A Christian Liberal is NOT an oxymoron.

Posted by XT on July 1st, 2008 in Campaign News

Barack Obama is now saying that he wants to expand President Bush’s horrific “faith-based initiative” program. In case that sentence isn’t clear enough for you, I’m against the very idea of the government supporting faith-based anything.

From the New York Times:

[Obama] thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.

The emphasis is mine. The reason is that Mr. Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. He should review Lemon v. Kurtzman. To requote:

The entanglement in the Rhode Island program arises because of the religious activity and purpose of the church-affiliated schools, especially with respect to children of impressionable age in the primary grades, and the dangers that a teacher under religious control and discipline poses to the separation of religious from purely secular aspects of elementary education in such schools. These factors require continuing state surveillance to ensure that the statutory restrictions are obeyed and the First Amendment otherwise respected. Furthermore, under the Act, the government must inspect school records to determine what part of the expenditures is attributable to secular education, as opposed to religious activity, in the event a nonpublic school’s expenditures per pupil exceed the comparable figures for public schools.

In plain talk, it means this: Giving government money to a church for non-church activities invites abuse on both sides of the relationship. What’s more, it puts the church at an incredible disadvantage in carrying out these activities because it has to maintain a one-off distance with itself. If the government gives money to a church school to buy chalk; then that chalk can’t be used in a classroom with any religious symbology or where any religious discussions take place.

The principle is the same with a half-way house. If the halfway house is on fire; the church can’t call for the fire department from its office (okay, that would probably be exempt). But food from the soup kitchen could not be given to the halfway house because the church would have to prove that the transfer of commodity did not entangle the funds of the church and the halfway house.

It also goes against the very reason for having a church. My church – like many – has a number of aging members who would benefit greatly from an elder daycare facility. There are also a few – like myself – who could benefit from a daycare arrangement. We’ve batted the idea around of combining the two. If we do it as a function of the church and on an informal basis, it’s no problem. As a matter of fact, I’m sure the members of our church would dig pretty deeply into their pockets to support such an informal program.

But if we want to enlarge it, formalize it, and offer it to the community, then we would have to hire professional staff. It’s just too easy to go to the government for a handout. In the longterm, such a relationship would make the survival of our church dependent on governmental largess, and not the generocity and needs of the community. What’s more, it would short-circuit any discussion with other churches in the community – the Lutherans, the Reformed Church, and the Catholics surely have similar demographics – and turn it from a community program to a government program run by the Episcopal Church.

If such a professionalization is needed, it is simple enough for our church, or all the churches of the community, to form a new non-profit and run this dual-care program. That program, independent of the church governance, would be able to qualify for governmental assistance anyway. Everything would be the same except it would be independent – so if the Church got tired of it or needed the space, the effort could continue without the blessing of the Church.

Or, if we put a real face on it, Catholic Charities can already qualify for government programs if it does not enforce Catholic dogma on its employees or the recipients of its aid. Under the faith-based initiative rubric, this is not necessarily true. This is not to point a finger at a group to say it would happen under them, but what good is gained to the community from forcing people to swear false allegiance to the Catholic Church? Even if any such benefits could be identified, would they be the legitimate business of the government to pursue?

No. Our entire government is founded on the denial of that premise. Barak Obama should know better.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama, “faith-based initiative”

Sphere: Related Content