The future of faith-based initiatives

I haven't had a chance to testify before a Congressional committee for several years, but I was privileged to be asked by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution to testify on the Obama administration's implementation of the "faith based initiative" it inherited from its predecessor, the Bush administration.

The committee takes written testimony seriously and, therefore, wants to see what the witnesses are going to say forty eight hours in advance of the hearing. One of the many things I learned in childhood was that it was a good thing to get things done on time. 10:30 on Tuesday, 50 copies of my 89 page testimony (including attachments) was delivered to the clerk for the 10:30 Thursday hearing. The opening of my testimony went like this: "Nearly two years have passed ...and the White House and federal agencies are still operating under the same harmful religious liberty standards and civil rights rules created by the previous Administration. "

A funny thing happened a few hours later. White House staff called about 20 people, including yours truly, to be on a conference call to discuss a "major development" on the initiative. Sounds mysterious. The "development" was that on Wednesday the President would issue an executive order changing some of the Bush policies. Was this an example of Jungian synchronicity, some cosmic confluence, or even a mere random occurrence? Unlikely. More likely was that this was a deliberate decision to have something out before the Judiciary Subcommittee had to wonder aloud why after 22 months not one thing had been done on an issue which is not exactly rocket science.

I once told an audience member at a media training event that the one line that would be quoted in any newspaper if used to describe a complex event or enactment is: "This contains some good, some bad and some ugly," one of my rich set of references to films, in this case the western that brought fame to Clint Eastwood. The "good" in the order was that a raft of government agencies were instructed to start working on language to accomplish the things everybody- left, right and center-- on an advisiory commission said needed to change. It then announced the "bad" results on two big issues that the advisors had not agreed about. First, it would be unnecessary for recipients of these funds to set up a separate corporation to run them through or even to set up a separate bank account for them. Second, although "evangelism" and similar religious activity could not be attempted with government dollars, it would be perfectly fine to conduct government programs in spaces filled with Scripture, religious icons and art, and any other accountrements of the faith even if it was easy to have them in more nondescript space. Then came the "ugly": no decision about the one issue declared off limits to the advisors--could faith based groups that got tax dollars discriminate in hiring people for the very programs that were taxpayer funded?

What the White House also did, however, was decide not to send anyone to the hearing to explain the order in spite of being invited to do so. The subcommittee chair Jerald Nadler of New York is a gracious person so he did not have an empty seat at the witness table next to the three of us who were there. Many of the members expressed frustration about the unexplained absence. (Another thing I learned in grade school was to show up when asked--which could explain why I occasionally appear even on "The O'Reilly Factor".) All of the Democratic members focused on the failure to resolve the discrimination issue in a way consistent with the longstanding idea that when you get government funds you play by national civil rights rules. In my five minutes of summarizing my testimony, I called this axiomatically "if you don't play by my rules, you shouldn't be playing with my money".

John Conyers of Michigan is the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee and he attended the entire hearing. Representative Conyers and I go back a long way. Indeed, I recalled recently that he was the other guest on the very first national television show I ever did, a long gone ABC Sunday show called "Directions." After Congressman Mel Watt of North Carolina personally welcomed another panelist, Melissa Rogers who teaches at Wake Forest as, a constituent, she noted that she actually lives in Virginia. Mr. Conyers, who usually refers to me as Reverend Attorney Lynn, kidded that he "would like to welcome" me but "the law school you went to isn't anywhere remotely near my congressional district." I responded: "I appreciate that. I have spoken at law schools in your district." He added: "That is pretty close." It was a moment of levity in the midst of some serious scholarly debate.

Congressman Nadler ended the hearing noting that this was the last event he would chair for the next few years because the Republicans will be taking charge in January. Some of the comments made by the soon-to-be majority members at this hearing gave me the sinking feeling that although it would still be the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the new leadership might be promoting a constitutional document which will seem like it was written for some other planet.

By Barry Lynn  |  December 16, 2010; 10:21 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Jesus paid special attention to the poor | Next: Taxes should be progressive

Posted by: detroitblkmale30 | December 21, 2010 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: slowe111 | December 20, 2010 8:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: habibbarri | December 19, 2010 3:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment