President George W. Bushs plan to put federal funds into
faith-based charities is filled with knotty, even dangerous issues
of separation of church and state.
President George W. Bushs plan to put federal funds into
faith-based charities is filled with knotty, even dangerous issues
of separation of church and state.
A bedrock principle of the separation of church and state is that the state
does not restrict religious freedom, nor does government provide direct support
of religion.
There are at least two major problems with federal money going to faith-based
work.
Faith-based means charitable work is done specifically and directly as part
of a groups religious faith and practice. This charitable work is also
done as an outreach for a particular groups religion. This is exactly
as it should be.
If the federal government supports this kind of charitable work, then the federal
government is in fact supporting the religious practice of a particular religious
group. (There is a great deal of difference between a faith-based group operating
a house for battered women and an individual Christian working in a government-operated
home for battered women out of his or her religious conviction.) Would we as
Baptists be pleased if our tax money went to Muslim charities that are evangelistic
outreaches for that faith? Would we be pleased if our tax dollars went to Mormon
family centers that are established as outreaches of that faith? Would they
be pleased if their tax dollars supported such Baptist efforts?
To correct this breach of the separation of church and state, some will say,
“Just have the faith-based groups secularize (remove the religious aspects)
of their work.” To do that would erase the unique reason for the faith-based
work. For Baptists, such a restriction would mean operating the Brantley Center
in New Orleans without any evangelistic or discipleship emphasis. A main purpose
of the Brantley Center and other Baptist charitable work in Louisiana is conversion
to Jesus Christ, and, therefore, Christianity and the ensuing discipleship.
If the government supported the Brantley Center, it would support our efforts
of converting people to Christ.
A second concern is: Where federal dollars go, there goes federal regulation.
Could there ever be a federal dollar sent out of Washington without a $100 book
of regulations going with that dollar, dictating how it can be spent? And, with
every passing year of such support would come more and more regulations. In
fact, these regulations would tell churches how they could practice their faith-based
charity to maintain federal support, which would be government regulation of
religious practice.
Part of the proposal of federal support for faith-based charities is to shift
to these charities work presently done by the federal government. The Office
of Faith-Based Action would work to see churches and charities carrying out
at least some of the work presently done by the government and funded by the
government. This sounds amazingly like making churches and charities agencies
of the government, funded by government dollars for government purposes. Certainly,
this is not the role of religion in America. If a church gets involved in this
kind of effort, it will be expending tremendous effort doing work that would
not be unique to their faith.
Certainly, President Bush is to be admired for his desire to see faith-based
charities increase their work and to make it financially easier to get their
work done. But his proposals are bumping into the frail wall that separates
church and state in America.
As fragile as the wall of separation of church and state is becoming, it is
strategically important for the well-being of religion in America. Religion
has prospered in this great land to incredible dimensions. The soil of religious
freedom and its corollary of the separation of church and state have been fertile
for religion in our great land.
Perhaps there are ways the government can make the support of faith-based charities
more advantageous for individuals. Perhaps President Bush can use his good intentions
in this kind of effort rather than trying to tie government and religion so
closely together it violates their separation.
We will do well to remember: Any time government and religion reach across
the wall of the separation of church and state, it is always religion that is
defiled – always.
