Faith-based welfare?
But when the dollars spent on assistance are public, the constitutional dynamic changes
dramatically. The Constitution -- and case law growing out of it -- insists on separate roles
for both church and state. The state, above all, may not promote any particular religion.
From Kansas City Star
Date: 01/26/01 22:00
Before we get too far down President Bush's road toward so-called "faith-based action,"
let's consider both the dangers and the alternatives. As "the next step in welfare reform,"
the president plans to send to Congress soon his proposal for letting religious groups get
government funding to help the needy.
This approach is fraught with difficulties. Whether a constitutional way around those problems
can be found isn't known. But now -- not later -- is the time to sort through this.
Many faith communities have long had their own programs for helping the poor, the hungry,
the homeless. People receiving this private help often are asked, in turn, to consider the claims
of the religion behind the work, even to convert to that particular faith. This is how the system should work. Religious groups are free to give with strings attached.
But when the dollars spent on assistance are public, the constitutional dynamic changes
dramatically. The Constitution -- and case law growing out of it -- insists on separate roles
for both church and state. The state, above all, may not promote any particular religion.
But if the Bush plan becomes law, religious groups may get tax dollars to do work
they're already doing. How will the government make sure public money isn't being
spent to proselytize? It seems an almost impossible task.
But objections to the "faith-based action" approach go beyond worries about
a blurring of the roles of government and religion. There also are many reasons
for religious groups to be wary of accepting public dollars to do their work
With tax money inevitably comes federal oversight, regulation, control.
What church, synagogue or mosque wants to hand over to the government
its freedom to operate the way it feels divinely directed?
Yet despite such serious objections, there is something noble about Bush's idea
of government working more closely with people who feel religiously called to help
the neediest. Surely there must be ways government and religion can cooperate in
this without breaking down precious constitutional walls or undermining religious freedom.
In fact, there are alternatives, and Bush may propose at least one of them.
That is to allow people who don't now itemize their income-tax deductions to take
at least a partial deduction for charitable gifts. This would encourage giving to charities.
Indeed, if people of faith gave money for such work at the rate their religions call on them to give,
many of the country's welfare needs would disappear.
Religious groups also can be encouraged to work in a more intentional, organized way
to refer people in need to government programs designed to help them.
The government has an obligation to help care for people who need help. It cannot do it alone,
but neither can charitable organizations. Both should
work together -- but not at the expense of religious freedom or constitutional protections.
The Bush plan should be judged on how well it keeps that in mind.
kcstar.com |
