Share

Obama's Faith-Based Plan

by: Jim Wallis  |  Sojourners

photo
Obama discusses his view on faith and community-based initiatives. (Photo: javno)

    In 2000 I was part of a small group of religious leaders invited to Austin, Texas, to discuss a new White House faith-based initiative with George W. Bush before he came to Washington, D.C., as president. I was an early supporter of the initiative because I believed that partnerships between the faith community and government in alleviating poverty were both necessary and appropriate within the framework of the Constitution. For two years I was in regular conversation with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, under the leadership of John DiIulio and, later, Jim Towey, and Sojourners and Call to Renewal collaborated with the new office on a number of dialogues and initiatives. But my relationship with the White House ended after my public criticism of President Bush's path to war in Iraq. Yet I continued to support the idea and promise of the faith-based initiative.

    But I was disappointed with the corresponding lack of policy commitment to reduce poverty by the Bush administration, and the eventual politicizing of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives along partisan lines. Instead of a partnership, this initiative became a substitute for necessary public policies attacking the causes and consequences of poverty within the United States. Despite this failure, my commitment to public-private partnership involving the faith community has never diminished.

    I have hoped that both presidential candidates would re-commit the nation to this necessary and positive vision of partnership between the public sector and the faith community on the goals of poverty reduction. Today, Barack Obama outlined his plan to engage faith-based and community organizations from the White House in order to create "the foundation of a new project of American renewal." Obama affirmed the idea of a faith-based initiative on the solid foundations of both real partnership and the necessary commitment of government to sound public policy to reduce poverty. Prior to today, the danger was that Democrats might revert to old secular biases and end the faith-based program altogether, preferring only public sector approaches as the remedy to poverty instead of also forging vital partnerships with civil society that include the faith community. It was good to see that the failures of the Bush faith-based initiative have not deterred Obama from proposing a robust vision of his own.

    The key to today's proposal is that it is based on public and faith-based partnership, and will not become another replacement for sound public policy. To truly be successful, this initiative must utilize the unique resources and identity of the faith community, while at the same time recognizing the indispensible role that government and public policy must play in tackling the root causes of poverty. Obama's proposals also contain necessary protections for religious liberty, pluralism, and constitutional safeguards.

    This initiative has the potential to unite people across partisan lines. I truly hope that a recommitment to engaging the valuable role of faith-based organizations doesn't get mired in the endless political debates of the past while God's concerns for the weak and vulnerable get ignored.

    ----

    Jim Wallis is the author of "The Great Awakening," Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This was a bad idea under

This was a bad idea under Bush and will remain a bad idea under Obama, if he is Presidnet. Religions get their money to do good things from the people. Government grants are still money from the people, although it is severely degraded by shunting it through the government where administrative costs take a big bite (six figure salaries?) and likewise the charities spend administrative money to fulfil grant requirements. This program is best described as a government mandated tithe and as such should be abhored by thinking folks.

While it's appropriate for

While it's appropriate for religious groups to be well-versed in government programs that help the poor, I don't think there's any reason for funding to exchange hands. Doing so leaves these funds open to the kinds of partisan problems we saw during the Bush administration, and it complicates accounting and efforts-to-outcomes assessment. Churches, mosques, and synagogues play an important role in tackling the root causes of poverty, and there are many good reasons for alignment among programs, but few reasons for public money to be managed by religious institutions.

Bush's idea was bad. Even

Bush's idea was bad. Even rotten to the core. But having read Obama's speech, I can see why Jim Wallis supports it. Obama's programs would be really different than what Bush did. Good for Obama, as long as the constitutional and legal safeguards and accountability are real, with no proselytizing and no religious discrimination on who gets help nor who gets hired. Obama has seen and participated in some faith-based community activism (which is definitely not my personal style) and his vision is that all grassroots, neighborhood-based programs (including faith-based) are complementary to good government policy to fight poverty. As he said, we need all hands to address the kinds of problems we face as a country.

On top of the recent FISA

On top of the recent FISA position disappointment, this turn of events makes me angry and sad. There is no doubt I will continue to support Obama, as the alternatives are completely out of the question. However, all I can ask is why, why, why did he have to go there? What part of separation of church and state is not understood? Hasn't the slippery and unfair slope of the last seven years been enough? If there is to be such an alliance, is there a guarantee that Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists, Unitarians, etc... might have an equal shot at any funds? I doubt it. But besides that, it shouldn't even be a question, because such an alliance is patently what the Founders tried to prevent. AAAAAGGGGGHHHH!

Religious institutions can't

Religious institutions can't be trusted. All religions should be considered non-profit clubs, and they should be paying taxes, not receiving them.

As a person of faith and a

As a person of faith and a liberal Democrat, I'm happy with this turn of events. As long as there are safe guards against discrimination via tax payer dollars, a ban on using the money to proselytize, and proper oversight of the spending, I have no problem with government money going to private charities, including religious ones, that do good work for the poor and downtrodden.

Obama's decision to support

Obama's decision to support state funding for faith based charities is a bad one. The state and religion do not mix and the Constitution so stated. Another great disppointment from the candidate who talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

There is no reason for

There is no reason for religious organizations to "partner" with the federal government other than to garner taxpayer dollars to be used at their discretion. Those dollars are ours and should be disbursed according to our will as determined by our representatives (such as they are) in Congress. And those representatives have no business becoming involved with religious organizations in any way except personal. Why is it so difficult for educated people to understand what is meant by Separation of Church and State and why it is so important to our form of government?

perhaps positioning is a

perhaps positioning is a political necessity, but this really stinks...this is patently unconstitutional, and everyone knows it...none of the people's tax dollars should pass through the church, period...not for school vouchers, not for christian poverty programs nor any other worthy religious cause christian or otherwise.... what part of 'render unto caesar' do these so-called faith-based people not understand? as an every-sunday-and-most- wednesday-nights episcopalian this won't fly with me because i see it for what it is: nothing but a bald-faced lie about being faith-based and all about buying votes with God-talk... it was a sham, a political contrivance by karl rove to style the republican party as the party of Jesus Christ, and to literally USE faith-based people and whole church congregations as political constituencies for political gain... it is stunning that obama is aligning himself with this kind of claptrap because this is absolutely NOT the change he has professed to create... if this kind of centrist maneuvering along with the fisa maneuver and the create-more-troops maneuver is to be the 'new change' for america, obama runs the great risk that for every republican convert he gets to the polls there will be two disillusioned democrats staying home.

If religious organizations

If religious organizations want to take money from the government, shouldn't they give money (pay taxes) first?

Even Robin Hood stole from

Even Robin Hood stole from the corrupt RICH and gave to the poor. Here we have stealing from the middle class to give to the poor. Where is it written that we are to steal from others to give to the poor? I'm not against giving to the poor, but I do so out of my pocket when I can. Yes, we could all work together to feed every man, woman and child in this country and world if we decide to. But not by taking from others who are not inclined to this kind of charity. And not by engaging in wars of choice and aggression wasting human life and billions of dollars.(Except the war profiteers) Our government has been corrupted by fascists whose only concern is maintaining the status quo and higher and higher profits at all costs (to others). While putting on shows of freedom and democracy to soothe the temperament of the masses. Obama's plan may well be better than the lying Bush, but I don't agree that organized churches need or should get tax money. Let them teach charity in their church and then practice it in the streets. Then atheist and believer would say well done, you have been an inspiration to us all.

How 'bout this: A grant to

How 'bout this: A grant to MCC, a church that is open and accepting to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transvestites/transexuals receiving a grant to work with suicide and drop out prevention in gay youth populations. Or would a charity run by Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, or even the Moonies have an equal chance as the Baptist Church down the street to get the cash? Certainly wouldn't happen under Bush. What about under Obama? Doubt it.

The government should not

The government should not fund religious organizations, period. And can we please drop the silly euphemism "faith-based" and "faith community" when what we are talking about is very plainly organized religion? And exclusively Middle-Eastern, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion at that? (I doubt that Obama's administration, let alone a McCain administation, will lavish taxpayer dollars on Wiccans and Scientologists.) Jim Wallis is an admirable voice in the Christian community, but he is dead wrong in thinking that federal funding of religious organizations is Constitutional.

I'd like to add my name to

I'd like to add my name to the list of people who think this is a bad idea. Government should be helping people, directly. Directing tax payer money to religious organizations means there will be less funding for governmental programs. Religious organizations should help people using money donations from their members. It's virtually impossible to keep church and state separate if governments fund religious organizations.