On the faith-based initiative
By AtheistDad
of AtheistParents.org
On December 12, 2002, President Bush issued an executive order whose purpose was seemingly to endorse faith-based
organizations by rewarding them for performing community service. Like many atheists, I had the knee-jerk reaction of
spouting that this favoritism extended to religious groups was outrageous and unconstitutional. I recently investigated the
issue further, thinking perhaps it would be clever to try to secure faith-based/community funding for the local heathen
organization I belong to -- or that it would be telling for my group to be turned down for such funding, presumably because
we weren't a church. My further investigation has prompted me, however, to dispense with this portion of my vitriolic
anti-Bush, anti-church campaign. Provided the initiative is directed justly and that funds and preference are given based on
merit and benefit to the community rather than on dogma, I do not think the faith-based/community organization executive
order can be swatted down as a violation of the establishment clause. It may in fact turn out to be a necessary complement
to and defender of the establishment clause. Let's consider the initiative in some detail.
Consider first the title of the executive order: "Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations." Here and throughout the text of the order, references to faith-based organizations are pretty consistently paired with references to community organizations. While I was originally inclined to assume that the inclusion of (presumably secular, or at least non-sectarian) community organizations was merely a payment of lip-service and a covering of the presidential arse, I'm willing for the moment, pending further consideration of the merits of the order, to grant that this careful pairing of faith-based and secular organizations is in earnest and not merely ornamental.
The precise purpose of Bush's executive order is as follows: "to ensure equal protection of the laws for faith-based and community organizations, to further the national effort to expand opportunities for, and strengthen the capacity of, faith-based and other community organizations so that they may better meet social needs in America's communities, and to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts." Social needs this initiative is intended to address include the following: "services directed at reducing poverty, improving opportunities for low-income children, revitalizing low-income communities, empowering low-income families and low-income individuals to become self-sufficient, or otherwise helping people in need." Or, more explicitly (but not exclusively):
It is very tempting to note that religion has been the cause of great and widespread suffering throughout the history of humankind. It is almost irresistible to point out that churches have exerted much power over government in spite of the establishment clause. And it is hard not to imagine that there are those groups that will try to abuse Bush's order. But it must also be conceded that many churches do much good on a local level and that faith-based organizations compose a network of staggering resources and with often well-meaning leadership striving to do good works toward the betterment of their communities. We may object to the dogma and the histories of these organizations, but I think it would be a mistake to alienate them and strip them of resources stringently limited to the performance of community-enhancing activities.
A key component to the justice and success of Bush's executive order is monitoring. I tentatively support the order, but only under the (perhaps naive) assumption that its provisions will be administered fairly and with the establishment clause in mind. That is, organizations should be held accountable for the funds they're granted, and they should be expected to uphold the non-prosyletization and non-discrimination requirements. While funding most likely requires stacks of paperwork and pre-qualification, it is not likely that non-prosyletization and non-discrimination can be very effectively monitored. For the satisfaction of that criterion, we're at the mercy of those receiving funds -- perhaps not the most reliable group of folk in this case. Nevertheless, I can't help wondering if by being dogmatically opposed to Bush's agenda and to arguably harmless bending of the rules, we might be opposing an initiative that by and large is founded on good intentions and stands to result in things beneficial to human beings.
To read the executive order and a companion order, please see the following links:
By AtheistDad
of AtheistParents.org
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Consider first the title of the executive order: "Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations." Here and throughout the text of the order, references to faith-based organizations are pretty consistently paired with references to community organizations. While I was originally inclined to assume that the inclusion of (presumably secular, or at least non-sectarian) community organizations was merely a payment of lip-service and a covering of the presidential arse, I'm willing for the moment, pending further consideration of the merits of the order, to grant that this careful pairing of faith-based and secular organizations is in earnest and not merely ornamental.
The precise purpose of Bush's executive order is as follows: "to ensure equal protection of the laws for faith-based and community organizations, to further the national effort to expand opportunities for, and strengthen the capacity of, faith-based and other community organizations so that they may better meet social needs in America's communities, and to ensure the economical and efficient administration and completion of Government contracts." Social needs this initiative is intended to address include the following: "services directed at reducing poverty, improving opportunities for low-income children, revitalizing low-income communities, empowering low-income families and low-income individuals to become self-sufficient, or otherwise helping people in need." Or, more explicitly (but not exclusively):
- child care services, protective services for children and adults, services for children and adults in foster care, adoption services, services related to the management and maintenance of the home, day care services for adults, and services to meet the special needs of children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities (including physical, mental, or emotional disabilities)
- transportation services
- job training and related services, and employment services
- information, referral, and counseling services
- the preparation and delivery of meals and services related to soup kitchens or food banks
- health support services
- literacy and mentoring programs
- services for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, services for the prevention of crime and the provision of assistance to the victims and the families of criminal offenders, and services related to intervention in, and prevention of, domestic violence
- services related to the provision of assistance for housing under Federal law
- Federal funds will be distributed "in the most effective and efficient manner possible"
- No organization can be discriminated against for support on the basis of relgious belief. "Accordingly, organizations, in providing services supported in whole or in part with Federal financial assistance, and in their outreach activities related to such services, should not be allowed to discriminate against current or prospective program beneficiaries on the basis of religion, a religious belief, a refusal to hold a religious belief, or a refusal to actively participate in a religious practice."
- "The Federal Government must implement Federal programs in accordance with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, organizations that engage in inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, and proselytization, must offer those services separately in time or location from any programs or services supported with direct Federal financial assistance, and participation in any such inherently religious activities must be voluntary for the beneficiaries of the social service program supported with such Federal financial assistance."
- While faith-based organizations receiving funding are not allowed to prosyletize, they are not required to remove religious artwork from their facilities or to change the names of their organizations in order to divorce the services they've providing from the nature or root purpose of the organization.
It is very tempting to note that religion has been the cause of great and widespread suffering throughout the history of humankind. It is almost irresistible to point out that churches have exerted much power over government in spite of the establishment clause. And it is hard not to imagine that there are those groups that will try to abuse Bush's order. But it must also be conceded that many churches do much good on a local level and that faith-based organizations compose a network of staggering resources and with often well-meaning leadership striving to do good works toward the betterment of their communities. We may object to the dogma and the histories of these organizations, but I think it would be a mistake to alienate them and strip them of resources stringently limited to the performance of community-enhancing activities.
A key component to the justice and success of Bush's executive order is monitoring. I tentatively support the order, but only under the (perhaps naive) assumption that its provisions will be administered fairly and with the establishment clause in mind. That is, organizations should be held accountable for the funds they're granted, and they should be expected to uphold the non-prosyletization and non-discrimination requirements. While funding most likely requires stacks of paperwork and pre-qualification, it is not likely that non-prosyletization and non-discrimination can be very effectively monitored. For the satisfaction of that criterion, we're at the mercy of those receiving funds -- perhaps not the most reliable group of folk in this case. Nevertheless, I can't help wondering if by being dogmatically opposed to Bush's agenda and to arguably harmless bending of the rules, we might be opposing an initiative that by and large is founded on good intentions and stands to result in things beneficial to human beings.
To read the executive order and a companion order, please see the following links:
- Equal Protection of the Laws for Faith-based and Community Organizations
- Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture and the Agency for International Development with Respect to Faith-based and Community Initiatives
April 06, 2003