A Faith-Based Solution

No sooner had President Bush announced the establishment of a White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives than the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation were sounding alarms over fears that the constitutional wall separating church and state would soon come crashing down. Writers opined that people in need would be forced to “get religion” before receiving social services, that nonbelievers would be discriminated against and even that religious groups themselves would be made to abide by freedom-reducing governmental restrictions on how they went about their business.

Concern continues to run especially high within the Jewish community. Acutely aware of the historical persecution of Jews by avowedly religious societies, many Jews fear any policy that even remotely smacks of government involvement with religion. To them, overt religiosity is a problem, not an asset. The public square of government, they argue, must remain purely secular, lest it appear that one religion is being promoted over another, or that all traditions are not being equally respected.

Yet tolerance of minority religious traditions should not be translated into uniform intolerance of religious traditions. Likewise, government acknowledgment of the importance of religion and a willingness to work with members of faith communities should not be viewed as a breach of religious freedom, but rather as an affirmation of that fundamental right. It is in society’s best interest when an amoral youth changes his life as a result of belief in a supreme being. We in the Jewish community must seek out a balanced definition of tolerance, where government neither prevents an individual in need from choosing a faith-based provider nor uses its authority or money to force a person in need to a religious entity.

As a Jew, I fully understand what it means to be a member of a minority religious group and appreciate the fear of being discriminated against for one’s beliefs. It still bothers me that twice a week, teachers at the public grade school I attended released from the classroom all but three of us who were Jewish so the other students could attend Christian education time. Clubs existed then — and still do today — that do not admit Jews. And, as mayor of a large American city, I came to know firsthand that anti-Semitism stubbornly lives on. Indeed, rarely did a week go by without the arrival at my office of some communication threatening to carry out violence because of my faith.

Yet should these real risks preclude a neighborhood church from using government dollars to provide shelter, and hope, to the victims of domestic violence? As an elected official who successfully reached out to faith organizations, I have seen the great good that government/faith-based partnerships can bring about without violating any constitutional taboos.

The First Amendment expressly prevents this country from funding religion or using its authority to force individuals to join any religious organization. Such actions would be tantamount to state-sanctioned discrimination and run counter to all that our nation stands for.

But government support for religiously affiliated organizations is nothing new and has long been recognized as being constitutional. For many years, some parts of government have contracted with private charitable groups such as Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army — and yes, Jewish Family Services — to provide a variety of social services, though those organizations have been required to suppress their expressly religious nature. Still, the receipt of federal funds in some cases would mean that those organizations could either provide more help or devote a greater proportion of their other funds to purely religious pursuits.

To some people, allowing religious groups to include faith as a means of helping people get their lives on track raises fears that government funds will be used for proselytizing. Bush proposes that faith-based organizations must ensure that no government funds are “expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.” Furthermore, no funds will be set aside specifically for faith organizations. Government will furnish the resources and allow a variety of organizations to compete for the right to provide the services. All programs will be evaluated by their performance, not by their faith. If a program works — if it shows good value and proven results — then it will receive support, whether it is secular or sectarian.

Another concern is that the rise of faith-based alternatives will mean that citizens will be forced to go to such groups in order to receive services. That simply is not the case. One key principle guiding the president’s faith-based initiative is that people in need should never be required to go to a faith-based service provider — in other words, that government has an obligation to provide citizens with a secular option. The point is to give people the choice of finding a service provider that can best meet his or her needs.

Of course, direct philanthropy and volunteerism are much better options than government contracts with not-for-profit providers, and the president has proposed steps to increase both. But as government seeks to fulfill its obligation to assist those facing great adversity, the openness to faith-based approaches should be seen as an opportunity for people of all faiths to generate the civility and mutual respect necessary to make society work.

Every day, faith-based organizations across America undertake extraordinary efforts to improve their communities and the lives of individuals. Faith works for a lot of people, and to the extent that government precludes groups from using this potent tool for positive change, it does a great disservice and an injustice.

Over the past 40 years, government has come to exhibit what amount to overt hostility toward religion. From the Great Society onward, government has continually pushed religious groups out of efforts to address community challenges, making itself the monopolist of good works and depriving struggling families and neighborhoods of the powerful influence of local groups.

Yet government is a woefully inadequate substitute for the civic institutions it replaced, virtually powerless to address the root causes of most of the major social ills afflicting inner-city communities. While government can punish criminals, it cannot engender respect for human life or private property. Government can require work in exchange for public assistance, but it cannot instill a work ethic. Government can collect child support, but it cannot make parents care for their children. If we are to reverse the damage that government has inflicted on religious organizations over the past several decades, we must be open to a more sophisticated notion of the separation of church and state. As a charitable worker from the last century observed, “The best policies and the most complete form of government are nothing [without] individual morality.”

To be sure, there are many ways that people develop basic values — through family, teachers and other role models, or simply through life’s experiences. But if government truly is interested in solving crime, drug abuse, out-of-wedlock births, and other problems, then it must not discriminate against those community assets, including local religious groups, that are effective at turning people’s lives around and instilling moral values. Bush’s efforts are a big step in that direction, and they are a step that Jews, with our tradition of tikkun olam, should look upon with favor.