Bush’s faith-based initiatives criticized

President Bush’s faith-based initiatives, which provide federal funding to religious organizations for community services, continue to draw ire from Massachusetts legislators and others who say they defy the separation of church and state.

Bush’s latest proposal, announced on Jan. 6 and scheduled for approval on Mar. 7, gives financial support to religious groups to begin building projects if social services will also be offered in the building. It was sponsored by the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, under the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D – Mass) said he adamantly opposes faith-based initiatives, and has fought against them in Congress, but was repeatedly overruled by Bush’s executive orders.

‘It’s a terrible idea,’ he said. ‘First of all, it’s being solved under false pretenses.’

Senator Edward Kennedy (D – Mass) also scorned Bush’s support for religious groups, deeming it an ‘unwise step backward’ in a statement released in Dec. 2002.

‘The federal government should encourage programs that tear down discriminatory barriers in our society,’ he said in the statement. ‘But President Bush’s new policy would resurrect barriers by changing federal policy that has been in place for more than 60 years.’

Frank said that, in addition to religious discrimination, the measure would support de facto and racial discrimination, even instigating segregation among denominations. Federal grants dedicated to building parts of houses of worship complicate the issue, putting a burden on the government to ensure that the space is dedicated to secular activities, according to Frank.

‘It’s a nutty idea to have the government in that sort of position,’ he said. ‘It’s outrageous to have it financed by federal money.’

Under a community grant program, the federal government could also give churches funding through their communities, providing another means for the government to indirectly fund religious activities, Frank said.

Frank said he and other senators have attempted to compromise on the issue. He is also a committee member overseeing the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and has requested a hearing on the subject. But with Republicans in control of the legislature, he said, the majority of protesting the initiatives takes place in public debate.

‘It’s one of the big disagreements between most Democrats and Senator [Joseph] Lieberman,’ Frank said, saying the issue could potentially damage Lieberman’s run for the presidency.

Area churches will greet this measure from different perspectives, according to Rev. Dr. Diane Kessler, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches, an inter-denominational organization dedicated to promoting unity among churches in the state.

Though the MCC does not profess an opinion on the issue, Kessler said the initiative molds together two institutions intrinsically designed to remain separate.

‘This particular proposal blurs the distinctive natures of church and state beyond recognition,’ she said.

Kessler predicted churches would see that ‘this is a seductively tempting proposal,’ but would not overtly support it.

‘I believe that it masks the larger issue of the proper philosophy of what the proper, responsible role of the government is,’ she said.

The government is responsible for fairness and inclusiveness, she said, when approaching social services and aid to the underprivileged. But it should not pass on the task to religious groups under the guise of federal aid, she said.

‘Churches reach out to the poor as a part of their mission,’ she said. ‘But most churches would say that that should not be a substitute for or in place of the responsibilities of government.’

Bush refuted this exact argument in his initial executive order in January of 2001, however, when establishing the HUD Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He said faith-based organizations were ‘indispensable’ to the needy public.

‘Government cannot be replaced by charities, but it can and should welcome them as partners,’ he said in the order.

The American Civil Liberties Union is also on the forefront of the fight against the proposal. Sarah Wunsch, staff attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts, said her primary concern with the bill is a possible misuse of taxpayer money.

Wunsch compared the case to the Chastity Act, proposed under the Reagan administration, which advocated using federal money to preach chastity in schools. Instead of solely promoting abstinence, however, the money fueled the preaching of religious doctrine, she said.

‘Historically, lots of social service organizations have been affiliated with religious groups,’ she said. ‘But when they receive tax dollars, they [use them to] preach and teach religious doctrine.’

Virnon Hickey, spokesman for the Boston Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter, reputed the argument that tax dollars would fund religious teachings. The organization, though based on Christian ideals, does not force religious ideals on any of its visitors, according to Hickey.

The organization does receive some federal funding from previous HUD initiatives, but he said it would never amount to greater than one-third of its funding, which come primarily from private donations.

Wunsch said discrimination could pose another problem. The government would be financially supporting a religious-affiliated organization that may discriminate in hiring employees on a religious basis.

Hickey said these issues detract from the true meaning of social services.

‘When you see [poverty] right in front of you, the politics tend to get on the back burner,’ he said.

Sarah Peeler Miller, director of communication for the Park Street Church, said the proposal would not specifically affect the church, which tends to partner with service organizations rather than offering its own community programs.

‘We give [programs] space in our building,’ she said. ‘But a lot of times they know what they’re doing, and it enables our congregants to be involved in ministry.’