Faith-Based Charities Face Challenge

from the February 27, 2008 eNews issue

The US Constitution clearly gives Americans freedom of religion. The First Amendment's establishment clause was put in place to guarantee freedom to worship God in whichever way one's conscience dictates. During the past fifty years, however, the establishment clause has often been used to censor religious expression - to protect people from religion - in ways certainly not intended by the Constitution's framers.

On January 29, 2001, days after entering the White House, President Bush established the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. The goal was to help both religious and secular charities make a difference in their communities. Recently the White House published a report called "The Quiet Revolution" which details the success of the program over the past seven years. According to the report, in the year 2006 alone, faith-based organizations received more than 2.2 billion dollars in grants from the federal government.

Having access to federal funds has helped faith-based charities to better serve the people in their communities. Supporters of Bush's initiative point out that faith-based organizations often have much higher success rates than their secular peers. They argue that the government, if it's going to put money into social services at all, should fund those organizations that produce results, rather than just continue to dump money into weak and expensive government programs.

According to the White House, faith-based organizations helped reduce chronic homelessness by 12 percent between 2005 and 2006. Even more impressive, faith-based organizations have cut the recidivism rate in half for non-violent criminals who participate in programs that help them reenter the workforce. Faith-based charities have benefited single mothers and drug addicts, alcoholics and the children of prisoners, AIDS victims and high risk youth. They reach out to the poor, the old, the needy.

Under current law, faith-based organizations can receive federal funds to provide social services without being forced to change their religious identity. However in an article published in the Washington Times it was reported that "There's a heated behind-the-scenes battle brewing in the Senate to kill language in a mental health and social services law that allows religious groups who receive federal funds to continue hiring only people of their particular faith."

President Bush's position has been that: "Government has no business endorsing a religious creed, or directly funding religious worship or religious teaching. That is not the business of the government. Yet government can and should support social services provided by religious people, as long as those services go to anyone in need, regardless of their faith. And when government gives that support, charities and faith-based programs should not be forced to change their character or compromise their mission."

Unfortunately, there are those who strongly oppose government funds being awarded to faith-based charities. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) are fighting to have the charitable choice language removed from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration law. They claim the law "subsidizes religious discrimination." If the charitable choice language is scratched from this law, groups like the AUSCS may push for its removal from other laws as well. Conservative groups like the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom say that removing the protective language would violate the religious freedom and integrity of those faith-based organizations: "Asking faith-based organizations to ignore religion in making staffing decisions is like asking senators to disregard party affiliation and political ideology in choosing their staff, or requiring the Sierra Club or the Human Rights Campaign to ignore the political and philosophical commitments of potential staff."

What many people don't realize is that the words "separation of church and state" are not found anywhere in the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or even the Declaration of Independence. That phrase comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. Furthermore, the "wall of separation between church and state" that Jefferson referred to in his letter was clearly meant to protect religious freedom and to prevent government from attempting to take away our God-given unalienable rights. To learn more about this topic, click on the links below.