The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released on November 16th a report on its most recent survey (conducted with the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) on faith-based organizations and their partnerships with government.
A large proportion of the public continues to favor government service partnerships with faith-based organizations, including houses of worship–69% now compared to 75% on 2001. Democratic support has increased over that period from 70% to 77%. More people believe that religious organizations best serve the needy (37%) than rank non-religious organizations (28%) or government agencies (25%) the highest. Interestingly, when asked if they had received help from some group, minorities and people with low incomes were more likely than other people to say they had been helped by a religious organization.
The website for President Obama’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is now live.
The report notes that most people oppose “allowing groups that encourage religious conversion to apply for federal funds to assist the needy.” But the actual question was this: did the respondent favor or oppose a group applying for government funds to provide social services–if the group was one that “encourage[s] religious conversion as part of the services” it provides. But of course, except in the small set of government programs that uses vouchers so that individuals have a free choice of provider, evangelization cannot be part of the federally funded services-that’s been from the beginning a rule of the faith-based initiative itself.
The report also notes that most people oppose religious hiring by government-funded faith-based organizations (73% of respondents now, compared to 78% in 2001, said that religious groups that use government funds to provide social services should not be allowed “to ONLY hire people who share their religious beliefs”). What to make of this? Asking the question at all implies that the issue is a matter of popular preference and suggests that religious hiring is a practice initiated by the Bush faith-based initiative. Instead, the freedom for government-funded faith-based organizations to hire on a religious basis is a matter of law and constitution and the basic rules for the freedom were set before the Bush faith-based initiative.
And what to make of this? Respondents gave the following as important reasons why religious organizations ought to be in partnership with government to serve the needy: the power of religion to change people’s lives–59 percent; those providing the services are more caring and compassionate–68%; people needing help should have a variety of choices–78%. If so, then the public, and the government, should be careful to protect the religious identity and faith-shaped practices of those faith-based groups that agree to help out the government . . . including protecting their freedom to make their own best judgments about which job applicants will best support their mission and services.
— Stanley Carlson-Thies, Director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
The issue is the freedom of religious hiring that is already law, constitutional, and working to great effect in many communities where faith-based groups work alongside government agencies for job training, pre-natal care, pre-school as well as k-12 even while discriminated against by government, health and medicine, anon. The 1964 civil rights act guarantees the freedom of religious organizations the freedom to hire people who share the vision and mission of the group.
What is going on today is the left is using gay rights to try to eliminate any vestige of the historic and constitutionally guaranteed role of faith-based groups in the public square with trumped up charges of discrimination. But does George Miller, Pete Stark, or planned Parenthood hire Christians that have a faith-based and principled understanding of the limits of government or right to lifers? That is just as discriminatory.
The point is to offer choices that clients can choose from freely rather than make everyone wards of the state.
There are people trying to sue small adoption agencies that choose from a poiunt of conscience not to place children in a same sex home.That ought to be there choice. People can choose to go to another agency. The state should be enforcing freedom of participation not making ruyles to chase groups away like in DC
Take your government money elsewhere is what one religious organization is saying.
According to an article in the Washington Post (Nov. 12, 2009), “The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington [D.C.] said Wednesday that it will be be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District, if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness, and health care.”
The big question is this: What happens when government offers money to a faith-based organization, and the faith-based organization does not accept the money?
Richard S. Colman
Orinda, CA
Dec. 13, 2009