New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | March 17, 2005

Are faith-based initiatives privatizing charity or nationalizing God? Cathy Young prays for wisdom.

Comments

|3.17.05 @ 8:19PM|#

You mean thoreau, right? :)

|3.17.05 @ 8:27PM|#

Partnerships in which public funds for social services are allocated to privately run programs are often seen as a semi-libertarian solution to the problem of the welfare state.

How anyone ever thought that is beyond me. They certainly weren't considering what Hamilton or Madison wrote on the matter of church and state relations.

|3.17.05 @ 8:43PM|#

The strings that come with public funds are my main reason for opposing school vouchers for Catholic schools. I know some people object to public funding of religious schools because they fear government promotion of religion. Fair enough, but what scares me even more is the government ruining what are currently among the best schools in the country.

Sadly, if vouchers are ever extended to Catholic schools the people who take my view will probably be made to look bad because the first battle won't be over standards or something else directly related to education. Rather, it will probably be about hiring gay teachers or some other rather embarassing aspect of Catholicism. And a lot of people will say "See, public funding is only forcing Catholic schools to be more inclusive, not degrading the quality of education." So I'll look like a homophobic Chicken Little.

And when my worst fears finally are realized, I'll be depressed to take any satisfaction in "Hah, I told you so!"

|3.17.05 @ 9:32PM|#

There never was and never will be separation of church and state. Church will always be the "good cop" to state's "bad cop" in the effective, on-going brainwashing of John Q. Goober.
No sooner than Constantine became a christer did the relatives of those recently designated as big cat food (in the coliseum) begin to come around to the conclusion state was swell after all. And St. Augustine began to rationalize wars--especially Constantine's--as "just."

Nothing new under the sun.

|3.17.05 @ 11:10PM|#

"No sooner than Constantine became a christer did the relatives of those recently designated as big cat food (in the coliseum) begin to come around to the conclusion state was swell after all."

For some reason Nero is starting to look saner than his reputation made him out to be.

|3.17.05 @ 11:21PM|#

Ruthless has it right..

The struggle between church and state is much older than the founding of this country. I'm not sure I get the good cop - bad cop equation though. It seems a little more like, in honor of St. Patricks Day, being caught between the Londonderry Police and the IRA. They're both pretty lousy cops.

|3.18.05 @ 2:53AM|#

Justice Janice Rogers Brown. I like that name. Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court I'd like even better

|3.18.05 @ 3:07AM|#

Cathy Young writes:The first breach in this wall of separation was made not by theocrats in the Bush White House but by the Clinton administration.

Tim Cavanaugh, why don't yall get someone on the Reason payroll that can read the USA constitution.

Thocrats? Poor Cathy.

|3.18.05 @ 4:17AM|#

BillyRay, I'm pretty sure that the word "theocrats" was used quasi-facetiously by Ms. Young.

Or by me, as Gary would insist :->

|3.18.05 @ 4:29AM|#

Ruthless has it right... The struggle between church and state is much older than the founding of this country. I'm not sure I get the good cop - bad cop equation though.

I think he means:

Bad cop: "Play ball, or you go to jail."

Good cop: "Play ball, and you can go to heaven."

|3.18.05 @ 7:03AM|#

I don't really have any problems with the 'starvation' army. So the government gives them a contract just as they would any other business-and by the way religion is a business.If they can do the job fine with me. The problem is not the religious groups,it is social engineering by government. The starvation army should have the right to hire and fire regardless of who is paying the contract.

Just heard the tail end of business news this morning. Something about A Chicago Walmart store closing because the employees voted in a union. Sounds like my kind of management.

|3.18.05 @ 7:03AM|#

If an "initiative" is truly faith based then why the need for Government reimbursement? This turns "Faith Based" into " Cash driven". They are nationalizing "God", this is unfair. These mega-churches don't need reimbursement I think they have enough cash. It's offensive that they are Government funded.

|3.18.05 @ 7:46AM|#

Judy: fair enough. I find it offensive that government can dictate to anyone with a government contract on who must be hired. I will concede that if the contract stipulates such conditions then the contractor enters the deal with eyes open. After the fact dictation should be illegal.

|3.18.05 @ 8:19AM|#

GUYK,

I find it offensive that government can dictate to anyone with a government contract on who must be hired.

I don't.

_______________________________

Note that Bush, when commenting on these "faith based" programs, has stated that the "guidebook" for them is the Bible. One has to ask, is he including the story of the rape(?) of Dinah?

|3.18.05 @ 8:22AM|#

The Bible isn't much of a "guidebook" for life, unless by guidebook you mean a "how-to" text on rape, genocide, mass-murder, incest, etc.

|3.18.05 @ 9:19AM|#

Not to create a two hundred comment thread here, but, Louisiana recently mandated all companies with state business follow the administration's policies against discrimination against homosexuals. Obviously, the bible wasn't the guide book here. Although I'd hire a gay in a heartbeat (I need to find a new connection), I don't know about the two bazillion churches that are probably doing state work. Forcing tolerance on churches is ok with me, but they won't really be churches anymore, will they?

|3.18.05 @ 10:09AM|#

BillyRay's a sock puppet. Yall? USA constitution?

C'mon.

|3.18.05 @ 10:20AM|#

I can see no better way to destroy religion than to merge it with the state.

As a recovering theist, I think it's about time that religion got embroiled in state affairs while the 'theocrats' are in power so that when the pendulum swings the other way, all the intertwining they have made between church and state will can be used to twist religion in new directions.

I feel the same way about teaching 'intelligent design' in schools. Once the doors have been opened, there's nothing to stop schools being forced to teach the intelligent design principles of all the other religions as well. Just wait till kids need to be taught that some thousand headed, thousand footed creature became the earth and parts of it became the gods. I wonder what they'll call that.

|3.18.05 @ 10:20AM|#

GUYK says,

"I don't really have any problems with the 'starvation' army. So the government gives them a contract just as they would any other business-and by the way religion is a business.If they can do the job fine with me. The problem is not the religious groups,it is social engineering by government. The starvation army should have the right to hire and fire regardless of who is paying the contract."

That's not the issue here. The issue is equal application of hiring/employment regulations. If Salvation Army wants federal funds, then it should have to play by the same rules that all other federal funds recipients do.

The problem was, the Bush Administration wanted to re-write the rules to allow the Salvation Army and others to discriminate, yet, this exception would not translate to other non-religious recipents.

So, for example if Religious Group A says "I'm not hiring any fags because it's against my religion", and Secular Group B says "I'm not hiring any fags because I'm a bigot", then, under the law, Group A would still be eligible for funding, while group B would not.

This is about "special exceptions" to the law for religious reasons. If the feds want to allow this exception for religious groups, fine---alow that same exception for non-religious groups as well.

|3.18.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Doesn't most of the faith-based argument boil down to the idea that the indoctrinated are better citizens?

|3.18.05 @ 10:35AM|#

James says,

"Louisiana recently mandated all companies with state business follow the administration's policies against discrimination against homosexuals [...] I don't know about the two bazillion churches that are probably doing state work. Forcing tolerance on churches is ok with me, but they won't really be churches anymore, will they?"

A church is a church---until they want to do business with the state. Then they are a state-hired contractor - in the eyes of the law. For it to be any different would be to, in effect, create a law that respected the establishment of religion over secular groups.

It's quite simple: you want my money, you play by my rules, and those rules are applied equally to all applicants for my money. If you don't want to play by my rules, fine, more power to you---but don't expect my money. To say that a state-contracted church should be able to discriminate, but a state-contracted secular business is not allowed to discriminate, is just plan unjust. If this is done by the federal government, then it is a violation of the constitution (though, I'm not sure if it violates Louisiana constitution).

|3.18.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Evan Williams: My point exactly-it is not doing business with faith based organazations that I have problems with, it is the social engineering.

We have allowed government to intrude into our lives and businesses to the point that government dictates what we do. I recently disolved a small corporation and sold the assets mainly because I was tired of government intrusion. It had gotten so bad that I would not advertise for hired help because of the paperwork envolved if I refused to hire someone. And, don't even resort to using a government unemployment agency to find labor. They send you three applicants, none of whom are remotely qualified, then demand reasons why you refuse to comply with federal hiring regulations. Consequently, I have joined the non-productive retired ranks with sufficient income for my needs.However, closing the business cost the economy several jobs and a bunch of tax revenue. I know many who have taken the same option rather than bow to government regulation. I suspect that there will be many more in coming days. Those who do not outsource will simply close the doors.

|3.18.05 @ 1:47PM|#

I'm all for outsourcing of "human services". But I agree with that the rules must be the same for everybody. If the entity seeking to fill the outsourcing contract can't abide by those rules, then they either need to walk away from the contract, or lobby the legislature to amend the rules for everybody. Not a "special exemption", but a blanket change. In some cases they'll succeed and in others they will fail. But the rules will apply equally to everyone.

Nothing steams my clams more than the special loopholes government grants to favored interests.

|3.18.05 @ 3:09PM|#

FIO, You mean like granting tax exempt status to institutions that are really only in it for the money? Seeing how watered down the gospels are in most churches these days, just what is their real reason for being? The only thing I hate more than someone telling another how to live, is someone who purports to belive in the bible, but is too wussy to actually hold their congregation to it.

|3.18.05 @ 3:31PM|#

I'm waiting for the Church of Satan to apply for some of that filthy lucre. Maybe an outreach mission for runaways?

|3.18.05 @ 5:28PM|#

James:

Yeah, the whole tax exempt thing is another bug in my butt. And its not just churches. Schools, hospitals, activist groups, et al. are all in this together, simply because their particular product or service is politically favored over somebody else's product or service.

Hey GOP! How's that tax reform project coming? Oh, right. We have to poke around in baseball and feeding tubes first. Those powers are clearly enumerated in the Constitution, right after the one that repeals the 9th and 10th Amendments.

|3.18.05 @ 8:58PM|#

"I can see no better way to destroy religion than to merge it with the state."

metalgrid,
Did you see the recent segment on US national news where UK clergy (on UK gummint payroll) have been consigned to roam grocery stores to proselytize?
Can you see why Tommy Jefferson was prouder of getting preachers off the gummint tit than he was of being President?

I'm also out to destroy religion, but I'm aware merging it with state may still not be of high enough caliber to finish the job. I'm thinking War of the Woilds by H. G. Wells.
It's gonna take some little something, like joims, or even more insidious, to be rid of this here plague.

DDT?

|3.19.05 @ 5:19PM|#

Cathy:

"Taxpayers can be forced to subsidize religiously or ideologically driven programs they find objectionable; private groups can be compelled to compromise their beliefs and their mission...the government gets to decide which private organizations and which beliefs will receive its imprimatur. Suddenly, the privatization of the welfare state looks more like the bureaucratization of charity."

Strong points against "faith bases initiatives"! Another point against them is that they tend to neutralize the countervailing force with which church tends to oppose state in situations such as ours where there is a legal separation of the two. Not taxing the churchs and keeping them away from most government programs, and their funds, helps keep their interests separate in many purviews. Note that the "religious right" helped oppose the expansion of the welfare and regulatory state in the 70's. Carter was their enemy.

Now, seemingly paradoxically, I support voucher education even when it involves tax monies going to religious schools. Why? Because the state is so overwhelmingly dominant in the K-12 ed biz. A situation where the government takes the money and passes it out to the parents for them to decide which schools they prefer seems like an improvement over the state providing the schools as well.

Also, it seems that voucher education may make it so that there are more secular alternatives to the government schools. Because of the favored tax position of religious schools, they are the dominant alternative to government schools. But with vouchers, secular schools may be put on a more equitable footing.

The abject failure of government schools is brought home by the fact that in Chicago (this data is a few years old, but may still obtain) large numbers of Black parents pay to have their kids go to Catholic schools, even though they tend to be protestant and have working class incomes. The desire to have one's kids actually learn things, and learn them in an environment that is safe, is a powerful motivator for these folks. They should be able to spend the tax monies, that they are forced to pay, at schools of their choosing.

I realize that this is a second best alternative to the abolition of government schools, but it is still more libertarian than not allowing parents choice.