Faith-based failure

Today's Washington Post and MSNBC have an article on the failure of the Bush administration to push-through their much desired "faith-based initiatives" legislation. With all of the focus on the war in Iraq, news of it's defeat almost got lost. At least I hadn't heard about it, and this is a story I've been watching for.

After 26 months of tussles over Bush's "faith-based initiative," the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate agreed to remove any mention of religion in a bill whose stated purpose was helping religious charities. All that was left was a package of charitable tax incentives-and even those were barely 15 percent of the amount Bush had proposed."

Bush's plan would have allowed religious charities to compete for direct government funding to provide social services, in particular to the poor, while still allowing them to maintain the spiritual aspects of their programs. Part of what made the program controversial to liberals is that people who are entitled to government aid could end up being required to go to programs run by religious group (especially if no secular groups are providing the needed service), which in turn would be allowed to minister to the individual or possibly even push them to attend some kind of religious services in exchange for their aid (they would not be able to require those seeking aid to attend, however). The groups would also be allowed engage in religious discrimination when hiring and other aspects of running their operations.

For religious aid groups to push attendence at religious services or to discriminate in their hiring practices, etc., is perfectly acceptable when they are privately funded and serving those people who choose to make use of their services voluntarily. It's when clients are required to make use of their services (for example, if they win a governmental contract to provide services in a certain area) and when they are being funded by the government that it becomes problematic. When that happens, the government ends up essentially supporting their religious activities, something that it is not supposed to do.

For conservatives, however, the concern was that because the government would be funding religious groups, they would end up having to become more secular in order to conform with governmental requirements. Just as the government is not supposed to fund religious activities, it is also not supposed to tell religious groups how to operate (within certain guidelines - religious groups obviously cannot engage in activities that would otherwise be considered criminal, except under certain circumstances, such as the use of peyote in certain Native American religious rituals).

Some aspects of legislation have been put into operation through executive orders, and Bush has established an office for faith-based initiatives, but the defeat of this legislation, at the very least, sends the message that there is little support for measure of this nature within Congress - and, by extention, the general public.

Even before Bush was elected, there were discussion on programs of this nature in Congress, and Bush made it clear in his campaign that he would push strongly for his "faith-based intiatives". During the summer of 2000, when the Presidential campaigns were in full swing, the House held debates on "charitable choice", which is one program Bush had very much wanted to see put in place.

While debating the merits of the bill on the House floor, Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, who is opposed to the bill, asked whether Wiccans would be eligible for charitable choice funds. Souder remarked, “It is unlikely under President Bush that the Witches would get funding.” Edwards responded by saying that Souder had proved his point and that no bill should be passed, if, under a possible future Bush administration, government officials would pick which religions would get funding, and thus give federal sanction to some religions while withdrawing it from others.

I have no doubt that Bush will continue to put as much of his desired policy into effect though executive orders. I am glad, however, that Congress has said "no" to this legislation and made it clear that there is little support for this kind of proposition in either party.

Posted by thorswitch at April 23, 2003 11:30 AM | TrackBack