By Madison S. Hughes (11.07.2010)

Abstract

The Faith-Based Initiative (FBI) is a poverty-stricken solution to boosting the nation’s capacity in social services. The idea resonates especially in the current economic climate. Regardless of the economic conditions, the FBI is not a solution to the problem of providing necessary social services. At the same time, the substitution of religious institutions for putatively secular functions represents a clear and present violation to the Establishment Clause regarding the separation of Church and State. This paper will argue that while the objective of providing social services should be a paramount concern, the FBI fails to deliver on this objective on two counts. First, it remains a threat to our most vulnerable citizens because they represent a vehicle to impose specific religious creeds from their social service provider. As such, this initiative, while politically expedient, poses a substantial constitutional infringement, and is unacceptable as public policy. Secondly, to date the FBI has not produced a measurable gain in social service capacity.

The Faith-Based Initiative:
Flawed in Concept, Constitutionally Threatening, and Ineffective

The Faith-Based Initiative violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that categorically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Less formally, this provision is considered to have established a boundary (in theory, a “wall”) between the religious institutions and the state as a protective barrier for both parties. Historically, the Establishment Clause is as misunderstood as it is contentious. This has been driven home more recently with the attempts to project religious institutions into the provision of social services for U.S. citizens in what is commonly referred to as the Faith-Based Initiative. In Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists (Appendix) the metaphorical wall of separation between Church and State could not be more apropos. While proponents of the “wall” fight to maintain its integrity, opponents are imploring “Mr. Jefferson tear down this wall.”

     During civic debate, advocates for maintaining a distance between Church and State are told that the actual wording that would ground a “separation” or a wall between Church and State does not literally exist in the United States Constitution. While they would be accurate in a literal sense, they are simultaneously lacking, or ignoring, the historical and contextual perspective. It must be remembered that Thomas Jefferson quilled the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and along with Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, et al., wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787. While he did not pen the letter to the Danbury Baptists until some 11 years after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791 he was still, in fact, the same man who played a major role in the drafting the law of the land. With that his intent leaves little to be challenged.

     Many historically ill informed—and the numerous contemporarily misinformed—resort to literalism when attempting to make their arguments based on historical record. The above argument is but one. An equally compelling example is the statement, “The United States is a Christian nation.” Again, while blatantly false, that also demonstrates a lack of historical perspective. President John Adams signed The Treaty of Tripoli on June 10, 1797. Article 11 partially reads as follows: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” President John Adams signed this just six years after the addition of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Again, the literalists have no basis is fact regarding the framers intent to keep Church and State separate.

Charitable Choice Amendment

More recently, the idea that grounds the notion of a separation between Church and State was violated through a little known amendment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996, deceptively named “charitable choice.” This amendment is the foundation on which the FBI was built, and is the keystone to the threat of separation between Church and State. This controversial amendment predates the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives created by President George W. Bush on January 29, 2001. According to Glazer (2001), a freelancer who specializes in social-policy issues:

In 1995, [Republican Senator John] Ashcroft introduced the first charitable choice amendment– which eventually became part of the 1996 welfare reform bill. … The provision was initially adopted as part of the conference agreement with very little notice. No hearings were held on the provision. The bill was signed into law on Aug. 22, 1996. (pp. 391-2)

     Ashcroft somehow felt that federally funded secular organizations had an unfair advantage over faith-based providers of social services in receiving federal funds. Glazer (2001) indicates that Ashcroft—infamous for his evangelical religious views—stated in the Senate floor debate that the charitable choice amendment (CCA) puts “churches and other faith-based providers on ‘an equal footing’ with other private organizations in providing federally funded services” (p. 392).

     University professors Paul A. Djupe and Laura R. Olson (2008) wrote that before the CCA “faith-based organizations that administered social service programs generally formed separate nonprofit organizations to receive federal funds and were subject to a great deal of ambiguity about how ‘religious’ the social services they provided could be” (p. 87). Although there was a perceived ambiguity, there was a clear understanding that the work of faith-based organizations was not to be explicitly religious. However, after the CCA was signed into law, “Faith-based organizations that receive contracts are no longer required to form separate nonprofit organizations to receive federal funds, and their work can be more explicitly ‘religious’ than it could in the past” (Djupe & Olson, 2008, p. 87).

     By giving the FBI recipient’s carte blanche discrimination authority, the relationship between church and state changed appreciably. Djupe and Olson (2008) wrote that “The relationship between faith-based nonprofit organizations and the federal government changed significantly … with the passage of the CCA (Section 104) of the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996” (p. 87).

     By law, religious organizations may practice hiring discrimination based on religious grounds. However, once they accept federal funds they may no longer engage in discriminatory hiring practices. Charitable choice extends discriminatory hiring practices even when they accept federal funds. Glazer (2001) states that,

Supporters of the amendment argue the discrimination exemption is essential if religious groups are to preserve their identity. … Opponents say charitable choice gives carte blanche to groups to discriminate against employees on the basis of religious beliefs, which could then extend to race (some evangelical Christians, for example, oppose interracial dating) or sexual orientation (some religious view homosexuality as a sin). To Rep. Scott, an African-American, charitable choice provides nothing more than ‘the right to discriminate and the right to advance your religion.’ (p. 380)

     Three administrations since 1996 have supported the FBI. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Welfare Reform Act. Although the Act contained the little known CCA, it has been lauded as a major policy accomplishment of the Clinton Administration. This CCA sets the faulty foundation on which the FBI was constructed. President Bill Clinton enacted the CCA into law, which lowered the wall between Church and State. President George W. Bush not only exploited the amendment for political means, but in doing so set out to eradicate the wall between church and state.

     On February 5, 2009 President Barack Obama renamed the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP). As found on the White House Website, the OFBNP purpose is to “[work] to build bridges between the federal government and nonprofit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to better serve Americans in need” (House, 2010). Although the name has changed, the CCA still remains law.

Separation of Church and State

Is the FBI a violation of the separation between Church and State as guaranteed by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America? Attorney, author and Reverend Barry W. Lynn (2006), director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, certainly believes so. Lynn maintains, “Fundamentalist Christian groups frequently boast about how merely providing a social service is not enough. There must be religious proselytizing as well” (p. 123).

     Lynn (2006) also adds that in 2004 during an observance of Martin Luther King’s birthday at the Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in New Orleans, LA President George W. Bush:

Noting that the [church] has a child-care center, brandished a Bible, calling it the “handbook” for the faith-based operation. He added, “We ought to say, we want results, we welcome results, and we’re willing to fund programs that are capable of delivering results. We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time. (p. 121)

     With such an unabashed statement coming from the mouth of a contemporary president of the United States, one could only imagine James Madison rolling over in his grave as “Eliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way, is quick to recall James Madison’s contention that not three pence of tax money should support any religion” (Glazer, 2001, 385).

     While some may find it admirable that the federal government fund programs that save Americans, “one soul at a time,” one must be reminded that government funds are expected to provide for social programs, not the saving of ones soul. It’s no wonder that according to Michael Parenti, an acclaimed author and university professor (2010), “Under the Bush administration, larger numbers of Justice Department lawyers were recruited from conservative institutions to aggressively defend faith-based organizations” (p. 173).

     Glazer (2001) reports that “Edwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional expert and professor of law at the University of Southern California (USC)…. thinks charitable choice violates the wall that separates church and state” (p. 386).

Ineffective

In addition to the clear violation of the separation between Church and State, the FBI has also been an abysmal public policy failure. In a formal logical sense, the arguments touting the success of the FBI are fallacious. They not only span the spectrum of logical fallacy, but they all fall on the least valid end of the hierarchy of validity of evidence. Truscott (2008) wrote that the kind of evidence that can be used to support an argument, from least valid to most valid is as follows: (1) personal experience and anecdote, (2) expert testimony, and (3) document facts and statistics.

     John Ashcroft [erroneously] “argued that when ‘people of faith’ get involved ‘the results can be stunningly successful’” (Glazer, 2001, p. 392). He simply makes this ascertain without the benefit of any evidence to support it, valid or otherwise. Because of Ashcroft’s position as a U.S. senator, the unenlightened followers of his ilk have committed the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority.”

     The ultimate appeal to authority is the invocation of the fear-based threat of eternal damnation. Sex education is one of the many programs funded under the FBI. Most of the federal money for sex education goes to fundamentalist Protestant and orthodox Roman Catholic groups. They offer, “America’s teens a smorgasbord of religious dogma mixed with fear-based claims about the awful things that happen to sexually active teens. … The appallingly high U.S. teen pregnancy rate is proof that the faith-based approach isn’t working” (Lynn, 2006, p. 134).

     Senior researcher Greg Smith of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life said, “The United States is a deeply religious country. Indeed, by some standards it’s the most religious country in the industrialized world,” yet it also has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates (Storm, 2010). In as much as this social dilemma is concerned, regardless of the amount of federally funded dollars used, the FBI is a failure.

Summary

An overlooked failure of the FBI has been its divisiveness. One of, presidential candidate George W. Bush’s infamous lines from the 2000 campaign trail was that he was a “uniter, not a divider.” However, his signing of the FBI as president did exactly the opposite. One would hope that we could all unite when it comes to helping those in need. Instead, the FBI has divided us as a nation concerning social services for the needy. The consternation between both sides of the FBI debate has caused us to lose sight of its ultimate purpose to help those in need. Indeed, the needy have not realized any significant benefit of the FBI. Instead, it has been used as a tool for political gain.

Conclusion

The Faith-Based Initiative is constitutionally threatening. It has eroded the wall of separation between Church and State. Governmental policy should strengthen the wall of separation between Church and State as a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy. This is what sets the United States apart from all other countries of the world. Although opponents of the wall of separation between Church and State fail to grasp this concept, they should not forget that there was a time when this wall did not exist; we refer to this time as the Dark Ages.

     The Faith-Based Initiative is ineffective. It has failed to increase social services to those in need. Funding faith-based organizations does not increase social services to the needy. Faith-based organizations are no more qualified, in fact, often they are less qualified, and no more capable, of providing social services than are secular organizations. Proponents of the FBI erroneously tout its success through factual deficiencies. Empathy should unite us in our outreach to the needy; however, the FBI has divided us at the expense of those in need. The CCA has eroded the wall of separation between Church and State, and led to the ultimate ineffectiveness and failure of the FBI.

Recommendations

One recommended course of action would be to remove the CCA from the FBI. The FBI would still be public policy, but would not allow religious organizations to legally engage in discriminatory hiring practices when they accept federal funds. It would also curtail religious proselytization, and greatly reduce the erosion of the wall of separation between Church and State.

     After the removal of the CCA, a second recommendation would be to increase government oversight into federally funded religious organizations. Recipients of FBI funding that continue to engage in discriminatory hiring practices, or religious proselytization should lose not only their federal FBI funding, but also their tax-exempt status.

     The last course of action would be to end the FBI all together. The rhetoric of its successes belies the facts. The FBI is a grave threat to the separation of Church and State, and its ineffectiveness as public policy is both deplorable and unacceptable. The FBI is a disgraceful abdication of government responsibility. Taxpayers pay the government, not the churches, to provide for social services. It is time we discard the FBI as public policy, and that the government do what the citizens of this country elected them, not the churches, to do.