![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusPart 3: Faith-based organizations
Question 11: The role of faith-based organizes, recent poll says 80 percent of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job at community services than the government, helping addictions, you know, [ applause ] all the different homelessness, poverty, things like that. The civil rights act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have a right to hire people who believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
Let's look at that question a minute before we get to the answers.
Interestingly, when he repeats this question to McCain, the figure he quotes is only 70%. This leads me to believe that perhaps, like the things he claims "the Bible says", he's actually just making these numbers up. Are there any studies anywhere that actually show how many Americans believe that faith-based organizations do better at social services than government services? I don't know. And I doubt Mr. Warren knows, either.
Further, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter for a few different reasons. First and foremost, the statistic he's quoting (or making up) is asking the wrong question. They should not be asking how many people believe that faith-based groups are better, but rather whether or not they actually are better. There's an important distinction there that is lost on far too many people. Bill Cosby once pointed out that you can't vote on a gerbil's gender. Well, you can vote on it, but a class of fifth-graders deciding their gerbil is male won't prevent it from getting pregnant.
Another flaw with the question is that it presents a false dichotomy. The argument isn't about "faith-based" vs. "government-based" organizations. This ignores the vast numbers of charities that are founded not to preach a faith but to do some concrete, material good for its own sake. As one of the founders of one such organization, I feel a little on the personally insulted side.
And if that weren't enough, he managed to pack yet one more false proposal into the question, and this one may be the biggest of all. He completely misrepresented the entire point of controversy. The opposition to Bush's "faith-based" initiatives isn't based on overturning the religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act. It's true, as Warren points out, that churches are specifically allowed to discriminate in hiring. Nobody's asking for them to lose that ability. (Well, I am - I'm not a fan of bigotry under any shadow, and I don't see why simply pretending to believe in an imaginary friend should grant you any extra privileges, but that's a rant for another day. Nobody who matters is specifically calling for them to act ethically.) The real opposition to Bush's "faith-based initiatives" plan is based on its complete removal of all oversight to how those federal funds are being spent. For example, if you get federal funds to run a soup kitchen, you are not allowed to serve soup only to Christians or to those who agree to "accept Christ as their personal lord and savior." In other words, the Primary Mission of the organization, in order to access federal funds, must be do accomplish specific material goals. You cannot use my tax dollars for your proselytizing.
It is a common misconception that faith-based organizations were unable to get federal money for programs before Bush. This is untrue - they were just as able to apply to, and receive, the billions of dollars every year that our federal government gives to local organizations as any other organization was. But they had to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. They had to file proposals and show how the money was spent. They had to submit annual reports showing what they have accomplished. They had to open their books to the federal government showing where all their money was coming from, and what they spent it on. They had to submit to periodic auditing. They had to keep the books separate, accounting separately for money they received, and spent, on federally-funded programs, and money they spent on their religious activities. Anyone who has ever run a legitimate business out of their own home is familiar with this "Chinese Wall" form of accounting. If mom-and-pop organizations can do it, I see no reason why multi-million dollar mega-churches should consider it a hardship. But yet these are the very rules that the Bush plan threw out, and that its opponents are trying to put back into place.
OK, that went a little longer than I intended. So, next time: the answers.
I will get through all this, but it looks like it's going to take a while.
Question 11: The role of faith-based organizes, recent poll says 80 percent of Americans think faith-based organizations do a better job at community services than the government, helping addictions, you know, [ applause ] all the different homelessness, poverty, things like that. The civil rights act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have a right to hire people who believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?
Let's look at that question a minute before we get to the answers.
Interestingly, when he repeats this question to McCain, the figure he quotes is only 70%. This leads me to believe that perhaps, like the things he claims "the Bible says", he's actually just making these numbers up. Are there any studies anywhere that actually show how many Americans believe that faith-based organizations do better at social services than government services? I don't know. And I doubt Mr. Warren knows, either.
Further, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter for a few different reasons. First and foremost, the statistic he's quoting (or making up) is asking the wrong question. They should not be asking how many people believe that faith-based groups are better, but rather whether or not they actually are better. There's an important distinction there that is lost on far too many people. Bill Cosby once pointed out that you can't vote on a gerbil's gender. Well, you can vote on it, but a class of fifth-graders deciding their gerbil is male won't prevent it from getting pregnant.
Another flaw with the question is that it presents a false dichotomy. The argument isn't about "faith-based" vs. "government-based" organizations. This ignores the vast numbers of charities that are founded not to preach a faith but to do some concrete, material good for its own sake. As one of the founders of one such organization, I feel a little on the personally insulted side.
And if that weren't enough, he managed to pack yet one more false proposal into the question, and this one may be the biggest of all. He completely misrepresented the entire point of controversy. The opposition to Bush's "faith-based" initiatives isn't based on overturning the religious exemption to the Civil Rights Act. It's true, as Warren points out, that churches are specifically allowed to discriminate in hiring. Nobody's asking for them to lose that ability. (Well, I am - I'm not a fan of bigotry under any shadow, and I don't see why simply pretending to believe in an imaginary friend should grant you any extra privileges, but that's a rant for another day. Nobody who matters is specifically calling for them to act ethically.) The real opposition to Bush's "faith-based initiatives" plan is based on its complete removal of all oversight to how those federal funds are being spent. For example, if you get federal funds to run a soup kitchen, you are not allowed to serve soup only to Christians or to those who agree to "accept Christ as their personal lord and savior." In other words, the Primary Mission of the organization, in order to access federal funds, must be do accomplish specific material goals. You cannot use my tax dollars for your proselytizing.
It is a common misconception that faith-based organizations were unable to get federal money for programs before Bush. This is untrue - they were just as able to apply to, and receive, the billions of dollars every year that our federal government gives to local organizations as any other organization was. But they had to compete on a level playing field with the rest of us. They had to file proposals and show how the money was spent. They had to submit annual reports showing what they have accomplished. They had to open their books to the federal government showing where all their money was coming from, and what they spent it on. They had to submit to periodic auditing. They had to keep the books separate, accounting separately for money they received, and spent, on federally-funded programs, and money they spent on their religious activities. Anyone who has ever run a legitimate business out of their own home is familiar with this "Chinese Wall" form of accounting. If mom-and-pop organizations can do it, I see no reason why multi-million dollar mega-churches should consider it a hardship. But yet these are the very rules that the Bush plan threw out, and that its opponents are trying to put back into place.
OK, that went a little longer than I intended. So, next time: the answers.
I will get through all this, but it looks like it's going to take a while.
