Obama and Faith-Based Initiatives
Last week, Sanator Obama announced his commitment to a Presidential Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
One of the reasons that I support Senator Obama for President (I’m on his National Catholic Advisory Council) is that he’s willing to take good ideas from all sources–Republicans as well as Democrats. President Bush started an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Program in the White House, which recognized the importance of people of faith in addressing social problems and building up local communities. Unfortunately, it appears that the program was significantly diverted from its original purpose to serve partisan political ends. Money, in short, was channeled to people who would help secure Republican victories. See David Kuo’s Tempting Faith;John DiIulio Jr., the first director of Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative office, also made similar charges.
In this context, especially given President Bush’s unpopularity, it would have been easy for Senator Obama to follow the old script, point to these abuses, and say that this is why Democrats can’t have anything to do with religion. But he didn’t. Abusus non tollit usum. As a former community organizer who worked with Catholic programs in Chicago, he knows first-hand the power of persons of faith to work for the common good. Moreover, his approach to faith-based programs, in my view, reflect the insight of of what we Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity–all things being equal, it’s the people closest to social problems have the best hope of working together to solve them. I see subsidiarity reflected in Senator Obama’s commitment to “training the trainers.” A key part of his program is providing education for smaller, localized faith communities so that it isn’t merely the big and powerful faith groups who have access to grant-writing skills and government funds.
At the same time, Senator Obama is sensitive to the facts that taxpayer money has to be dedicated to building up the political common good–the good of what St. Augustine would call the Earthly City–rather than to increasing membership of the Heavenly City (which is ultimately a matter for God’s grace) . Building up the political common good is a project in which people of good will can cooperate, no matter what their faith. So the organizational arms of faith-based groups which receive public funds won’t be allowed to discriminate, either in the provision of services or in hiring people to provide those services. Furthermore, they won’t be allowed to use the provision of services as an occasion to proselytize.
I myself think this is a workable approach in a pluralistic society. Thoughts?
Thpse whp’ve read DiIulio should se that the idea is excellent if partisan and proselytizing influences are kept out and service delivery the point
Obama also seems to bring a balance perspective on the role of culture and government in terms of helping folk.
I have not read the details of Obama’s proposal, so the following concern may already be anticipated, but it has struck me since back when Bill Clinton was pushing this idea that the best way both to protect tax payer dollars from improperly being used for proselytizing and to protect churches from allowing their missions to be coopted by the temptations of federal money is to require all faith-based institutions receiving federal money to establish a separate 501C3 organization to receive and account for the use of the money. Yes, there would be some headache involved in this, but it does have advantages for both the government and the faith-based institutions. Thus, if a congregation has a successful narcotics recovery program, it could establish a 501C3 for that program that would be related to, but independent from the congregation.
For me, the more difficult question is whether or not taxpayer dollars should fund programs that have an explicit evangelizing component to their service. I think that it might very well prove to be the case that some very successful programs have such a component in them, and I actually think it should be legit to give such programs federal money. So long as there is no faith-based test for which organizations could receive such money, there is no problem of establishment of religion in using tax dollars for such programs. I, for one, would lose more sleep at night if I helped to prevent someone from getting into a successful narcotics recovery program because I, along with many others, insisted that tax dollars could never be used with evangelical intent, than I would if by supporting such programs, I helped to blur slightly the separation of church and state.
Faith based initiatives are problematic for Bush and there appears to be no proof that they will not be as faulted with Obama. So far there has been no proof which shows that faith based organizations do any better than build their own patronage fiefdoms and political influence with the abundant federal monies. Further, instead of putting some of their own monies in conjunction with the government’s the local charities (aka FBOS) use (and abuse) the Federal monies. The Use is mostly abuse. In this case the maxim may not apply.
The biggest problem may be that the usual qualification is that you just have to be a religious organization. This causes all kinds of shysters, opportunists and/or politically connected people to come out of the woodwork to parasite.
Even some of the most responsible charities buckle in to the funding game rather than be open to service. For example when a child in the foster care/orphan system becomes eighteen, most charities drop her like a hot potato because the funding usual ceases at that age. And churches are right there with this terrible practice. Call your local Catholic Charity for confirmation.
There are other problems.
I do believe that places like Catholic Relief Services, proven Settlement Houses and even new organizations which can show results should be helped. It is not easy to distinguish, however.
Accordingly, I believe this is more political fodder than anything else. It only has political importance. Obama might sound more convincing if he decided to do something about the fact that we make food 10 times as expensive for Africans to subsidize American farmers. That would truly reflect Catholic social doctrine.
There are four relevant articles in the Washington Post.
Michael Gerson’s column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302449.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
E. J. Dionne’s column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302453.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Jacques Berlinerblau’s piece http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2008/07/obamas_faith_based_initiatives.html
And this somewhat sensational news story about Commonwealth Catholic Charities, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo or Richmond being involved in obtaining an abortion for a 16-year-old illegal immigrant in violation of any number of laws, regulations, and teachings of the Church
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070303439.html?hpid=sec-religion
Of course, anything Obama says and does for the coming months is going to be calculated to get him votes and support, and “moving to the center” after being nominated is perhaps only to be expected. But The New York Times today isn’t pleased, and I am wondering myself how far this is going to go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html?ref=opinion
“For me, the more difficult question is whether or not taxpayer dollars should fund programs that have an explicit evangelizing component to their service. I think that it might very well prove to be the case that some very successful programs have such a component in them, and I actually think it should be legit to give such programs federal money. ”
Joe P. ==
It seems to me that if the faith-based group uses some of the federal money to proselytize, then it is clearly unconstitutional.
However, if the group paid for that part of the program, then it seems to me that would not render the whole program unconstitutional, because the feds are not paying for it. For instance, if a program includes giving out Bibles or Korans, then that should not be paid for with federal money. But if the faith-based group paid for the books, then that would be quite legitimate.
I think that the only way this will fly with most Americans is if a separately-constituted non-profit agency is created, not under direct sway of the parent organization, that can clearly account for how the taxpayer’s money was spent, i.e., the Catholic Charities model.
So long as there is the danger of co-mingling of funds and the implication that faith-based funds are freed up to use for prostelyzation, the US public will be unaccpeting of this kind of initiative. I know that I will be.
As already noted, and I think all here would agree, faith based initiatives are problematic when used in partisan or proselytzing ways
The problem is the delivery of needed services in a time of shrinking federal and local funding!.
I think Cathy is to be congratulated for bringing this up, supporting it and speking out for a policy initiative that is both antipartisan and directed to the comon good.
(I hope some of you saw Gil Troy on CSPAN booknotes last night) calling for a “muscular” centrist voice.
It strikes me that Obama has found an area where folks can work together especially to help the needt -granted strong safeguards need to be in place!
Ann: It is not clear why funding a program with an evangelical component would be unconstitutional if the funding were allotted in a neutral way. Also, I do not think things would be a clean a buy bibles or Qur’ans. Instead, I wonder about recovery programs that have a prayer dimension to them, or a way of encouraging participants to go to worship services. Should there be a blanket prohibition against funding such programs in any way with tax dollars?
The disestablishment of religion, which our Constitution does call for, is not the same thing as the separation of church and state, which our Constitution does not call for.
I don’t like this “snuggle snuggle” relationship between a church/mosque/temple and the government. It’s too cozy and, for one or the other party, too dangerous — if nothing else, from an oversight and enforcement perspective.
We have 501(c)(3)s to help maintain transparency and accountability. Yes, there’s paperwork involved — but for a reason. We already have news accounts of folks being investigated, prosecuted, and convicted for misusing funds belonging to a religious entity. I can’t even begin to fathom how the addition of federal funds would not exacerbate such corruption. Even our regulatory agencies do not have the personnel needed to keep up with audits and other functions to respond to wrongdoing.
So-called faith-based operations should be just that. If a house of worship wants to serve the needy or sponsor AA, it should be prepared to use its own monies and paid/volunteer staff. If a congregation believes it should pursue a particular outreach, it should not let (lack of) money get in the way. “Put up or shut up” (or go back to the drawing board).
While it’s true that the Constitution prohibits government establishing a religion, we should remember that an established religious entity would necessarily be (or soon enough become) a government-funded entity.
Bad idea. Too much temptation. Too much history — and not good!
St Anthony Foundation, San Francisco does not accept City,state or federal money. 19million dollar a year budget. feeds 2500 a day, houses recovery programs[1 year programs], medical services ;Just built a new ‘green’ building; And Franciscan spirituality is not intrusive.
Gov. money sticks like pine tar to souls. always has.
“I wonder about recovery programs that have a prayer dimension to them, or a way of encouraging participants to go to worship services. Should there be a blanket prohibition against funding such programs in any way with tax dollars?”
Hmm. Really good question, Joe P. Since I’m much against the funding of religions, maybe this sort of program would have to be prohibited. Or maybe it could be argued that the intent is not the establishment of religion but the health of the person. How is intent weighed legally in deciding what to permit? Is it sort of like the Catholic moral principle of two-fold effect that allows a concomitant evil for the sake of an intended good?
Jimmy Mac –
I agree that without a separation of funds into the religious factors and non-religious ones such funding probably shouldn’t be allowed. But how to separate such factors in examples such as Joe P’s.
True, many would object to freeing the churches’ funds for proselytizing. But so what? Proselytizing is not a crime.
Joe J. –
Yes, there will be abuse of the law. But laws are constantly broken, so that’s no reason to do away with them. The question is: would should such a law do more good than harm? Would the good achieved out-weigh the necessary costs of enforcement?
Good for Obama and good for you, and your advisory group Cathleen!!!!! Good work!!!
Cathy,
It’s good that Sen. Obama proposes to cooperate with faith-based organizations and wants to put more resources into it than the Bush administration did. I’ve blogged frequently at Mirror of Justice on how economic conservatives, as well as those with purely political motives, blocked the program from doing more on a consistent basis. Supreme Court precedent also makes clear that direct funding to an organization cannot be used to proselytize (and the Bush initiative recognized that too, even if there may have been instances where it happened).
But Obama goes seriously awry in denying religious organizations receiving funds the right to consider faith in hiring for those programs. The general rule, even before Bush, was that religious organizations could consider faith in hiring even when receiving funds; only a very few federal statutes forbade it as a condition of funding. This makes sense because a religious organization asking its employees to be adherents of the faith is doing what other organizations have the right to do: ask that employees be committed to the organization’s full mission. Even in programs not explicitly teaching religion, employees interact with each other behind ths scenes and may have informal conversations with the people they’re serving. It should be seen as legitimate, not as imroper discrimination, if an organization decides it wants employees who will support its overall beliefs and not just its efforts for the needy.
Allowing funded religious organizations to continue to consider religion in hiring does not encourage them to do so; it simply leaves it up to their choice. If Obama’s proposal is taken literally, religious organizations receiving funding would, for the first time ever, lose that ability across the range of federal programs. For that reason, his proposal is likely to be rejected by most evangelical organizations (as the comment of moderate evangelical leader Rich Cizik in the July 2 NY Times suggests) and by many black churches.
Tom Berg
Cathy,
I think Tom’s on solid ground here. Why do you think it is a good idea for Sen. Obama to insist that religious organizations be governed by the non-discrimination laws (with respect to religion) that (quite appropriately) constrain government actors? It seemed to me, from your post, that you regard it as somehow in tension with “building up the political common good” for the government to permit religious organizations, which receive public funds to perform social-welfare services, to hire-for-mission. Do you? Best, R
It seems to me that any prohibition against so-called “discrimination” would undermine the very “pluralistic” society to which you refer.
This is true for the following reason: Imagine that there are 10 social service organizations — many are secular, a few are religious in name but secular in reality, and one that is religious through and through. That is pluralism — many different groups doing their own thing in their own way. Then the federal government steps in with tens of millions of dollars to divvy up amongst those 10 organizations, on the condition that anyone receiving a dollar of federal funds can no longer “discriminate” on religious grounds in hiring. The one religious organization now faces a sort of Hobson’s choice . . . it can maintain its religious identity only by refusing federal money that is freely available to every other conceivable type of organization.
So let’s say that it does accept the federal money, and the result is that there are no longer any genuinely religious social service organizations. The only organizations that now exist are secular in reality (even if a few still purport to be religious in name only). By offering such a huge incentive to change organizational identity, the federal government has undermined pluralism, as there are now fewer types of organizations, which in turn means fewer options for people to donate to or volunteer for.
I’d like to see an answer to this point that isn’t just special pleading for Obama.
” True, many would object to freeing the churches’ funds for proselytizing. But so what? Proselytizing is not a crime. ”
Using publice taxpayers funds for prostlytizing, if not a crime, should be! Do you want your taxes to subsidize Mormonism? Islam? Wicca?
“Using publice taxpayers funds for prostlytizing, if not a crime, should be! Do you want your taxes to subsidize Mormonism? Islam? Wicca?”
immy Mac –
To subsidize is to give money to someone or a group to help defray its expenses. In the case of faith-based programs the good to be accomplished is only a good which the government would have to pay more for if it did it itself. It would not a subsidizing of proselityzing. So what if the raith-based groups then spend the money they have *from other sources* on proselytizing. That is not a crime.
As to being advantageous to those groups, the government money does not benefit the religious group — it benefits the people they serve. In other words, the groups receive money to do the government’s job, e.g., helping alcoholics or running emergency rooms.
So what if the Mormons and Muslims and Wiccans do some good? Only if they are breaking laws should they be barred from such work.
OK, so such work earns those groups a good reputation. Would that be bad if they earned it?
I knew a Wiccan witch slightly. She was a wise and kindly woman. Yay for her group. And one of the best people I’ve ever known is from a Mormon background. I taught a Muslim woman — I’d love to have her as a neighbor. So, no, I have no objection to having law-abiding Wiccans and Muslims and Mormons doing some governmental work. They already *do* government work in many branches of government. Should they be fired?
James Madison, that other Princeton graduate, believed that taxpayers should not be forced to pay even as little as “three pence” in support of any religious establishment. How do you ensure that three cents do not cross the line? Very difficult. Madison also believed that military chaplains, though they undoubtedly provided important service, should be supported by religious groups, not by the government. So it goes.
We can add the First Amendment to those Bill of Rights provisions (including the 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments) on which Senator Obama seems willing search out some popular “middle position”–perhaps at the expense of giving up the amendments’ less popular (if essential) hard edge. The Bill of Rights provisions are there to protect the unpopular.
Tertullian said “The blood of martyrs is the seed of the church.” I say that government monies are the demise of the church. CFR That great manipulator who many had made a Saint, Constantine of the fourth century. It is absolute certain that more storefront churches will increase and multiply with faith based funding. Money makes a lot of people religious. Just ask all those pagans who knew they had to convert in the 4th century.
The biggest reason is that fbos are really not doing their jobs. They have it too easy. They have become lazy and inept. Build another 100 million dollar cathedral.
They need a wakeup call. Not more money. They really need to be taxed.
The faith based initiative approach to expanding governmental social services sounds like a way for Obama to fulfill his promises on the cheap. For instance, if he thinks we need to expand public education to provide summer learning opportunities, he should do so by investing in summer school programs that would employ trained and paid teachers. The faith based approach relies on churches to provide cheap labor in the form of volunteers or folks who can be severely underpaid because their faith will make up the difference. If Obama really wants to achieve change, he’s going to have to make his supporters put their money where their mouth is, in the form of tax increases, so that we can expand federal services like healthcare and education by using trained professionals. We shouldn’t hold our churches responsible for managing funds and providing services that they don’t have the personel or resources to support. My worry with Obama, though, is that he is turning out to be practicing the “same old politics” by proposing the same failed solutions to the same old problems. Disappointing.
Ann —
“Would the good achieved out-weigh the costs of enforcement?”
Over time, no. Taxpayers of all stripes have a right to expect transparency and accounability in the expenditure of government funds. Government auditors are already stretched in examining the books of entities receiving federal monies — whether for the military, housing, health care, science, etc. Adding more (and more) direct recipients of such aid means adding more (and more) examination points to auditing activities, scheduled or otherwise (the latter in response to congressional inquiries, news reports, etc.). Let’s face it: No one wants “government bureaucrats” looking over their shoulders! And taxpayers don’t want to see the government hiring even more bureaucrats.
If the intended faith-based recipients of direct federal aid cannot function (or function well) without such help, one must really ask if these groups/organizations really have the wherewithall to function for the long-term. “Put your money where your mouth is” is quite apt here. If an organization cannot (or is barely able to) take care of itself, it cannot responsibly operate a program to help others. Furthermore, many groups/programs have problems recruiting and retaining volunteers (I know: I deliver “meals on wheels” once a week and we never have enough volunteer drivers).
“Yes, there will be abuse of the law. But laws are constantly broken, so that’s no reason to do away with them.”
We’re not discussing doing away with a law. We’re looking at creating a law (or extending an E.O.) that clearly lends itself to abuse. True, we should not abolish laws dealing with DUI, fraud, etc. However, we should not create laws or extend programs that invite wrongdoing or mismanagement. Government has enough problems of its own without having to increase the workload of already overstretched auditors and investigators, not to mention the court system.
We’re looking at a very cozy relationship between government and religion. Appearance is reality, and it doesn’t look good.
Tom Bert: I think you are presenting Obama’s anti-discimination policy in stronger terms than he intends it. If his proposal is in fact a return to policies prior to the Bush administration, then religious organizations can still use religion as a consideration for hiring where religious qualifications are either essential to the position (e.g. minister) or provide a way to differentiate among equally qualified candidates for a job (e.g. hiring faculty at religiously affiliated schools). However, the fact that a person does not have a particular religious qualification where that qualification is not essential to the delivery of services cannot by itself be grounds for rejecting that candidates application.
Eric: I think you are making assumptions that are not clearly warranted when you suggest that faith-based initiatives will make use of sub-par employees. What leads you to make this assumption? Also, the notion that he is fulfilling promises on the cheap and that he should just raise taxes seems to be claim made within a political vacuum. I would like to see Obama get money for social service programs from as many directions as possible. If he can get conservaties to support this program and reach out to religious groups at the same time, I think it is a political win. Will he need to engage in other appropriation battles that have nothing to do with faith-based initiatives? Absolutely.
Ooops. That previous post should begin with Tom Berg, not Tom Bert. I think I may need to start wearing my reading glasses when I blog!
Mr. Steinfels has a good column on the issue raised by Tom Berg and Rick:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05beliefs.html
He seems to lean towards the same question: if a religious charity can’t hire members of its religious group, then it won’t be able to maintain it’s identity. I agree.
I’m not sure Mr. Steinfels essay, high quality though it certainly is, establishes more than that Sen. Obama needs to clarify what he meant about nondiscrimination. If it is still possible to use religion as a consideration in hiring when
1) religious affiliation is essential to the job, or
2) all other things being equal, religious affiliation makes a candidate a better fit
then religious groups should not be too concerned. This entire debate is also another reason why faith-based initiatives should be required to form 501(c)(3)s. A religious organization receiving federal money can still discriminate all it wants for any hiring it does outside of the 501(c)(3), and so maintain its identity. All hiring within the 501(c)(3) can still consider religion insofar as it meets either 1 or 2 above. The separation of the funded effort from other elements of the religious organization will help to clarify when and what kind of discrimination in religious hiring is possible.
“Eric: I think you are making assumptions that are not clearly warranted when you suggest that faith-based initiatives will make use of sub-par employees. What leads you to make this assumption? Also, the notion that he is fulfilling promises on the cheap and that he should just raise taxes seems to be claim made within a political vacuum. ”
Joe, you may be showing your inexperience here. I have run very professional government funded programs at a parish. Believe me I was in the minority. Generally the pastors have no experience with these programs and they usually use them to reward their friends. Rewarding friends may be ok if they are competent. It is mind boggling the amount of incompetent people who apply and are often hired. It is true that there is corruption in normal government programs when people care more about patronage than efficiency. That is true in general where civil servants now have much better pensions than people who work in business. (Policeman are now retiring with close to $200,000 a year in pension.)
There is always more incompetence with community based agency funding. I have seen too many. Faith based are more troublesome since they are given a bye under the mantle of religion. There are exceptions.
Eric has done his homework
Bill: I have no doubt that much incompetence exists. Inexperienced though I may be in a whole host of things, I do think there is one sorting mechanism that should be able to reduce incompetence: organizations need to prove their efficacy before they receive funds, and if memory serves me well on this, Obama indicated that this would be a requirement. Where I think big government goes very awry is when it either requires that new programs be created with more concern for filling positions than for filling them effectively (I think welfare reform ran into a lot of this), or when it gives money to organizations that have no track record. I think federal money could avoid subsidizing incompetence if a demonstration of previous success by an institution was required before receiving any funds.
Joe, my critique regarding the volunteer labor that faith based initiatives often employ was not primarily based on their assumed incompetence, though as Bill points out this is an important worry. More than that, though, is a concern for the classic unreliability of volunteer labor, especially when those inidividuals are highly qualified. This owes to the fact that most qualified volunteer summer tutors, for example, who would presumably staff the summer learning initiatives that Obama mentions have other jobs that pay, which take priority. Thus, volunteers are unlikely to prioritize the work they do for their church, which leads to low retention and high turn-over rates. Why not invest in hiring teachers in the summer to run such programs? Secondly, the “track record” measures you propose would mean that churches would need to come up with successful programs without any start-up funds. Also, the accredidation process involved in such government oversight would be more efficient if programs were simply created to fit best practices rather then being recognized as doing so post hoc.
Eric: Perhaps I missed something in Obama’s announcement. Where do you find an emphasis on volunteer employment? I assume that Obama is talking about paid jobs. To be sure, he has promoted a volunteer corps, but not as part of his faith-based initiative, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Also, I would rather require programs to demonstrate their success before receiving funding than funding new programs, even if based on an established best practice. I think programs should have to prove a successful commitment to existing needs. Otherwise, one too often ends up with programs that succeed only in wasting money. Best practices are important, but so many successful programs depend on both the unique talents of specific individuals and the specific characteristics of a given context that best practices do not easily translate from one setting to another. Perhaps one might differentiate between seed money in order to show that a program can work, and fuller support once success is demonstrated.
Joe: Thanks for your comment. I am just thinking about how many faith based programs tend to run, which often finds them stretching dollars to get the most for the least. This often means getting workers on the cheap or for free. For instance, the soup kitchen at my parish runs on volunteers. Now, I doubt they get government funds, but it seems that even if they did, they would still need to stretch those funds to make them cover costs. So there seems to be two issues: 1. Finding well-trained and competent people to staff faith based programs and 2. Compensating them so that they will be able to justify staying on. Now, of course no one is expecting to get rich, but they do need to be able to live. If those things an be done via faith based initiatives, I guess I would be alright with it, but it seems like it would just be more efficient to hire already trained and payrolled personnel, again taking summer learning as an example, to staff summer school programs. Lastly, your point about rewarding successful programs with increased grant money is well taken, and the seed money/fuller support distinction seems helpful.
Eric: I think we are reaching a meeting of minds. One of the things that sucks about being poor is that you need the very best humanity has to offer, and you often get the mediocre and burned out. Sometimes, you even get those who are trying to milk the system for themselves and who couldn’t give a hang about you. Jason DeParle has some pretty scary stories about this problem in “American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation’s Drive to End Welfare.” I highly recommend the book.
I still hope Tom Berg or someone taking his position might respond on the discrimination question. I would learn from any effort to continue that discussion.
I have one anecdote that might be of interest:
During the Reagan years, Catholic Social Services was contracted by the state to handle some regional adoption operations, and several local citizens in the town where I worked as a reporter claimed people were being turned down for adoption for not being regular church-goers or avowed atheists.
The young man who ran CSS, a Methodist, said that indeed, providing a stable spiritual home for a child and having the support of one’s clergyman was one of the many criteria considered when couples applied for adoption. He felt that because CSS was ecumenical in its consideration of religious affiliation that it was not discriminatory.
He said it would not be impossible for atheists to adopt, but it would certainly be a a drawback–and given the demand for healthy babies at that time, no atheists had passed muster, but it was unclear whether that had been the point on which they were rejected.
Neither had any Unitarians or Jews adopted through CSS, though it was unclear how many had applied. Local Jews and Unitarians said that if they thought about adoption, they would certainly not go through CSS, assuming they would automatically be turned away.
A certain amount of discrimination seemed built in the CSS system. But more troubling, as I look back on that situation from the benefit of time, was the perception among some community groups that they simply would not receive service from an organization that had “Catholic” in its name.
When all of this was reported, I don’t recall that it made any waves whatever. Letters to the editor indicated that atheists should be at the bottom of the list for any adoption, and there were so few Jews in town as to be negligible. CSS was doing a fine job, and the fact that it had hired a Methodist to administer the program proved how broad-minded it was.
I frankly think that faith-based initiatives will be a very mixed bag. Some will do stellar work. And some will not. And the quality of the work will largely depend on whom you talk to, as with the CSS example above. I also have to wonder if the vetting and accounting safeguards such programs will require will make these programs pay off.
Personally, I would favor only programs where
a) churches had banded together to fill community needs (so you’re avoiding a mega church creating a window program that will steal sheep from other denominations) and
b) the effort had a proven track record of community service, was seeking to expand the program, and had a plan to become self-sufficient through private support within a stated period of time (to avoid churches having a regular infusion of public monies that parishioners could see as absolving them from having to put up their own bucks).
I remember well a conversation in the 60′s with black anti-poverty executives in the sixties. I remarked about how many were using the money to steal and make names for themselves. Without batting an eyelash they told me that they were just doing what “white America was doing for years.” In a similar light I have been told that even if social programs were flawed they provided many jobs for a lot of people.
So there are many ways to look at the situation. Honesty is always a start. We might learn something by watching who militates for the program and how they help their friends. I used to find this disillusioning but hey, at least someone gets help even if it is not the poor. Do social programs help the social workers or those served by them? Always a good question to ask.
To Joe Pettit,
The suggestion that faith-based religious programs have no complaint if they can consider religion when it’s “essential” for the job just doesn’t do it. Under that rule, the determination of what’s “essential” will be made by a federal agency or court, not according to the religious organization’s own understanding of its mission. Take one of my examples: suppose a funded homeless shelter says, “The services we provide don’t have explicit religious content, but we also think it’s essential for all employees to be praying on their own for the program and its beneficiaries, since only through God and prayer will the program succeed; thus it’s essential that all employees be adherents of the faith.” Should an agency or court reject that understanding of what’s essential? It seems to me very anti-pluralistic for the government to do so. As Stuart Buck said, real pluralism here would mean that some funded progams will consider religion in hiring, others will not — the government shouldn’t impose one model as among different programs that are successful.
Tom
Tom: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I will tempt you patience with one more reply. You may have noted above that I was one of the few people who thought that religious organizations should be allowed to be explicitly religious in providing services. So long as the federal government is neutral about what organizations receive money, then I do not think you run into disestablishment problems. That said, I think the federal government needs to be careful about granting exceptions to hard won nondiscrimination policies. With respect to your example, it seems to me that certain routes could be followed. First, I fail to see why the organization could not insist that prayer is an essential element of the services provided, and so insist that one qualification for the job is a willingness to prayer for clients. That said, it would not follow that those doing the praying needed to be denominationally determined; lot’s of people can pray. Also, I still think the “all other things being equal” qualification would enable faith-based organizations to hire among their own, so long as they had a good pool of qualified applicants.
If an agency or court says that prayer is not essential to the service provided, I think it would make for an interesting appeal. You are the lawyer. Isn’t it the case that sometimes one has to fight through the legal process to secure certain interpretations of the law?
I guess my final concern regards where one draws the line on allowing nondiscrimination exceptions. If I am Matthew Hale, the former and now imprisoned leader of the World Church of the Creator, a white supremacist “religious” organization, could I insist that in order to maintain the proper ethos within the services provided it is essential that all those hired be white? If not, why not? It seems to me the criteria that one would use to defend whites only hiring would be just as ethereal as those used to defend prayer as essential to services provided.
Federal nondiscrimination policies were hard won victories, and they were important victories. It is not clear to me why it is more important to maximize religious pluralism in social services than it is to protect the integrity of these policies.
Joe,
Surely the government shouldn’t say “Christian organization, you’re wrong when you say that only prayers in the name of Jesus will be effective; people of all denominations can have their prayers heard.” It’s not the government’s business to take a religious position like that, however admirably ecumenical the position. As to the idea of considering religion when other qualifications are equal, that’s not how the issue comes up. Rather, the religious organization (presumably under Obama’s plan), in order to get funding, has to sign a document ahead of time saying it won’t consider religion in hiring. If it doesn’t sign, it will be disqualified; we won’t ever get to the situation you’re discussing. In addition, “no discrimination” means that an organization can’t consider religion even from among a pool of basically qualified applicants; the organization would have to pick the most qualified without considering religion.
As to race-based hiring and religion-based hiring, antidiscrimination law treats them entirely differently. There are virtually no exemptions allowing racial discrimination, even on the basis of religious tenets (remember the Bob Jones University dispute). By contrast, federal law, through a series of exemptions, allows religious organizations to hire on the basis of religious faith for all positions (whether the position itself is deemed religious or not) without facing liability. This difference rests on the premise that racial characteristics are arbitrary and discrimination based on them has caused the most severe harms throughout our history, while religious discrimination — though arbitrary in many contexts, such as commercial transactions — is in no way arbitrary or illegitimate when done by a religious organization hiring people to carry out its mission. It’s no more illegitimate than for an environmental organization to want to hire people who are environmentalists. The same should be true in the context of funding.
Tom
Tom: Thanks. This is very helpful. I am afraid you misunderstood me when I said that lots of people could pray. I did not intend to be so interfaith that I meant that any old prayer would do. I would grant that Christians would want to hire Christians. As for agreeing not to discriminate on the basis of religion and the “all other things being equal” qualification, I guess I am still a little confused. The analogy that I can’t get out of my head is academic positions at religiously affiliated universities, universities that almost surely receive federal funds. If my memory serves me well, I think most of them will advertise as an Equal Opportunity Employer, but at the same time indicate that candidates from the particular religious tradition are especially encouraged to apply. I assume that it would not be surprising, nor would it raise eyebrows, if the cadidate ultimately hired were a member of the religious tradition with which the university is affiliated. Why can’t the same model work with federally funded faith-based initiatives.
Your distinction between religion-based and race-based hiring is helpful. Just to be clear, when you claim that federal law, through a series of exemptions, allows religious organizations to hire on the basis of religious faith for all positions, are you talking about when these religious organizations hire for jobs funded with federal money, or just jobs funded with non-governmental money? Do these exemptions precede the Bush administration?
I am sure you are busy, but if you have the time to reply, I know your insights would be helpful.
Rick and Tom, I obviously don’t agree with you on the inappropriateness of a non-discrimination clause in hiring for faith-based /community partnerships of the sort contemplated here.
Preliminary Matters
First, the question of what counts as unacceptable “discrimination” is key, as several commentators have already pointed out. If what is at stake is articulating the message of the religious group, describing the intersection of the faith and the soup kitchen, that’s one thing –it’s relevant to the job. If it’s actually working in the soup kitchen, that’s something else. Am willing to give religious organizations carte blanche in determining when and where faith is relevant–no, not if they receive public funds.
Second, I think it needs to be emphasized that however they are interpreted, the non-discrimination requirements only apply to this program=—not to all aspects of a church’s life.. Ideally, the program could be incorporated separately as a 501(c)(3); I suppose it need not be if the accountants can keep the financial lines sufficiently distinct.
Third, I think it’s important to keep in mind that the purpose of this particular program is not primarily to make religious groups flourish, but to partner with them in enacting limited purpose programs demonstrated to make the community as a whole flourish –it’s a secular purpose, with secular understood not as “anti-religious” but as not encompassing other-worldly goals, means, or objectives.
Fourth, to the extent that it’s relevant, I think the analogy to Planned Parenthood and environmental groups points against employment discrimination, rather than justifying it. Planned Parenthood cares that you support abortion rights; it doesn’t care about the underlying philosophy or worldview that leads you to support abortion rights. Anti-animal cruelty groups care that you don’t support cruelty to animals; they don’t care whether you think animals matter because they think, or because they feel, or because they are made in the image and likeness of God. Environmental groups care that you care about the environment, they don’t generally care whether it’s because you think the world will go to hell in a handbasket if we don’t care about it, or whether it’s because you think the environment is the world spirit. And so a publicly sponsored Soup Kitchen centrally ought to care that its workers believed the hungry should be fed, and not worry so much about whether it is because of God’s command, the requirements of natural law, or the demands of religious brotherhood.
Broader Context
It’s interesting to me that the debate is focused only on religious discrimination in hiring–that’s where people like Rick and Tom see the insult to religious groups. In fact, however, if you actually commit yourself to the perspective of particular religions, discrimination in services, as well as proselytizing, will likely be justified as well, and possibly be seen as more justified than discrimination on the basis of hiring.
Many religious groups believe that they have an obligation to give preference to the members of their faith in performing works of charity. Friends of mine who are scholars in Islam say, for example, that the Muslim brotherhood takes priority in extending help to the needy. One has a religiously based obligation to help one’s brothers and sisters in the faith before one helps others. Moreover, there is a strong strand in Thomistic thought about the appropriate priority in alms-giving; it was used and can easily still be used, to justify giving to other Catholics who are needy before giving to non-Catholics.
Moreover, it’s extremely consonant with the Christian tradition to hold that the only way that one can improve one’s life is to be struck by the grace of God. Proselytizing, in this view, is a way of preparing the way for God’s grace, without which no one can hope to turn one’s life around. In Thomistic thought, prayer is the highest form of secondary causality. From a Catholic theological world view, a monastery dedicated to praying for peace and justice may very well be the most effective way to achieve peace and justice.
In contrast, the religious affiliation of those who cooperate in the corporal works of mercy may be relatively unimportant to the mission. One does not need to be a believer to distribute food, clothing, and blankets to the needy. Rich religious believers –of all stripes-regularly had their slaves and servants perform the actual physical labor. In theological terms, one could see the ability to perform the services involved in the corporal works of mercy are likely “graces freely given,” not the graces that make us pleasing to God, following St. Paul and St. Thomas.
Am I saying, then, that religious groups ought to be able evangelize or to discriminate on the basis of services? Absolutely not. I am saying however, that distinguishing between hiring to perform services, on the one hand, and proselyting and distributing services, on the other, may not make a whole lot of sense from many theological perspectives. So merely keeping the focus on justifying discrimination in hiring does not, in my view, constitute taking the religious perspective seriously on its own terms.
As I said however, these are secular programs–they are designed to advance well-being on this earth, not in the next realm. /e are conscripting people’s money ==the money of taxpayers of all faiths and none — in order to fund these programs and partnerships. What can they legitimately expect? I think they –we–have an interest in insuring our funds are used both effectively (in a measurable way) and consonantly with our values. Here, the no proselytizing and no discrimination in provision of services rules become important. But in my view, so does the no discrimination in hiring rule as well, for two reasons. First, it has an impact on the efficient delivery of benefits. Why should a taxpayer want to support a less qualified job counselor than a more qualified job counselor, merely on the basis of religious belief? Clearly, hostility to the beliefs of one’s clients would be a legitimate factor in hiring. But does sharing those beliefs, in and of itself, count as a qualification? Maybe it does. But I want to hear the argument–. If it does, then religion is a BFOQ. Second, the job itself is a substantial benefit–it confers participation and status in the community. In many programs, much of the taxpayer generated money may be dedicated to hiring personnel. So distributing jobs has to be done in a way that’s consonant with the broader secular (again, not anti-religious) thrust of the program.
Needless to say, and to say again, we need to define impermissible discrimination carefully, to take into account cases where religious belief is relevant as a bona fide job qualification. But I do not think a blanket exception to the rule of anti-discrimination is either required or a good idea here.
Part of this is a prudential judgment about where the dangers to the common good are. The recent history of the faith based programs under President Bush does not make religious believers as a class come out looking as if they are the best judges of when and how religious belief ought to be relevant. Another is the scandal–and I think that word is not too strong –of evangelicals and conservative Catholics too(?) — in the Justice Department considering faith as a job qualification when it was clearly illegal to do so. Monica Gooding’s story is relevant, here I think.
So too, Rick, is the saga of Esther Slater MacDonald, an alumna of Notre Dame Law School, who mixed religion and conservative politics at the Justice Department. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/who_is_esther_slater_mcdonald.php
This recent history of religiously committed actors in the Bush administration suggests that there is in fact, a very good reason to be as worried about religious overreaching as secular overreaching in the public square. We need to choose a judicious middle path.
So I think it is reasonable, particularly in light of these clear abuses, for Americans to demand more accountability from religious groups participating in faith based partnerships. I am, because of them, far more comfortable going back to the pre-Bush regulations than I would have been had they not occurred.
There’s a particular statute (so I understand) that governs hiring of non-political jobs at DOJ. The fact that faith-based hiring for those jobs might violate that statute tells us absolutely nothing about whether it is legitimate for a private Catholic charity to prefer Catholics in hiring (and likewise for Jewish groups, Muslim groups, etc.). I don’t see how it provides any useful clarity to conflate two such distinct issues.
Moreover, I’m again impressed that many invocations of the “common good” are just a hand-waving means of pretending that one side of a partisan, divisive issue is somehow floating above the debate in some objective sense that commands everyone’s agreement.
Well, like Cathy says, we disagree. Because we have the luxury of being able to hash things like this out in real space — i.e., lovely South Bend — I’ll just say that (a) I don’t see the relevance of the McDonald / Goodling business to the question whether religious freedom is well served by requiring religious social-welfare organizations that receive some public funds to comply with non-discrimination laws (certainly, no one, in any Administration, should break the laws that govern the filling of non-political DOJ jobs), and (b) I don’t see why the fact that, for some religious organizations, the no-discrimination-in-services rule would be burdensome lessens the threat posed to religious freedom by the proposed no-discrimination-in-hiring rule.
The relevance is not legal –it’s moral. It’s the the shape and locus of moral temptation in a fallen world. It shapes what I’m worried about, and what I believe it is legitimate for the American citizens to be worried about. Before Bush, I was far more worried about creeping sectarianism imposing its will illegitimately upon persons of faith. Now I see, thanks in part to these events, that there is also good reason to worry about persons of faith illegitimately imposing their will upon those of other faiths and persons of no faith. It seems to me that a tacit assumption in Rick’s and Stuart’s and Tom’s view is that well, people of faith are not subject to the same moral temptations as everyone else. But we all ought to know better. The primary texts of the faiths themselves would tell that this is not the case.
We need to be balanced in our concerns–worrying about dangers on both sides.
Threats to religious freedom–well, the religions don’t have to take the money, so it’s not an absolute threat. They already get an enormous benefit in 501(c)(3) status. I care about the burdens on religion–but it is not the only value at stake here, and it’s not the primary concern when it comes to distribution of public funds. Given the disastrous corruption in Bush’s Faith Based Programs, I think it is prudent, as a political matter, to keep an eye on the use of funds.
I don’t see why people who are motivated by concern for religious burdens imposed by the no-discrimination-in hiring rule would not be equally if not more concerned by the religious burdens of the no-discrimination-in-services rule. In my judgment, that’s likely to be at least as much of a burden.
Let me reiterate: 1) If religion is relevant to the position–a mission officer, obviously it can be factored in as a BFOQ. 2) If it’s not relevant–soup ladler–it shouldn’t be factored in. (Obviously, if the soup ladler is hostile to the religious clients, that would be a negative factor too). 3) The group ought to be asked to make a case to the taxpayers why religion is relevant for the job in question.
I don’t see why this is an enormous burden.
Cathy, I understand perfectly well that “people of faith are . . . subject to the same moral temptations as everyone else”. In my view, though, this fact does not provide a strong enough reason to embrace the proposed no-”discrimination”-in-hiring rule.
Now I see, thanks in part to these events, that there is also good reason to worry about persons of faith illegitimately imposing their will upon those of other faiths and persons of no faith.
There’s some question-begging going on here again. Discriminatory DOJ hiring is illegitimate due to a federal statute. But who says that a Jewish charity is acting “illegitimately” when it declines to hire Christian fundamentalists who (as it happens) tend to like trying to convert their Jewish co-workers? That’s the whole question, and it can’t just be assumed away.
Threats to religious freedom–well, the religions don’t have to take the money, so it’s not an absolute threat. They already get an enormous benefit in 501(c)(3) status.
Familiarity with the unconstitutional conditions doctrine and the concerns underlying it makes me uncomfortable with this facile statement “religions don’t have to take the money.”
Moreover, it’s something of a myth that most religious organizations or churches have an “enormous benefit” from 501(c)(3) status; in fact, most such organizations are scraping to get by, rather than swimming in profits on which taxes would otherwise be due. See http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922690
In all events, I haven’t seen a refutation of the obvious point that by attaching strings to funding, the government would put in place a large incentive to destroy pluralism and diversity.
I’d also point out that by declining to hire Christian fundamentalists, the Jewish charity isn’t really “imposing its will” on anybody, as a Christian fundamentalist can find work in any of a million other places. Rather, it’s people like Prof. Kaveny who are trying to impose their will on the Jewish charity by asking it to change its organizational identity or face a financial penalty.
I don’t believe this is a constitutional question. I don’t believe the Constitution requires the government either to ban faith-based groups from discriminating in employment, or prohibits the government from imposing such a ban. Both approaches, in my view, are constitutional. Just like it is constitutional for the government to give tax exempt status to religions across the board, or to withhold it across the board. The fact that it grants it, and there is no serious argument to remove it, shows that we have a generally favorable attitude toward religion in this country.
The question is what does political prudence require. Political prudence takes into account the likely source of dangers and abuses. Before the second Bush administration, I was mainly worried about the abuses of creeping anti-religious secularism. Now, thanks in part to the abuses in the Bush Faith-Based Initiative Program, and more broadly by religious folk in matters having to do with the relationship of law, policy, religion and morality, I am equally worried about the abuses of creeping religious intolerance. People’s character, and the gravitational thrust of the worldviews that shape them, operate across contexts–they’re not as tightly cabined as you think they are. I think the misuse of government for religiously overdetermined political ends in such a flagrant way–and I have heard many other stories– shows the Founding Fathers’s worries about religious factionalism are still relevant, even if they are overstated by people hostile to religion.
I think the major difference between Rick and Stuart, on the one hand, and me on the other, is that I’m not only worried about preserving pluralism and religious diversity, I’m also worried about preserving other key values, such as equal treatment with federal funds.
I don’t see why, Stuart, a Jewish group couldn’t prohibit evangelicals from trying to convert co-workers on the job –and fire them if they don’t comply.
And “facing a financial penalty”- They are not being penalized, they just don’t get extra funds.
And “changing organizational identity” –the point of my long argument above was to show that if you actually take the time to study the tenets of the various religious, it is likely you will find that religious pluralism and diversity are more threatened by the anti- proselytizing requirement and the no discrimination in service requirement. If we’re comfortable in imposing these two requirements, I don’t see why we can’t impose an anti-discrimination in hiring requirement. Provided of course, that if religion is a BFOQ, it can be taken into account. So drawing the line where you want to draw it doesn’t seem rational to me, either from the perspective of religion or from the perspective of public policy.
On the common good, Stuart. Two things (from different political perspectives) you might find useful: David Hollenbach, SJ The Common Good, and John Finnis, On the practical meaning of secularism. Notre Dame Law Review 1998, 73: 491-516.
That is it for me folks. If Rick wants to go for a beer at Murph’s , that, of course, is always an option!
And “facing a financial penalty”- They are not being penalized, they just don’t get extra funds.
Are you familiar with the notion that tax incentives are economically equivalent to subsidies? The same concept would apply here.
the point of my long argument above was to show that if you actually take the time to study the tenets of the various religious, it is likely you will find that religious pluralism and diversity are more threatened by the anti- proselytizing requirement and the no discrimination in service requirement
I’m not sure why such an observation, even if true, is supposed to be comforting. Your argument amounts to this: “I don’t see any problem with interfering with religious identity and behavior in some ways; therefore, it’s OK to interfere with religious identity in other ways as well.”
Cathy — Not to drag you back in on a nice summer day; go have a beer. But here’s a response to your yesterday’s post (it doesn’t reply to you and Stuart from this morning; it’s hard to keep up with you all).
Cross-posted at
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/07/bergs-response.html
Among [Cathy's] key premises is that allowing religion-based hiring serves only the purpose of “mak[ing] religious groups flourish,” whereas the purpose of funding is “to partner with them in enacting limited purpose programs demonstrated to make the community as a whole flourish.” But the argument for religious-hiring rights in funding includes a significant component of institutional pluralism. Allowing funding recipients flexibility in this matter would serve the community by allowing a broader range of organizations, bringing a broader range of community contacts and strategies for addressing needs, to partner with the government. Obama’s speech appeals to institutional pluralism, asserting the need to have “all hands on deck” in attacking social problems through a “bottom up” approach. But because of the hiring-rights issue, his proposal is likely to drive away the majority of evangelical hands, as the negative reaction of the very moderate evangelical leader Rich Cizik in last week’s Times suggests. And his proposal is top-down to the extent that it supports only one model of religious engagement in social services — the ecumenical one where, in Cathy’s terms, religion is not “relevant to the job” of working in the soup kitchen.
Once it’s clear that both community service and religious freedom are at issue, it’s quite rational to say that funding recipients should serve clients of all faiths but may consider religion in deciding who will provide the services. Cathy thinks I have to treat the two decisions the same because my only concern is the organizations’ religious freedom. But if the government wants both client service and religious freedom, then it’s perfectly rational to use a rule to ensure that clients receive the services easily (without the possibility of rejection by some providers), yet also avoid intruding further into an organization’s decisions about the beliefs of those it chooses to deliver the services. (I personally would also make some room for organizations that make some religious demands of clients too, but that is not logically compelled just because I support religious hiring rights.)
Cathy argues that “the job itself is a substantial benefit–-it confers participation and status in the community.” But to use her own words, the purpose here is to partner with organizations to help the needy, not to provide government jobs.
Cathy says that the analogy to Planned Parenhood or environmental groups actually supports a division between providing secular services and a religious motivation for doing so, since these groups don’t care about “the underlying philosophy or worldview,” religious or secular, of why one supports abortion rights or enviromentalism. But these groups mostly don’t care about the underlying worldview for leaders either — their leaders include both religious and nonreligious people — whereas Cathy acknowledges that leaders of a religious charity can legitimately be required to adhere to its ultimate beliefs. That proves my point. For some religious soup kitchens, the mission is “feeding the hungry from religious faith,” not simply “feeding the hungry,” and they want all employees to share that mission, just as Planned Parenthood can want all employees to share its (more expansively defined) mission of promoting abortion rights. An organization whose mission combines abortion rights with religion — say, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights — should be able, if it wants, to require that all staffers are religious as well as pro-choice, and preserve that ability if it receives government funding.
I share Rick’s doubts about the reference to Monica Goodling and other DOJ hiring scandals. Given what we know, it appears that people engaged in religious favoritism in an improper context. But we should also note that they used government’s distinctive power (that of hiring for law-enforcement jobs) to engage in favoritism. By contrast, preserving religious hiring rights in the funding context allows private groups with different views of religious mission and motivation to cooperate with government without facing government favoritism. But under Obama’s proposal, government’s power of the purse will be used to disfavor organizations with certain models of religious mission and motivation regardless of whether they provide quality services.
As a former federal civilian HR specialist, I think any private entity receiving federal funds should be prohibited from hiring paid staff or selecting volunteers on the basis of their religious beliefs/affiliation. With faith-based initiatives, we are basically substituting the religious entity for a local/state/federal agency in providing a public service, the latter being defined here as a service that might otherwise be carried out by a govt agency OR a function traditionally performed by a non-govt entity that benefits either the public at large (soup kitchen, clothing locker, etc.) or a particular segment of the general population (Alcoholics Anonymous, etc.).
With the above in mind, I offer the following link that gives basic information about qualifications requirements for federal civilian positions in the competitive civil service (i.e., what most of us would normally think of as “civil service”):
http://www.opm.gov/qualifications/SEC-II/s2-c-d.asp
You may wish to pay special attention to the descriptions/definitions of knowledge, skills, and abilities; position; quality ranking factors, and selective factors.
If we are discussing use of taxpayer funding, we should be mindful of BFOQs (bona fide occupational qualification requirements) and how such requirements can be very useful in this discussion. Given my background in dealing with the job-hunting public, I think Cathy’s concern about being politically prudent is very appropriate. Perception is reality. If a church/temple/mosque wants federal dollars to carry out a religiously inspired function that is identifiable with similar/identical functions carried out by govt or non-sectarian organizations, the religious group should be prepared to adhere to minimum requirements that help “grease the wheels” of a pluralistic society.