Original Body
pstrongWill the homeless have to pray for their supper?/strong/p
pDIV align="left" TABLE cellpadding="5"TR VALIGN="TOP"TDIMG SRC= "../sites/default/files/arch_img/389/photo_1_supplement.jpg" //td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TD/td/trTR VALIGN="TOP"TDTR VALIGN="TOP"TD
pby Bill Berkowitz/p
pIn their day-to-day lives the homeless depend upon a bevy of government services including job training, shelters and food programs, to name a few. President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative, which aims to fund social services through religious organizations, is certain to effect delivery of these services./p
pUnveiled in spectacular fashion just months ago, President Bush's faith-based initiative has hit the skids. Rather than being a potentially handsome payoff to his Right Wing culture warriors, it has instead become the nexus for an unorthodox alliance between the Left and the Right. The controversy Bush's initiative engendered has forced him to delay implementation. /p
pFor the Christian Right, there are three contentious issues related to the initiative: one, how qualifications of eligible religious organizations will be determined; two, governmental regulations and scrutiny linked to funding; and three, the threat government grants will require to diluting their central, religious message. /p
pFor liberals and progressives, criticisms of the faith-based initiative are centered on, but not limited to, questions involving separation of church and state. /p
pbThe White House Office/b /p
pOn January 29, amidst fanfare and surrounded by Christian, Jewish and Muslim clergy, Bush issued an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives./p
pImmediately after Bush's announcement, the gold rush began as the White House switchboard fielded nearly 200 calls per day requesting information about the program. After the February 20 official opening the staff was slammed with phone calls looking for grant applications, writes the Associated Press' Sharon Kehnemui. /p
pBush's faith-based initiative, trumpeted during the presidential campaign, is exemplar of his commitment to “compassionate conservatism,” has been on the agenda of Right Wing think tanks and Christian Right for a decade. “Charitable Choice” first came to light when Senator John Ashcroft (now Attorney General) inserted this provision into the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform). The charitable choice amendment requires states contracting nonprofit organizations to provide social services to include religious organizations in the mix of agencies eligible for government contracts. Announcing the Whitebr /
House Office, Bush remarked, “We will not fund the religious activities of any group, but when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them.” While religious organizations historically received government funding for emergency food programs, childcare, youth programs and the like, they were specifically prohibited from religious proselytizing. /p
pAshcroft's provision, writes Cathlin Siobhan Baker, co-director of the Employment Project, removed “prohibitions regarding government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations. Churches and other religious congregations providing welfare services on behalf of the government may display religious symbols, use religious language and religious criteria in hiring and firing employees.” Bush's faith-based initiative expands thatbr /
precedent, allowing religious organizations equal access to governmental funding for performing an array of social services. Bush has also appointed a group of true believers and seasoned conservatives to head up the effort and spread the word. /p
pFor starters, the president appointed longtime criminologist and political scientist John DiIulio director of the new agency. In the mid-1990s, Bruce Shapiro writes in Salon.com, DiIulio “made a stir with what turned out to be one of the most dangerously wrong predictions in the annals of public intellectuals. Relying upon reams of supposedly irrefutable data, DiIulio predicted a massive coming wave of crime by children and teenagers, crime of unprecedented brutality.” He characterized these youth as a “generational wolf pack” of “fatherless, Godless and jobless” teens, whom he termed “Superpredators.” /p
pDiIulio's rhetorically-charged prediction had at least two outcomes. His star rapidly rose within conservative circles, and politicians from both parties outdid each other staking out the “We're tougher on crime than you” turf. This unleashed an unprecedented war on America's young people, including punitive legislation such as California’s recently passed Proposition 21.br /
Though DiIulio was flat-out wrong- in fact, despite highly publicized school shootings, overall juvenile crime has plummeted, DiIulio has been rewarded with appointment as director of Bush's new White House Office. /p
pThe deputy director for the Offic of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is Don Eberly, who served as deputy director for the office of public liaison during the Reagan’s administration. Eberly is one of the intellectual pillars behind the conservative notion of building the “civil society.” In conservative lexicon, the civil society shrinks government by taking responsibility for the social safety net through the good works of faith-based, corporate and community entities, along with philanthropists. Eberly has written several books on the subject including: “America's Promise:br /
Civil Society and the Renewal of AmericanCulture.” He is also founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative and author of “The Faith Factor in Fatherhood.”/p
pbFaith-based Barnstorming Hits Augusta/b /p
pWhen Cynthia Parr, wife of an Augusta, Georgia rabbi, showed up at a Saturday morning gathering in late February to hear Stephen Goldsmith, the president's top advisor on faith-based initiatives, she wasn't sure what to expect. According to Parr, Augusta's mayor invited some 200 clergy to meet Goldsmith, the former mayor of Indianapolis, so he could explain the president's new initiative. (Parr learned of the event from a blurb in the local newspaper andbr /
showed up uninvited.) /p
pHolding the meeting on a Saturday morning, the Jewish Sabbath, ensured limited participation from the Jewish community. This was troubling enough, but Parr was unnerved by what she heard. Goldsmith explained how religious organizations would now be eligible to receive government funds to provide a broad array of social services, and yet they could “continue to pass outbr /
religious material and require prayer for their clients.” They could do anything short of billing the government for Bibles. /p
pTopping off the event was an appearance by the mayor's special guest, Ralph Reed. Former Christian Coalition executive director, Reed now runs his own conservative political consulting operation. He played a key role in mobilizing the Christian Right for Bush prior to his do-or-die victory over the hard-charging Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) in the South Carolina primary. Reed is currently a spokesperson for the president./p
pParr left the meeting wondering: How might Bush's program effect the separation of church and state?/p
pbIn the Crossfire/b /p
pBush's faith-based initiative has been the lightening rod for criticism and objections from liberal and Left groups concerning potential violations of separation of church and state. Also in question is the lack of professional credentials and competency of those hired to deliver services, as well as potential discriminatory hiring practices at faith-based organizations. The initiative is a solid blow against public service workers and may furtherbr /
erode the power of labor unions. Seasoned observers note it will also be nearly impossible to ensure financial accountability. Liberal church officials who have provided social services for years are also wary this initiative paves the way for wholesale dumping of the poor and homeless on the doorstep of America's churches. /p
pRecently, resounding criticism has come from an unexpected quarter: the Christian Right. Pat Robertson, founder and head of the Christian Coalition, was first out of the gate expressing his doubts about the initiative, which was quite surprising given Robertson's early and unequivocal support for Bush during the campaign. /p
pOn his Christian Broadcasting Network's “700 Club” and in abr /
mid-March op-ed piece in IThe Wall Street Journal,/i Robertson admitted to being deeply troubled that groups such as the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and the Church of Scientology might get in on the action. /p
pIn early March, the ubiquitous Jerry Falwell, founder of the now-defunct Moral Majority, called upon Bush to specifically exclude Muslim groups from eligibility for government funds. In an interview with Beliefnet.com, an interfaith Website, Falwell claimed, “There's clear evidence that the Islam religion, wherever it has majority control, doesn't even allow people of other faiths to express themselves or evangelize or to exist in their presence.” A few days later Falwell backed off, after U.S. Muslims reacted negatively to his comments./p
pIn a curious explanation, seeming on its face to bar many Christian Right groups from government money, Falwell suggested any group that “steps up to the door bearing any bigotry toward any human being should be disqualified for federal funding.” /p
pRichard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, wants no part of government money because he's concerned along with the money will come government intervention and regulation. He claims there are too many strings attached and he wouldn't touch the government's money “with the proverbial 10-foot pole.” /p
pJohn DiIulio, speaking at the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Dallas, may have done more in one speech to alienate religious conservatives from the administration than liberals might ever hope to achieve. He told conservatives to “get real” and get out in the streets. “It's fine to fret about 'hijacked faith,” he lectured, “but to many brothers and sisters who are desperately ministering to the needs of those whom the rest of us in this prosperous society have left behind, such frets would persuade more and rankless if they were backed by real human and financial help.” He reminded them that the Constitution “requires the government to give equal access to all religious groups and non-religious groups seeking federal money.”/p
pbDivvying up the Goodies/b/p
pGroups such as the Hari Krishnas and the Nation of Islam have been receiving taxpayer dollars for years. Laurie Goodstein, in The New York Times, points out the International Society of Krishna Consciousness has “received millions of dollars in government contracts to run a network of services, including a shelter for homeless veterans, transition homes for recovering addicts and [a] halfway house for parolees.” /p
pMose Durst of Berkeley, former national president of the Unification Church, told reporters: “You have to open it to all religions or no religions.” According to Goodstein, both the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology are preparing to stake claims on these funds. “You will see us involved in any area where we can partner in practical projects with the government,” the Rev. Phillip D. Schanker, the Unification Church's vice president for public affairs, told Goodstein. The Church of Scientology plans to apply for funds to support its drug rehabilitation and literacy programs./p
pEberly responded to some of the program's critics, offering assurances they will do everything possible to make sure religion and social services are kept separate. While temporarily assuaging secular organizations, this is not what fundamentalist Christian groups hoped to hear./p
pbAnswering the Bell for Round Two/b/p
pIn late-April, a second round of advocacy and opposition began with a series of high-profile events. /p
pOn April 24, according to GayToday.com, a coalition of religious leaders, organized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, held a Capitol Hill press conference to “unveil a letter signed by over 850 members of the clergy expressing strong reservations about the main aspects” of the initiative. /p
pThe House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution began holding hearings on “Charitable Choice” issues. /p
pRep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) co-chaired an invitation-only, one-day Faith-Based Summit in Washington, D.C., for clergy. This Republican party-backed event drew several hundred clergy, many of them African-American. The event also resulted in protests from gay and lesbian organizations outraged over the appointment of the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition, who is virulently anti-gay, and the equally controversial, anti-gay, former Green Bay Packer Reggie White as advisers to the White House-supported summit. /p
pIn another development, the Associated Press reports the newly formed Good Works Coalition has plans to “spend $250,000 over the next two months lobbying for the Bush plan by airing a TV ad in Mississippi and South Dakota, home states of the Senate Republican and Democratic leaders.” The ads say: “ Good works are happening throughout America today - feeding the body and the soul, treating the head and the heart, fighting addiction with support of friends and faith.” It encourages viewers to contact their members of Congress. /p
pbWhere's the Beef?/b/p
pOne of the unasked questions in the debate over faith-based initiatives is, “Do they really work?” Thus far, there is very littlebr /
Empirical evidence that they do. Moving into the second round of the battle, lack of empirical evidence is beginning to show. /p
pThere are many groups such as the Good Works Coalition supporting faith-based solutions to social needs. While these organizations make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims of successes, in reality there appears to be no proof these programs are any more effective than secular ones. When the conversation turns from glowing anecdotes to empirical data, even John DiIulio, director ofbr /
the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, doubts there is evidence that religious programs perform more successfully than non-religious programs. /p
pByron K. Johnson, a University of Pennsylvania criminologist who works with the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Society, a think tank started by DiIulio, also has his doubts. In a report posted at the American Atheists website, Johnson told The New York Times: “We've created an office out of anecdotes.” Johnson has been an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, one of the conservative think tanks pushing a greater role for religion and religious organizations in civic affairs, and he had passionately argued that “Religious belief is a proven and powerful tool in combating community problems.” /p
pJohnson now seems to be changing his tune: “From the left to the right, everyone assumes that faith-based programs work. Even the critics of DiIulio and his office haven't denied that. We hear that and just sit back and laugh. In terms of empirical evidence that they work, it's pretty much nonexistent.”/p
pDr. David Reingold, of the Indiana University School of Public andbr /
Environmental Affairs, is another researcher skeptical of so-called successes of faith-based programs. Reingold says, “It's an extreme exaggeration to say that religious organizations are more effective.” He compares the results of faith-based initiatives with school voucher programs in that both are self-selective. According to Reingold, religious institutions “are more likely to limit and filter the clientele they serve.” Will the homeless and hungry be required to profess faith before being allowed to sleep in sheltersbr /
or eat at soup kitchens?/p
pbMoney for Buildings, Not People/b/p
pIn another troubling under-reported development, John DiIulio, in an early April speaking engagement in Philadelphia held by the little-known Partners for Sacred Places, called for taxpayer money to be used for rehabilitating thousands of churches and other religion-affiliated structures throughout the country. /p
p “When these buildings crumble,” he said, “when the deferredbr /
maintenance catches up, the preschool and the prison ministry and the day-care center and the after-school latchkey learning program crumble and go away, too.”/p
pThe Philadelphia Inquirer reported that DiIulio hopes “to challenge a 1995 administrative ruling which banned the use of federal National Park Service preservation money for rehabilitating or maintaining any religious properties.” DiIulio also said President Bush wants to create a “Compassionate Capital Fund” to make grants to religious institutions for “infrastructure improvements.”/p
pThe American Atheists website reports DiIulio is the first government official to attempt linking “public funding and the new faith-based initiative to the 'problem' of deteriorating churches and other houses of worship.” DiIulio has advocated governmental support for rehabbing churches since Partners for Sacred Places issued its “Sacred Places At Risk” study in 1997. The Philadelphia Inquirer also reported DiIulio has said the study’s findings “helped lead to Bush's faith-based agenda.” /p
pRound two plunges Bush's faith-based initiative into yet more controversy. If these conflicts continue, the faith-based crowd might be moved to try a different set of tactics. Through the use of the community development block grant program, conservatives might add language into legislation allowing money for rehabilitation of religious buildings. The flip side for conservatives is this would once again be an open invitation to the Moonies,br /
Krishnas and Scientologists to rehab their properties as well./p
pMarvin Olasky, Bush's relatively unknown “compassionate conservatism” guru, summed up the Christian Right's concerns about faith-based initiatives during an appearance at the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation last year. In order for any faith-based initiative to succeed, Olasky said the battle must be fought by Christian ground troops defying the heavy artillery unleashed by nonbelievers. For Christians to create what then-candidate George W. Bush termed, “armies of compassion,” who will transform America, they must maintain their most potent weapon: the powerbr /
of prayer. /p
pIResearch assistance by Greg Paroff.br /br /
Bill Berkowitz is a freelance writer covering conservative movements. He is a featured columnist at WorkingAssets’ Website workingforchange.com./i/p
p/p/td/tr/td/tr/table/div/p
