|
|
February 23, 2001/Shevet 30, 5761, Vol. 53, No.21
Faith-based aid headed for courts
MARTY LATZ
Special to Jewish News
I'm conflicted. I get nervous when government officials talk about God, financial support and religious institutions in the same breath. Mixing state funds with religious faith makes me uncomfortable. Too often, this combination has excluded and posed a danger to those holding minority religious beliefs.
Yet it seems nonsensical to prohibit effective faith-based social service organizations from receiving government grants solely due to religious affiliation. Doesn't this form of discrimination limit our effectiveness in fighting homelessness and other social ills?
So President George W. Bush's recent creation of a White House office to coordinate government funding for private faith-based social service organizations has sparked some serious soul-searching and vigorous communal debate.
While a big admirer of the critical work many such faith-based organizations provide, I have three concerns regarding their public funding. First, there's the "Nation of Islam" problem. Let's say the Nation of Islam establishes an affiliated organization to help get young African-American men off drugs. Assume it works well and meets President Bush's standards for effectiveness.
What's the problem? The program works hand-in-hand with the Nation's leaders to promulgate its anti-Semitic beliefs. And while the drug rehabilitation program might occupy separate space within the Nation's buildings, I believe it would be tough - and likely impossible - to practically distinguish it from the Nation's destructive belief system. Are you comfortable with our money funding this?
Okay, program supporters might respond, we'll develop criteria to prevent organizations promulgating such views from receiving funding. Unfortunately, this "solution" presents another problem. It puts the government into the business of determining which faiths pass muster and which don't. I'm uncomfortable with government performing this role.
Second, there's the "fungible money" problem. If we support a particular church's soup kitchen, that church will likely take the money it would have spent on the soup kitchen and spend it for religious purposes. Tax funds will thus be used to: a) support - if indirectly - the religious activities of certain faiths; and b) disproportionately benefit and financially strengthen religious groups that operate social service organizations. The principal impact will be to aid certain religions.
Finally, there's the entanglement issue. Do we really want government workers going into faith-based institutions and determining if a "religious" sermon - or any sermon at all - accompanies the soup? And doesn't the effectiveness of many of these programs depend precisely on the faith-based belief system of the institution?
I support providing a safety net for those temporarily unable to help themselves. But blurring the lines between our government's role and our faith-based organizations' roles carries too many risks.
I'll pray that the courts - the ultimate defenders of minority rights - will stop this one.
Martin E. Latz is a lcoal attorney and negotiation consultant. He can be reached at Latz@NegotiationInstitute.com.
|
