A Steeple of Progressive Policy

President Bush speaks in 2004 at the White House National Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in Washington. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)

The battle over faith-based initiatives has long reflected the culture wars between the right and the left. Some progressives may shudder at the idea of expanding the programs—mostly because many believe they blur the line between church and state. But progressives should stop worrying. Contrary to what they may think, working with faith communities is good policy that has been underfunded and abused by the Bush administration. There are ways to make such policies help those most in need. Like other government-funded programs, what is ultimately required is proper funding, oversight, and discrimination-free practices.

A recent study conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows a majority of Americans view religion as a “very important” part of their lives. (It also noted that 21 percent of atheists believe in God, but we won’t get into that.) Clearly, religion is an integral part of Americans’ lives and can play a constructive role in strengthening communities. The federal government has long worked with religious organizations like Catholic Charities or Lutheran Social Services to provide housing, clothing, education, and other concrete needs for underprivileged citizens. At the same time, churches, synagogues, and mosques across the country have made charity a priority—or have wanted to, but were hampered by shoestring budgets. In response to this need, Bush’s faith-based initiative program, which was actually an expansion of an executive order issued by Bill Clinton in 1996, was designed to allow religious organizations of any faith to apply for federal social service grants.

After he was elected, Bush declared that the program would be “one of the most important initiatives” of his administration, according to David Kuo’s account, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. Kuo, a conservative Christian, was former deputy director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and left the White House disillusioned by the failure to properly fund the initiative. Just as he did with No Child Left Behind, Bush didn’t fully fund the program he implemented, which has made it difficult to distinguish whether the program has failed because of poor funding or poor policy. Bush pledged $1.7 billion a year to groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen mothers. But by the end of the president’s first term, only $500 million had been spent on the program—a shortfall of roughly $6.3 billion.

Of the money that did make it out of Washington, some worry that much of it was distributed based on politics, not policy. (John DiIulio, the program’s first director, famously referred to some White House staffers as “Mayberry Machiavellis” who trumped politics over sound decision making.) For example, the Philadelphia-based Greater Exodus Baptist Church, led by vocal Bush supporter Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, eventually received nearly $1 million in federal grant money. Lusk, who considers Bush "a friend," allowed his church to be the site for a major rally in support of the president’s conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito in 2006. Although there is no evidence that the million-dollar grant Lusk received was used improperly, the accompanying political implications undermined what could have been effective social policy. If money earmarked for faith-based initiatives are used cynically to reward allies—or even if it seems like the money is being used improperly—the programs will lose their efficacy in the eye of the public.

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of Bush’s program was that it codified federal support for discrimination. Religious organizations have long been exempt from many civil rights laws so they can observe their religious beliefs. Under Bush’s faith-based initiative program, however, discriminatory practices have been condoned by the government and religious organizations have received federal dollars while maintaining the right to hire and fire employees at will (often on the basis of sexual orientation). Progressives have consistently used the incentive of federal funding as a means to advance equality. Colleges and universities as well as government contractors can be sure to lose their federal funding if they practice discrimination. Faith-based initiatives should be no different.

The program should be carried out as it was originally designed: A faith-based initiative should prohibit discrimination in its hiring, firing, and delivery of services. It should also be open and available to all organizations, not just those cherry-picked for political gain. If such a nondiscriminatory policy is enacted for faith-based initiatives the way it is for other federal funds, it can play a vital role in improving quality of life for some of the most vulnerable Americans.

A well executed faith-based initiative can be a crucial tool in the fight for social and economic justice, but we have yet to see one implemented well. Youth Education for Tomorrow (YET) is part of a Philadelphia-based public-private venture that seeks to provide concrete social services for the public good. More than half of the children in Philadelphia are still illiterate by the end of third grade, a year that is a crucial point, educators say, in determining a child’s educational future. YET’s programs help K-12 students strengthen their reading skills with the help of school teachers, ministers, and other volunteers in churches, schools and community centers across Philadelphia.

Such programs show that faith communities can provide concrete and practical solutions to social problems. Religious organizations cannot replace government as final guarantor of the general welfare; but since religion already plays a very important part of most Americans’ lives, helping faith communities accomplish social achievements can be an important part of a progressive agenda.

Ben Weyl graduated from Grinnell College in 2007 and is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.

Related Stories

• The United States of Business Appeasement
• Commentary: Jobs Plan Good for Students, Young Americans
• With Congress in Gridlock, Obama Should Raise the Debt Ceiling Himself
• Obama’s LGBT Support a Stark Contrast to Past Presidents
• DeSean Jackson’s Anti-Gay Slur Defended by Radio Host