. Apparently, the White House conducted a study of the 50 largest foundations (not revealed in Bush's speech) and found that 20% of them do not provide money to religious insitutions to support their social service programs. Bush would like that changed. Id.
These executive orders have done by fiat what Congress was not willing to do by legislation. Bush claims that his orders simply remove unreasonable barriers to religious groups' participation in important social programs. See this Frontline student exercise on faith-based initiatives for that and other information. The Pew Forum notes that a solid majority of about 66% favor religious group eligibility for government funding. See this report.
Critics argue that these programs effectively promote organized religions at the least by freeing up money raised by religious groups to be used for other purposes once taxpayer money is provided for particular social programs. See this site for a collection of articles on the problems of the faith-based initiative and this Berkowitz article, Slouching Towards Theocracy. If the groups use the funding to provide direct support for their religious activities, the concern is even greater. At least some of the groups have done so. See this story about an Arizona group MentorKids whose funding was stopped by a judge because it was being used for overtly religious activities. There is no effective way to monitor programs to ensure that religious groups are not using taxpayer money to promote religion. For example, tax dollars support religioun-based, abstinence-only sex education in schools across the country that include references to God and religious duty and result in students failing to receive the necessary information to help them make decisions about their sexuality. This study by the Hudson Institute (which claims to show that faith-based funding works without creating problems) indicates that 57% avoid problems by holding inherently religious services separately from the government-funded programming--that suggests that almost half are mingling religious services and government programs. The study also shows that the groups receiving government funds are almost all Christian. Id. Many programs promote Christianity as the means of addressing the social problem for which they are receiving funding. See the study by the Hudson Institute (35% of groups surveyed indicated that the program actively used faith) and this article on Teen Challenge and testimony given before Congress. Worse, Bush has specifically praised religious groups that provide social services that make religious services a requirement, implying that he sees this as a desired result of his initiative. See this article. Americans United for Separation of Church and State also reports that a pastor that directly endorsed Bush in the 2000 elections has received $1 million through the faith-based initiative. See this article. That tax support tears down the separation of church and state that is a cornerstone of American democracy.
Consider, too, the probable costs for the new faith-based initiative in the troubled Department of Homeland Security, as one example. A Director of faith based programs for the department must be hired in consultation with the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. The department must do an audit of its current programs and decide how it can most effectively increase aid to religious groups. It is required to review all of its programs--this is a gigantic department formed out of many different agencies that has so far been unable to function well, yet it is required to devote staff attention to making aid to religion a priority. The department must provide adequate staffing and resources to its faith-based office so that it can adequately assist religious groups in getting departmental funds. This effort alone amounts to considerable direct assistance to religious groups and takes resources away from the programs directly administered by the Department.
If we value individual liberty, we should be extraordinarily cautious about providing state support for religious groups' activities, even when those activities are ostensibly beneficial ones that address real social problems. Religious groups inevitably will bring religion into the programs they are offering, and government funding will support religous groups' discriminatory hiring policies and appear as an endorsement of religious dogma. It is an entanglement that we should avoid.
Recent Comments