Faith-Based Initiatives Promote Religion

Tax funded "faith-based initiatives," popularized by George W. Bush and expanded by Barack Obama, promote religion. If this point is not sufficiently obvious, a letter in today's Denver Post brags about that fact:

As the Salvation Army understands, Jesus Christ really does free people from the shackles of addiction. Christ-centered, prayer-based addiction treatment is overwhelmingly more successful than any other addiction treatment program. And the same goes for reducing rates of prison recidivism.

I suspect President Barack Obama understands this, due to his willingness to continue federally funded, faith-based initiatives. And former President George W. Bush certainly understands this fact. Christ-centered, faith-based initiatives were found to be very successful in reducing recidivism in the Texas prison system during Mr. Bush’s tenure there as governor.

I don't wish to address the specific claims of effectiveness, other than to mention that I don't take them at face value. The key point is that Americans who aren't Christians -- or who are Christians but who oppose such tax spending -- are forced to pay for "prayer-based," "Christ-centered," "faith-based" programs, in violation of their rights of property and conscience. The "faith-based initiatives" are grotesquely immoral. And they violate the First Amendment.

Jesus On the Dole

Apparently God needs more welfare. Via Diana Hsieh:

Declaring that "there is a force for good greater than government," President Barack Obama on Thursday established a White House office of faith-based initiatives with a broader mission than the one overseen by his Republican predecessor.

The article discusses the problem of tax-funded religious groups hiring on religious grounds. But that is merely a peripheral problem. The gigantic problem is simply the forcible transfer of funds to faith-based groups. Any such program inherently violates the rights of conscience and property of those who do not wish to finance such organizations.

Obviously the other major problem is that the expanded program will bring religious organizations more under the power and influence of federal politicians. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The bipartisan faith-based initiatives threaten to undermine the separation of church and state that has significantly contributed to the relative liberty of the West.

Everyone who cares about religious liberty, believers and nonbelievers alike, must criticize Obama's effort at every opportunity. Faith-based welfare should not be expanded, it should not be reformed, it should be completely eliminated, in the name of liberty.

Faith-Based Obama

In his August 18 article, Jim Towey, former director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, writes that "Obama wants to abandon President Bush's -- and President Clinton's -- efforts to protect the right to hire on a religious basis of faith-based charities that provide taxpayer-funded social services."

What are these alleged rights? Towey thinks recipients of federal dollars should be able to "hire on a religious basis," yet "[f]or decades, religious charities have had to knuckle under to the directives of the federal government if they wanted public money."

Religious groups do not have any right to other people's money redistributed by force.

Whether or not faith-based groups discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, they should not receive a single cent of tax money. To forcibly redistribute money to religious groups from those who do not wish to fund them violates the latter group's rights of property and conscience.

Towey writes, "Planned Parenthood receives bundles of federal money and hires only the like-minded. Why are faith groups held to a different standard?" Towey's argument is disingenuous; there is no "different standard." Planned Parenthood does not discriminate on the basis of religion, and the fact that opponents of abortion choose not to work there is their own choice. Regardless, the relevant standard is that government ought neither promote nor hinder religion. Spending tax dollars for faith-based purposes clearly violates this standard. I agree that it's wrong for Planned Parenthood to receive tax dollars. But the first wrong does not justify state support of religious organizations.

The Faith-Based Welfare Debate

The New York Times has reviewed the presidential debate over faith-based welfare (via Politics Without God).

On one side of the debate, Obama fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be able to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion:

Mr. Obama’s position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

You mean if churches line up for handouts of forcibly transfered wealth, they have to jump through political hoops? Who'd have imagined?

Churches do not have a "fundamental right" to spend tax dollars free of political oversight. However, individuals do have a fundamental right not to finance religious organizations as a matter of freedom of conscience and property rights.

On the other side of the debate, McCain fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be subject to national hiring guidelines: "A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain 'disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight.'"

Some readers might have noticed that both sides of the debate are saying very nearly the same thing.

The only person quoted by the article articulating the alternative of liberty is the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who told the Times, "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

Amen, brother.

Obama Likes Faith-Based Welfare

Citing the AP, Mark Wolf notes that Obama likes Bush's faith-based welfare so much that he wants to expand it.

Obama (citing Wolf citing Politico) said:

I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

It is morally wrong to force people to transfer their resources to religious organizations, regardless of how those groups use the money, whether they "proselytize" with the money (though it's impossible to avoid), and whether their "programs" work (according to some federal bureaucrat).

And it's as disturbing as it is predictable that Bush's religious-right welfare program, designed to pander to that group, has been gleefully picked up by the Democrats. The GOP keeps thinking it can out-welfare the left, but, somehow, it keeps not working out that way.

A Second Look at First Freedom

On February 11, I discussed ten questions promoted by FirstFreedomFirst.org. "Donna" (whose identity I do not know) left the following comment:

Ari: I think that you have misunderstood a number of the issues. For example, we do not think that it's fine for government to forcibly transfer wealth to religious groups. Many of the questions are designed to make you think about the issue and pose provocative questions. Please go to www.firstfreedomfirst and take a look at each of the 'issues' -- just click on the issue button. The explanations are clear. You may or may not agree with them but please, try to understand what we are saying. The questions to candidates are, again, designed to provoke dialogue. Clearly, you need to ask those questions in a manner that is most comfortable to you. Donna

Unfortunately, First Freedom's "explanations" do not support Donna's claims.

Donna criticizes me particularly for my evaluation of First Freedom's question about faith-based welfare. But my criticism of that question applies equally to the more-detailed write-up under "Talking About the Issues." Here's what First Freedom has to say on the matter:

No Religious Discrimination:

The First Amendment requires government to remain neutral on matters of religion. But the so-called “faith-based initiative” violates that constitutional requirement and anti-discrimination laws. Created without congressional approval, the program allots billions of taxpayer dollars to social services run by favored religious organizations, allowing them to exercise religious discrimination in hiring and to proselytize people in need.

Americans should never be discriminated against on the basis of our religious beliefs. Government-funded jobs must be open to all qualified applicants regardless of their opinions about religion. Publicly supported programs should never require anyone to take part in religion. Non-discrimination is the American way.

If religious organizations use government funds to provide social services, they must not discriminate in hiring on religious grounds or deny services to people based on beliefs about faith. For people to be denied participation in a publicly funded program because of their beliefs about religion is simply un-American.

Religious organizations may define the content of their community services and hire only those who share their faith tradition in privately funded programs if they wish. But when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.

The problem is framed as one of "discrimination." First Freedom does not criticize religious groups for taking tax dollars (or politicians for handing them out); First Freedom says only that "when using our tax dollars, it is not right for faith groups to discriminate in employment or in the provision of services."

But my whole point is that politicians have no right to forcibly transfer wealth to religious organizations, period. Such forcible transfer of wealth is morally wrong in all circumstances, without exception, whether or not discrimination is involved.

As I wrote previously, I am pleased, with reservations, "to see First Freedom taking up the fight for the separation of church and state." However, the organization is clearly leftist in its orientation. Not only does First Freedom at least tolerate (non-discriminatory) faith-based welfare, the organization also implies support for corporate taxation, tax-funded schools, and tax-funded research. I, on the other hand, advocate economic liberty along with religious liberty. Furthermore, I argue that, ultimately, the latter depends upon the former. By granting the legitimacy of expansive government control over our economic lives, First Freedom ultimately, implicitly and indirectly, undermines its own case for religious liberty.

Moreover, First Freedom explicitly endorses moral subjectivism as the alternative to faith-based politics. Consider the organization's passage about abortion:

Reproductive Health:

All Americans must be free to make choices concerning their own health in keeping with their personal beliefs.

Opponents of reproductive freedom often seek legislation based on their own religious doctrines. Creating laws that are grounded in religious belief, however, conflicts with the separation of church and state and compromises our religious liberty. We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs.

At the center of the reproductive health debate are important questions about individual conscience. Decisions about family planning and emergency contraceptives should be resolved privately, based on our personal beliefs. Individuals may look to their own faith or other ethical considerations as they make these choices, but the government must never mandate that all Americans must follow the tenets of one religious viewpoint. ...

"Personal beliefs... our own beliefs... personal beliefs..." Moral subjectivism is offered as the only alternative to "laws... grounded in religious belief." First Freedom is doomed to failure because of this. In any cultural contest between religious moral absolutism and moral subjectivism, ultimately the former will tend to win out. What is needed instead is an objective and secular morality that demonstrates the legitimacy of laws grounded in individual rights.

It is simply not the case that "We must be allowed to live our lives according to our own beliefs," regardless of the actions taken on the basis of those beliefs. The entire legitimate purpose of law is to forcibly prevent people from acting on beliefs in a way that violates the rights of others. Abortion bans are morally wrong precisely because they violate people's rights. Any position instead based merely on subjective "personal beliefs" is destined to lose.

Obama on Faith-Based Welfare

Recently I discussed Barack Obama's comments about abortion in Christianity Today. Now I want to turn to Obama's comments about faith in general and about the tax funding of religious groups. The article is from Christianity Today, and the interview, "Q&A: Barack Obama," conducted by Sarah Pulliam and Ted Olsen, was published on January 23.

Obama makes clear that he is deeply religious:

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. ... Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

Subscription to the Christian faith is common among U.S. presidents. The problem arises when a Christian politician attempts to impose Christian theology by force of law. Clearly, Obama is restrained by his own party and political beliefs from traveling too far down the path toward faith-based politics. However, he also clearly tries to support the standard Democratic agenda with Christian beliefs.

In the following comment, Obama does not make clear whether he wants to use tax dollars for the programs in question:

I think it is important for us to encourage churches and congregations all across the country to involve themselves in rebuilding communities. One of the things I have consistently argued is that we can structure faith-based programs that prove to be successful -- like substance abuse or prison ministries -- without violating church and state. We should make sure they are rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation. That's the kind of involvement that I think many churches are pursuing, including my own.

However, Obama does say that he sees no inherent problem with spending tax dollars on religious groups. Christianity Today asked, "So would you keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open or restructure it?" Obama answers:

You know, what I'd like to do is I'd like to see how it's been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.

Obama is rightly concerned about political interference in religion, but he does not believe that spending tax dollars on religious groups will necessarily create that problem.

However, Obama completely ignores the other side of the problem: what about the rights of people who do not wish to fund religious organizations? Religious freedom entails the right not to support religious groups against one's choice.

The example of prison ministry has broader implications. I have no problem with Christian ministry in prisons -- so long as it is voluntary for prisoners, prisoners have equal access to secular alternatives, and no tax dollars are involved. Obama talks about Christians "rebuilding the lives of people even if they're not members of a particular congregation." Is this Obama's attitude also with faith-based welfare? But what about people who are not members of any religious congregation? An explicitly religious group that spends tax dollars necessarily promotes a religious message, however subtly. And the religious group itself benefits from the tax dollars. Again, people have the right not to support such things.

Taxes for God

Today's Denver Post reports:

Religious groups feel bullied by proposal
A lawmaker says she's willing to discuss the bill dealing with employment discrimination.
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 01/29/2008 11:28:19 PM MST

State Rep. Alice Madden said a flawed draft of a bill, meant to repair a 2007 statute dealing with employment discrimination, has given her a little taste of hellfire.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Denver and Focus on the Family have attacked Madden's draft, which would prevent faith-based organizations that accept government funds from hiring people of a particular religion to carry out their charitable missions.

Archbishop Charles Chaput said the bill appeared to be an attempt "to bully religious groups out of the public square." ...

"This is not meant to change real-world behavior one iota," Madden said. "We are trying to make it clear that employers generally should not discriminate on the basis of religion. Clearly, there could be exceptions."

It is telling that Chaput regards your money as "the public square."

Chaput easily could resolve the issue by declining to take other people's money by force.

But, clearly, the Christian injunction against theft poses no theological challenge to the forcible redistribution of wealth, as some religious libertarians claim.