Federal funding for faith-based programs requires careful implementation
Inside the First Amendment
By Charles Haynes
Senior scholar, First Amendment Center
02.04.01
Printer-friendly page
President Bush's ambitious plan to expand federal aid to faith-based
programs appears to be gaining broad support across religious and political
lines.
But enthusiasm for the general idea of cooperation between government
and religious groups that provide social services is one thing. Implementing
the idea without dividing Americans or violating the First Amendment is quite
another.
Here's the heart of the problem: Under the First Amendment, religious
groups receiving federal aid can't use the money for proselytizing or worship
activities. But for many people of faith, the religious message is inseparable
from the delivery of services. In fact, they believe that it is precisely the
religious dimension of their work that makes the work effective.
The president insists that he doesn't want the government to fund
religious activities. But at the same time, he doesn't want the religious
communities to abandon their religious message as a price for funding. It's not
clear yet where and how Bush intends to draw the First Amendment line.
Many religious leaders are nervous that the government may resolve
this tension through the imposition of restrictions and regulations. They
understand that taking public money imposes certain obligations, but they don't
want to make a Faustian bargain that trades religious liberty for financial
support.
Will Bush allay these fears? He's made a good start with the
appointment of University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio to head the
White House office that will promote inclusion of religious groups in federal
funding of social-service programs.
Although he is a passionate advocate of faith-based programs, DiIulio
has a reputation for taking a measured and thoughtful approach to the
implementation of "charitable choice." Among other things, he focuses on the
importance of funding programs that actually work.
If anyone can craft a workable arrangement that protects the integrity
of religious groups while establishing standards of accountability, DiIulio
can.
Of course, "providers" are not the only ones who need
religious-liberty protection when federal dollars flow to religious groups.
Those receiving services must also have their rights guarded. For example, if
someone in need objects to the religious nature of a social-service sponsor,
the government should ensure that a secular alternative is available.
Few Americans question the urgent need for new partnerships to address
our pressing social problems. And most of us appreciate the vital role faith
communities play in helping those most in need.
But before we rush into a new arrangement, let's keep in mind the
benefits of the old one.
Thanks to the First Amendment, religions in America are effective in
the struggle for social justice precisely because they are free from
governmental interference or control.
And religions thrive in our nation because they are supported by
voluntary contributions and willing hearts.
That's why any and all partnerships between government and religion
must take great care to uphold this extraordinary experiment in religious
vitality and freedom.
Your questions and comments are welcome. Write to:
Charles Haynes
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
1101 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22209
E-mail: chaynes@freedomforum.org
Related
What if Wiccans are the charity of choice?
Analysis Supporters of faith-based initiatives stumble over First Amendment prohibition against favoring some religions over others.
05.08.01
White House must build faith-based initiatives on common ground
By Charles Haynes Current congressional debates and public-opinion polls reveal that the more the people learn about the president's faith-based initiative, the more skeptical they are about it.
05.13.01
Recent Charles Haynes columns
More Charles Haynes columns
