The Obligation of Funding Qualified Faith-Based Organizations

Since the 1880’s, faith-based organizations have played a major role in providing social services to those in need. Recently, with his faith-based initiative proposition, President Bush triggered a huge controversy on the legitimacy of funding faith-based organizations. On one hand, proponents contend that the initiative represents an acknowledgement of the distinctive, and vital welfare work that faith-based organizations offer to the American society. This recognition includes allowing the faith-based organizations to have equal funding opportunities as other nonsectarian groups. On the other hand, many challenge the initiative by pointing to its future adversaries as well as its unconstitutionalities.  They claim that the initiative incorporates an explicit violation of the civil rights, and allows religious organizations, mainly Christian, to have a greater authority over the government, which intrudes the separation of church and state. Regardless, it is the government’s duty to subsidize qualified faith-based organizations provided both the organization’s consent to the civil rights, and forswear to discriminatory actions. This obligation hinges upon the benefits that these organizations contribute to the welfare of the American society such as presenting social, and medical support to the underprivileged.

Originally, faith-based organizations absorb their motivation from mission-bound principles, and guide themselves by religious beliefs. Indeed, a substantial portion of the services, and activities that they provide conveys their religious identity. In this regard, as long as they don’t utilize governmental funds for inherently religious rituals such as prayer, the current law has provisions that allow faith-based organizations to preserve their religious identities while carrying out publicly funded social programs. Moreover, faith-based initiative advocates, led by President Bush, claim that faith-based employment regulations constitute a part of these organizations’ religious identities. As a result, they believe that the government should not discriminate against those organizations that require their employees to be of a certain creed (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 150). Additionally, President Bush states that the initiative does not unfairly treat faith-based organizations better than secular ones. In fact, these organizations compete against nonsectarian ones for federal fund (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 43).

In opposition to funding faith-based organizations, critics to the initiative not only articulate the discrimination that the funding triggers, but also suspect the constitutionality of the concept of funding faith-based organizations. To begin with, civil libertarians are concerned that not jeopardizing faith-based organizations when they practice discriminatory employment actions would evoke government-sponsored discrimination. They dispute that this proposition conflicts with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order in 1941, which suggests that “any business, agency, or group doing business with the federal government (receiving federal contracts) must not discriminate” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 159).  The usage of government, and taxpayers’ money to fund religious activities forms another argument that opponents employ in their reasoning. For example, Wendy Kaminer argues that “the federal government is funding religious, sectarian activities in violation of the Establishment Clause, a basic violation of First Amendment freedoms.” She explains that religious organizations can use government funds in sponsoring sectarian activities such as proselytizing because sectarian groups do not distinguish between federal money, and their own money (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 178). Also, because of the greater number of Christian Organizations, some argue that the faith-based initiative would allow the government not only to discriminate against minority groups but to implicitly articulate a federal religious preference.

Apparently, the argument of both sides of the conflict encompasses persuasive but at the same time faulty reasoning. In reference to the proponents’ argument, there are two valid key-points that support their claims. First, they confirm that possessing, and conveying a religious identity through government funded programs does not contradict the law.  For instance, they use the 1996 Welfare Reform Act as evidence to support their claim: “Congress has expressly stated that a religious organization that receives federal funds through the programs covered by the Act-TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and Welfare to Work- ‘shall retain’ their independence with respect to ‘definition, development, practice, and expression of’ religious beliefs” (Agreed Statement 18). Second, the implementation of the government’s social welfare plan necessitates the aid of other secular, and religious organizations, because it cannot, by itself, fulfill the needs of society. In his speech at the National Association of Evangelicals president Bush affirms that enhancing funding opportunities to faith-based organizations does not undermine the role of the government in providing social services, however, it enforces the governments’ functions (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 43).

And third, he would make sure that religious “proxy networks” could compete equally with secular nonprofits for public funds. Additionally, he would put performance measures in place to allow qualified and faith-based organizations to seek government funding on the same basis as any other nongovernmental providers of social services. (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 45)

As a result of this need, the government should deem religious groups as regular contracting agencies, and thus it should grant them equal opportunities to compete for federal financial resources with secular proxy networks (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 170). In addition, by comparing the religious and secular organizations, we can see that both of them have the same aims but with different motivations.

Moreover, the community services that faith-based organizations offer reach areas, and communities that the government agencies or nonsectarian groups cannot access. Rural areas residents, and usually people who are on the social fringe, are an example of communities who attribute their social welfare chiefly to faith-based organizations. Authors of Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration concur remarking that “almost everyone recognizes the important part that faith-based organizations have played, and continue to play in building ties of community in highly individualistic, and often fragmented, sections of society” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 162). In this regard, Joseph’s homeless shelter, located in suburban Richfield, Ohio, exemplifies faith-based groups which provide services that the government doesn’t offer. The shelter, run by Roman Catholic nuns from the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine, provides medical treatments that other shelters cannot handle. The director of Joseph’s home, Sister Joan Gallagher, corroborates by emphasizing that “Cleveland has no place else for homeless men with medical problems like a broken limb or a leg burn that doesn’t require intense medical attention.” She further says that “the shelter would have to close if it couldn’t count on federal money” (Sheeran). In addition, the shelter does not discriminate individuals who are of a non-Christian faith. In fact, Gallagher comments that there is an optional prayer in the beginning of group-gatherings that is “led by herself and residents, including a Muslim and a non-believer.” What is more, the nuns who are in charge of the shelter attempted to eliminate most of the religious symbols, such as a chapel, of the shelter’s building, which used to be a religious one (Sheeran). In the same way, my experience as a working volunteer in a homeless shelter in downtown Atlanta supports the presence of faith-based organizations that favor social service over their religious mission. Although I was a Muslim, I didn’t experience any discrimination. At the same time, there was no obligatory religious activity; everything was voluntary.

On the other hand, the Pregnancy Decision Health Center, in Columbus, Ohio, is also a faith-based organization that, as mentioned in their historical fact statement, serves “21,000 women annually.” In their mission statement, the center asserts that presenting services must lack personal prejudice and discrimination against people of certain “races, cultures, and creeds.”  However, in the end of the statement, the center makes it evident that they don’t employ people of a non-Christian faith: “These values are rooted in and flow from the Christian faith of the PDHC Board, Staff and Volunteers.” Likewise, they include prayer, and church as some of the values that the center embodies in its programs (Know All about Us). Despite its valuable support to the community in its vicinity, such a faith-based organization does not qualify to receive federal fund.

Furthermore, the claim that the government should not discriminate against religious organizations that choose their employees on faith basis constitutes a major flaw in proponents’ argument.  Ted Strickland, U.S. representative of the district of Lisbon, Ohio, notes that sponsoring any organization that practice hiring discrimination, which threatens religious freedom, incites a huge revolution on the civil rights, and the First Amendment. Rob Boston, a spokesman for American United separation of Church and State, contends that religious organizations have received federal funds for decades on the basis of abandoning creed-based discrimination (Krawzak). For example, Blood and Fire, a Christian-based shelter in downtown Atlanta, requires its employees, and, indirectly, its volunteers to be of Christian faith. Besides, they have a mandatory service each night.

In comparison, while challengers to the initiative validate their opposition by pointing to possible government-sponsored discrimination, they blemish there argument with a hasty broad assumption which equates funding faith-based organizations with funding religion. President Bush “promised to fund programs, rather than religious organizations” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 43). In other words, by financially supporting a religious group, the government is not funding the organization itself; instead it is funding the individuals who it serves. The initiative is an attempt to recognize the positive role of religion in society:

Nor should it be forgotten that religiously affiliated organizations have long been awarded “contracts for service” and continue to receive substantial federal and state funding to deliver social services, build hospitals, provide instructional materials, participate in educational voucher plans, provide disaster relief, manage immigration processes, and the like. (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 162)

“In other words, assistance to faith-based neighborhood organizations helps build social capital” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 168). As an illustration, in the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which examines the participation in youth activities and substance use among youths from age 12 to 17, 63 percent of the surveyed youths said that they have participated in faith-based activities during the year; almost equally high as community-based organizations, 69 percent. More important, youths who joined faith-based activities showed the highest percentage, which is 21 percent, of youths who had no Alcohol usage in the past month among other kinds of activities. Similarly, marijuana usage in the past month among youths who attended faith-based organizations was the lowest (U.S. Dept. of Health). Accordingly, funding qualified faith-based groups could rapidly help develops a healthier society.

Meanwhile, to reinforce anti-discriminatory policies, the government must take several measures in validating financial support to religious groups which, in turn, implements church-state separation. In other words, the government should designate specific procedures that separate inherently religious activities from social programs:

However, this traditional public funding comes with restrictions. Namely, those receiving funds must refrain from direct or indirect proselytizing, they must provide services to clients irrespective of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, they must keep separate financial records, and they are required to follow all laws in regard to employment discrimination, workplace safety, and the like. (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 162)

First, religious activities should be conducted in either separate locations or disconnected times. For example, if you hold Bible study and job training courses on daily basis, then you can either hold them in the same room but at different times, or at the same time but in different rooms. Second, faith-based organizations which receive federal funds are not allowed to force individuals to participate in religious activities. For instance, while they are conducting a government funded social activity, faith-based organizations should assign a moment of silence, as an alternative to a mandatory prayer, in which all individuals have the option to pray the way each one wants with no certain obligation. This way the faith-based organizations are still carrying their religious identity, yet at the same time, they are discarding faith-based prejudice. The latter is a solution that encompasses both believers and non-believers. Nonetheless, religious groups may conduct their religious rituals as long as the organizations verify that all individuals understand that they have the option of engaging or not, and that the services that they receive are not going to be affected by their choice. Third, religious organizations which desire to receive federal funds should submit records that account for their usage of federal money. The Authors of Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration elaborate that religious groups “would have to keep separate books, obtain 501 (3) (c) status approvals, and be willing to submit to the monitoring of their finances and the evaluation of the services that they provide” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 170).

After discussing the major flaw in the argument of the opponents of the initiative, one must also accredit them for their predictions. They argue that because of Mr. Bush’s evangelical approach, and the fact that the majority of the country is Christian, the government may indirectly prefer a religion over another. According to Paul Weber, during a survey conducted before September 11, 62 percent declined funding Islamic or Buddhist groups while only 38 percent rejected funding Catholic Churches.  Furthermore, he comments that during the application process, understated discrimination could take place: “imagine there is an application from the nation of Islam, which has a long record of community service. If …the Nation of Islam’s grant applications were turned down, would it be because of the quality of their applications or their identities?” (Formicola, Segers, and Weber 66). This possibility can reverts the country to 2 centuries ago of church manipulation.

Evidently, there are some drawbacks of Bush’s faith-based initiative. However, we should appreciate the initiative’s aim of recognizing, and exploiting the benefits that faith-based organizations provide to different communities allover the country. My ambivalence towards the Bush initiative does not derogate the religious motivation of faith-affiliated organizations. Apparently, having faith enables certain people to serve their community more efficiently. Besides, the universal goal is to help improve the American society; it is not to eliminate religious identities. Actually, it is an attempt to reexamine the requirements that make faith-based groups eligible to receive federal funds. Specifically, President Bush needs to define the ambiguous unnecessary barriers that, as he claims, minimize the role of faith-based organizations in serving the American society.

Works Cited

Agreed Statement of Current Law on Employment Practices, Faith-Based Organizations, and government Funding. Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, et. al. June 2003. 26 Apr. 2005 <http://www.working-group.org/ Documents/StatementOnCurrentLaw.pdf>.

Formicola, Jo Renee, Segers, Mary C., and Weber, Paul. Faith-Based Initiatives and the Bush Administration. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield P, 2003.

Know All about Us: Our History and Mission. Pregnancy Decision Health Center. 21 Apr. 2005 < http://www.pdhc.org/do/about/history.php>.

Krawzak, Paul M. “Regula, Ney, Democrats Differ on Faith-Based Hiring”. Copley News Service 16 Mar. 2005. 21 Apr. 2005 <http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/ document?_m=d2b476d2b9dc2e511ddae022c9b3ab3f&_docnum=7&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkVA&_md5=597eb5d56c01e19194058c413b645a7d>.

Sheeran, Thomas J. “Faith-based groups: Doing Social Work with Federal Dollars”. Associated Press 2 Jan. 2005. 21 Apr. 2005 <http://web.lexisnexis.com/universe/ document?_m=cd35cb574bd3f7dda74ea8772ba8dda3&_docnum=3&wchp=dGLbVzb-zSkVA&_md5=8116e4553e0e711076baaa16ef4825e8>.

United States. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance abuse and Mental Health Administration. The NSDUH Report:  Participation in Youth Activities and Substance Use among Youths. 13 Aug. 2004. 27 Apr. 2005 <http://oas.samhsa. gov/2k4/activities/ activities.pdf>.