And that’s pretty much how the administration wants it. After all, Bush believes that faith can solve the world’s problems, as his web site declares.

"Government can hand out money, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our lives. It cannot bring us peace of mind. It cannot fill the spiritual well from which we draw strength day to day. Only faith can do that. In the final analysis, there is no overcoming anything without faith – be it drugs or alcohol or poverty or selfishness or flawed social policy."

Non-sectarian organizations providing social services may protest. After all, they have been the primary provider of services in recent times, and must have overcome problems. It has been shown that faith-based organizations, while very effective at combating certain societal ills, have deficiencies. For instance, the Lilly Endowment provided grants to 40 Midwest religious groups to educate, house, feed, find jobs, and provide medical services for people. However, the groups just consistently established food pantries and educational programs. They acknowledge that secular groups generally supply better health and employment programs. Moreover, many existing secular organizations serving areas traditionally neglected by religious charities struggle to find adequate funding, but Bush’s plan does nothing to help them.

Religious groups already receive federal funding for charitable work. Such groups as Catholic Charities and Volunteers of America fund the majority of their budget from government sources. They are allowed to do so because they are secular after being spun off from religious groups. However, their funding does require them not to spread their faith, or use religion as a means to their charitable ends. That is the necessary trade-off that comes with public funding.

Whatever the political rhetoric, Bush throws around about not discriminating against the religious, religious groups may not necessarily benefit from the governmental "aid." Sharon M. Daly, a vice president of Catholic Charities, contributed a word of caution to charities that want to accept public funding. "Our agencies always lose money on contracts with the government, so it would mean the parish subsidizing government."

The receipt of federal funds by faith-based organizations raises many sticky issues, such as necessitating changes in the roles of the participating religious institutions. To abide by the federal guidelines, the money coming from the government and going to social services must never intermingle with those coming from the congregation and going to religious services. The potential for misappropriation is great, so the government will inevitably shower red tape on the institutions, and restrict how their charitable services can be run. Handling this while preserving the original purpose of the religious organization will prove daunting.

The pool of money from the government to service organizations remains limited, a constraint that will spur intense competition among different groups, raising the specter of biased distribution. While the administration naturally denies any prejudice, it has found itself boxed into a corner by piercing questions. Many religious groups do not want to see funding go to charities based on faiths they feel are hateful or undeserving. Particularly strong opposition has come from Jewish groups who fear federal funding of the Nation of Islam, led by prominent anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. President Bush, during the presidential debates last year, parried a similar question by saying "I don’t see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message." However, once discrimination between religions arises, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives would be left in the untenable and unconstitutional position of choosing between faiths.

That violation of the Constitution is one of the most blatant problems of Bush’s plan. "His plan for the social services would essentially merge church and state into a single bureaucracy that would dispense religion alongside government aid," according to Rev. Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Opposition to the faith-based charity program comes from all parts of the religious spectrum as well. The executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee, Brent Walker, decried it as "unconstitutional" and says it "will result in invasive regulation and excessive entanglement between church and state."

Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition, a group not known for opposing conservative legislation, also slammed the plan by declaring it overly restrictive: "All of a sudden, some bureaucrat says, ‘Well, we’re going to give you tons of money, but you can’t talk about your faith. You can’t teach them the Torah, you can’t talk about Jesus or what have you. At that point they have essentially killed the essence of that organization."

Richard Foltin, legislative director of the American Jewish Committee, worries about the curtailment of religious freedom lurking in the program. "As a religious minority, we are greatly concerned about government programs that present a danger of people having to participate in religious activities by explicit or implicit pressure as a price of receiving social services."

Faith-based organizations, unlike other nonprofits, need not hire people who disagree with their religious beliefs. Because of such discrimination, the American Civil Liberties Union is considering legal action if the legislation is carried through. Terri Schroder, a legislative analyst for the ACLU, explains: "Bush wants to level the playing field. But it’s not level. Civil rights laws are relaxed." Many mainstream and small religious groups have employment policies that would directly violate federal anti-discrimination laws, but are allowed to be in place because of the special status religious groups have. A recent example is the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, which receives three-quarters of its annual funds from the state, yet fired a children’s therapist because she is homosexual. That is essentially government-funded and government-approved discrimination.

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, though well intentioned, will certainly do much to reverse the civil rights gains made in the latter half of this century and to dilute the religious nature of the organizations that make use of it. It will not help the needy any more than if nothing is done. Good intentions have never been the best of measures.
a