Articles

Give Honest Airing to Plan to Fund Faith-Based Groups

by James T. Laney and Andrew Young

Over the years, we have witnessed "no-win" gridlock in the corridors of Congress. Now we may be seeing it in communities of faith.

Thanks largely to the politics of faith communities, a potentially important initiative may be aborted without a fair hearing. The initiative is President Bush's proposal to broaden charitable choice options. His plan would make a wider range of existing federal funds accessible to faith-based groups that are willing and able to deliver social services urgently needed nationwide. Such services would include drug and alcohol rehabilitation, emergency food and shelter, and other programs.

We believe federal funding for faith-based social service programs is an idea that should be openly debated in good faith in the public square. Such discussion can help us as a society to move toward overdue solutions to pressing social challenges -- solutions that may or may not be packaged as charitable choice.

Shortly after his inauguration, the president expressed his desire to "enlist, equip, enable, empower and expand the heroic works of faith-based and community groups across America," whether such works are done by "Methodists, Muslims, Mormons, or good people of no faith at all." The goal, he explained, is to "to unleash the best of America."

In suggesting that faith-based organizations should have access to a broader range of existing federal funds for social service delivery, the president launched a political craft into religious waters -- troubled religious waters.

Reactions came quickly. Many of them were knee-jerk no's, preemptory rejections expressed with vehemence.

Many Jews and Muslims assume the proposed program would unfairly exclude them.

Many liberal churches are concerned that government is trying to shirk the responsibility to care for the needy.

Some conservative religious leaders fear that public funds would be available also to less-mainstream communities of faith.

Some religious groups fear access to such funds will create competition among them -- as if that would be a new development. Others fear government money will seduce the church into not speaking out against unjust government policies or actions -- as if the church failing to do so were novel.

Many political liberals suspect that the president's initiative is a way to pay back the religious right for its support during the presidential election campaign.

Other concerns stem from a fear of weakening the so-called, "wall of separation between church and state." The initiative's supporters argue, however, that nothing in this proposed legislation creates an "establishment of religion, or prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof," as forbidden by our Constitution's First Amendment. Furthermore, social service programs of all faith traditions would be eligible, with program effectiveness as the primary criterion.

To be sure, there are some legitimate concerns to be aired and addressed on various fronts.

It is disturbing, however, that there are so few voices saying, "Let's talk about this. Let's try to make this work for the common good."

Let us remember that communities of faith have been actively assisting their neighbors in need for centuries. They have built schools, hospitals, and orphanages at home and abroad. They have clothed, nursed, nurtured, fed, and freed millions worldwide. Today, countless congregations continue that tradition of service and are eager to do more because their faith calls them to do so. The government has funds allocated to helping individuals and families in need. There should be a way -- indeed, we must find a way -- for faith-based social service programs to obtain the funding necessary to deliver more of the services needed for the common good of our nation.

It is time for a fair, open, and honest dialogue about the details of the president's proposal. He must push the initiative forward, demonstrating his confidence in it. The rest of us must debate it openly and in good faith. Indeed, the president's plan may prove workable beyond even his broad vision for it. On the other hand, perhaps, as the Pew Forum's Melissa Rogers suggests: "While charitable choice is the wrong way to do right, there are many right ways for church and state to do right together."

One thing is certain. An open public debate on the details of federal funding for faith-based initiatives -- whatever the outcome -- will benefit our entire society. It may even lead us toward meeting social challenges that the founders of this great nation never could have envisioned when they wrote the First Amendment to the extraordinary document that is the Constitution of the United States of America.

Former U.S. Ambassadors Laney and Young are the founders and co-chairs of Faith And The City. (This opinion was published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 10, 2001.)