Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Yes. No. Probably.
Should the Obama Administration let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve? The question made me dizzy. My lurching thought process went like this: Yes! No! Probably.
In the end, my qualified endorsement for funding discriminatory faith-based programs comes down to the relationship I see between discrimination, on the one hand, and discernment and dialogue on the other. Since allusion and alliteration aren't going to help the dizziness, I should probably explain. Let me start with a digression that will bring us back, eventually, to the original question.
Back in the 1980s, I went to a state university to study over the summer. Dorms did not come highly recommended, but co-ops did. Co-ops were houses where residents lived "cooperatively;" they weren't exactly communes, and they certainly weren't like fraternities or sororities either. Neither totally open to outsiders nor limited to a few earnest pledges, co-ops did have an admissions process that consisted of an interview with residents. My interview began easily enough with talk about my family and interests. But when I mentioned that I was Catholic, everyone sat up a little straighter, and the questions became more intense.
Would I have problems with the variety of lifestyles at the co-op? No, I answered. Would I feel threatened by residents with different religious beliefs? No, I answered. But my pious reassurances did not stop the fusillade of questions about Catholic doctrine and the Church's involvement with politics. I felt battered, even a little bruised. What my inquisitors didn't know was that that most threatening thing about me was my lax approach to matters of personal hygiene. My roommate at the co-op eventually found this out, but it didn't prevent us from becoming fast friends--I did indeed "pass" my interview. In fact, the summer went wonderfully. As I remember, the most contentious issue the co-op debated was whether we should bake our own bread.
Of course, civil society is not exactly a co-op in macrocosm--even though I know some people who surely wish it could be. But while it might be a trite point of reference, my co-op interview exists as a kind of an experiential prism through which I see the debate surrounding federal funding and faith-based groups and programs.
During the initial part of my co-op interview I felt that I was being discriminated against by having to respond to conventional anti-Catholic stereotypes. I mention this to indicate that within American civic discourse, certain declarations of religious commitment can be met with suspicion--just ask Muslims or evangelical Christians about the times they have asserted their religious identity. For this reason, I initially answered "yes" to the question of whether the Obama Administration should let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve.
It is misleading to contrast supposedly discriminatory sectarian religious groups with purportedly neutral or constitutionally circumscribed federal agencies, projects, or programs. Everyone discriminates; ideology of some kind underlies all efforts at social reform or engagement. This is particularly true in America, where, as the sociologist Peter Berger commented, there is, metaphorically speaking, a society of "religious" Indians governed by "secular" Swedes. But even if you don't buy that analogy, it is undeniable that faith-based programs provide an important societal contribution to American pluralism. They deserve federal support even though not all of their policies or procedures may be palatable to the general public.
But unbridled pluralism can also lead to Balkanization, which is why my initial "yes" to the question turned to a "no." To return to the co-op interview, what I initially experienced as discriminatory interrogation could also be understood as discerning questioning. I was the one who drew attention to my Catholic identity--it would have been rather hypocritical to refuse to answer questions about it. More to the point, the issue was whether I was a good fit for the co-op, whether I could live cooperatively with others. Certainly, examining my religious beliefs was a necessary part of that discernment. Civil society would irreparably fracture if religious groups treated their every belief or claim as non-negotiable. Put another way, if a religious group discriminates against other members of the society, it seems nonsensical for the government, in society's name, to support the group. The price of federal aid should be full respect for and participation in civil society.
Given all this, why did I end up with a moderate or mushy, "probably"? Well, it had to do with the co-op again. My sense is that if there had been an issue when my religious beliefs came into conflict with something or someone, it would have been handled through dialogue. While it's important for religious groups to recognize that they live, and indeed must live, in a society where people believe and behave differently, it is also important to recognize that religious groups do have some positions that are truly non-negotiable.
Religious liberty is the rubric we have in American civil society that appreciates this reality. But religious liberty, both in practice and in theory, is never absolute and it often has to be weighed in relation to the common good. Some media reports have indicated that the Obama administration is contemplating having cases of discrimination by religious groups in hiring considered on a case by case basis. While this approach is more adversarial than dialogical, it does respect the complex role of religion and religious groups in American civil society. It is imperfect to be sure, but in most cases the Obama administration should probably let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve: apparent discrimination might be understandable discernment that could eventually lead to dialogue.
By
Mathew N. Schmalz
|
February 17, 2009; 5:36 AM ET
| Category:
Interfaith Issues
,
Morality
,
Religion & Politics
Save & Share:
Previous: Why Work For Something You Don't Believe In? |
Next: Don't Use My Tax Dollars to Discriminate
Posted by: Anonymous | February 16, 2009 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"It is imperfect to be sure, but in most cases the Obama administration should probably let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve: apparent discrimination might be understandable discernment that could eventually lead to dialogue."
This convoluted verbiage brings new hope to practitioners of Gibberish. You wish the government to "let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate." This discrimination becomes merely "apparent" in the space of a few words, and in even fewer, "understandable discernment."
I'd be interested in the thoughts of your students concerning your rhetoric. As for me, let me be direct: I would prefer the government get out of the discrimination business once and for all.
Posted by: Farnaz | February 13, 2009 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
MATHEW N. SCHMALZ
I think that you gave a pretty good answer considering that a simple yes or no really does not suffice.
The sad part about all of this is that the people that are so petty on both sides seem to be more interested in their own agenda then the people that might receive some much needed assistance in one way or another.
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | February 11, 2009 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama *promised* to make these programs both actually effective, and more Constitutional.
Bush's programs were a back door to give a net cut in benefits to the poor, and make it look 'faith-based' by kicking back some of that money to groups who want government money to *proselytize* at the poor and discriminate with public money.
Obama can't just undo this without actually taking what food the discriminating programs do manage to get out there between their conversion agendas, ...it's gonna take crafting something else.
Religious groups who want to use government money to help the poor can help by getting ready to pay for their *own* advertising and make the charitable efforts what they're supposed to be. Giving to people in need, not 'buying souls' among the hungry.
Posted by: Paganplace | February 11, 2009 12:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Schmalz concludes with "It is imperfect to be sure, but in most cases the Obama administration should probably let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve: apparent discrimination might be understandable discernment that could eventually lead to dialogue."
Dialogue between which people or groups? I could foresee "dialogue" between groups of religious folks, where they unite in a sort of rear-guard action against evil, creeping secularism and paper over their serious doctrinal differences with "ecumenicism."
But if a secular, non-believer job applicant (even one who can't be suspected or accused of being gay -- the horror!!) is refused a job with one of these faith-based programs on the basis of some religious litmus test, what kind of "dialogue" is fostered, if any? How does this do anything except perpetuate sectarian divisiveness AND the undeserved exemption from critical scrutiny that religions and religiosity still enjoy in the U.S.A.
Posted by: JeffD1 | February 11, 2009 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
During the previous administration, I worked for the federal contractor that provided technical support for the faith-based initiative known as the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF). Much was made about the Bush Administration’s innovativeness in providing public dollars to support the work of faith-based organizations. This was inaccurate. Government support through a network of grants and contracts has been provided to religious organizations for non-sectarian social services for the past 50 years.
What was new was allowing federal funds to be used to support religious and quasi-religious activities under the guise of social services. This happened with a wink and a nod through the Capital Compassion Fund and related faith-based initiatives. This cannot be allowed to continue in the Obama Administration.
Additionally, I witnessed first hand, technical assistance training on how CCF grantees could legally discriminate against people they didn’t want to hire based on religious predilections. As an American, I was and continue to be offended that taxpayer dollars would be used to exclude any group of people. This, as well, cannot be allowed to continue.
Yet, beyond these challenges, there is the wider, Constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. The previous administration – certainly not the most respectful of the Constitution in general – somehow believed that the separation clause was up for grabs. It is not.
We are all diminished when government can use its substantial weight to assault the Constitution by funding the peculiarities of religious entities. Let’s hope that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, will safeguard these vital protections by curtailing the ability of any organizations – faith-based or otherwise – from using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against anyone.
I have written more on this issue on my blog: http://www.501cweb.com