Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Uncle Sam's Faith
Should the Obama Administration let faith-based programs that receive government grants discriminate against those they hire or serve? Here's a better question. In order to receive government grants that will enable faith organizations to confront poverty, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, while simultaneously providing skills and job training to communities in critical need of assistance, must these organizations abandon their faith convictions?
What Sally and Jon call discrimination, thousands of years of faith history call doctrine. The problem exists in the process of contextualization where the liberal factions of our society desire to silence biblical and religious conviction that stand affirmed in Christianity, Judaism and Islam defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Here's the question without the trappings of political correctness. Are churches and faith organizations willing to ignore their religious beliefs, abandoning religious free expression, in order to receive government money?
In order to address the aforementioned inquiries, we must extrapolate and distinguish between two elements of the initial query. First, the answer is Yes. Yes, the Obama administration should let faith-based programs that receive government grants decide on who to hire.
Government partners with a church, synagogue or mosque not to endorse a belief, approve the sermon outline or instruct the choir on the week's song selection. Government and faith partnerships exist for community empowerment and renewal. The wall between church and state works both ways. It protects the government from one religious belief system usurping all other convictions but similarly the wall protects the Church from the State.
Serving is another matter. Faith-based organizations that receive government funds should serve the entire community, regardless of sex, race or sexual orientation. Christ calls upon us to serve those in need, the least of them, unconditionally. Hiring implies endorsement of a behavior. For that matter, churches and faith organizations should hire according to their corresponding beliefs. Service, on the other hand, speaks to mission. A mission that both government and church agree should be rendered to all.
Accordingly, for those who would argue that government and faith organizations should never partner or collaborate, let us consider Katrina. When FEMA trailers stood on tarmacs, and the world witnessed bureaucratic incompetency on steroids, it was the faith community that arrived first with organizations such as Convoy of Hope and others. Government should partner with the institutions that have historically serviced the needy with a greater reliability and effectiveness level than any other, institutions of faith.
In addition, if adhering to a government sponsored set of values serves as a prerequisite for financial subsidization, then let us require welfare, Medicare and unemployment compensation recipients to sign off on belief compliance criteria courtesy of Uncle Sam. Absurd? Of course. A logical extension of the aforementioned premise? Absolutely!
For at the end of day, collaboration does not require sacrificing conviction but rather incorporating complimentary objectives that converge around the nexus of effectiveness.
By
Samuel Rodriguez
|
February 12, 2009; 6:00 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: A Christian Progressive Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin |
Next: Why We Don't Take Government Funds
Posted by: tony55398 | February 16, 2009 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
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
Posted by: wjfreeman1 | February 16, 2009 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The federal government should be focusing on desired results, not dictating the hiring practices of the faith-based organization. To do so could sterilize the very reason the organization is so effective - the faith-based convictions that inspire it to serve in the first place...
Posted by: juneaudave2005 | February 15, 2009 7:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I appreciate Samuel Rodriguez’s article and his mentioning the work of Convoy of Hope. Rev. Rodriquez states correctly that Faith-based organizations receiving public funds should “serve the entire community, regardless of sex, race or sexual orientation.” The seminal issue is hiring rights of faith-based social service providers receiving public funds. The publicly funded Congress and White House hire someone based on a like-minded ideology. Shouldn’t churches and faith organizations have the same right? If the current administration negates the hiring rights as protected by “Charitable Choice” (which President Clinton signed into law) then many effective faith-based groups will say “NO DEAL!” to being a government funded and referred provider. The tragic result is that people in need will not have access to some of the best help. That’s what I call discrimination!
Posted by: ddonaldson1 | February 14, 2009 11:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OK. Great point, however, institutions are not individuals and the fact that churches are already tax exempt in addition to receiving monies from taxpayers should require compliance to all the laws the federal government requires for hiring.
Posted by: pryvy | February 12, 2009 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
If you want government funding than you have to abide by governmental regulations, otherwise don't ask for it. There's more to Christ's mission than money. Love trumps money every time.