Compassion Doesn't Require Conversion

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

Mr. Thurman,

I am not sure that I would necessarily agree that the US Gov. not fund 'faith-based' groups purely from a stance of separation of church and state. This separation I believe in and find essential in maintaining a non-biased working democracy. But funding any program that is of benefit to the citizenry simply on issues of religious affiliation could be seen as another form of discrimination.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph. All too often, (let's just say always), charitable organizations that religion based, christian religions for certain and others as well, use their charitable programs as evangelical arms to witness and convert. In my view that is almost the purpose, to fulfill a perceived requirement to convert as priority over charity to the needy. If the program proselytizes it should NOT receive government funding.

Robert Thurman: First of all, the U.S. government should not fund "faith-based programs" at all, in order to maintain the separation between church and state, which is foundational to our American system.

Where is the words: separation of church and state in the Constitution? The framers gave plenty of money to groups that preached Christianity to the Indians. Did they not know what the First Amendment meant?

ROBERT THURMAN

You wrote, "First of all, the U.S. government should not fund "faith-based programs" at all,".

And then you wrote, "On the other hand, if religious organizations are running programs that help people in non-religious ways, such as helping the poor with food and shelter, helping prisoners with education, helping people during times of disasters, they should of course be funded,".

First you say no and then you say yes, which is it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thank you for that. Well said.