NCJW President Nancy Ratzan's Op-Ed Published by the Miami Herald
July 29, 2008, Washington, DC -- An op-ed entitled "Faith-based Funding: Obama and McCain Are Both Wrong" by NCJW President Nancy Ratzan was published today by the Miami Herald. Prompted by recent discussion in the presidential campaign, the op-ed warns of the pitfalls of awarding government funds to religious and faith-based organizations to operate social programs. The text follows:
Once again, funding faith-based social programs with federal tax dollars is on the table. Barack Obama has endorsed expanded funding for faith-based groups as long as they don't discriminate in hiring or delivery of services. John McCain, too, supports such funding and has stated that he would allow such groups to hire only people who share their faith, without government oversight.
Their disagreement merely highlights the pitfalls of entertaining such funding in the first place and ignores the existing alternative that has served the country so well for decades. Indeed, if you follow this debate in the press, you would think that giving faith-based groups government funds to operate social programs is a new idea. But traditional religious charities, like the United Jewish Appeal or Catholic Charities, have often run social programs with federal dollars as separate nonprofit entities created to provide service, not engage in religious activity.
Inspired by their faith, such organizations operate their programs with nondenominational staff in a nondenominational context. Instead the organizations in play here are churches, synagogues and mosques as well other explicitly sectarian groups organized primarily for a religious purpose.
No accountability
How can this work? How will government officials decide whether programs create an implicit expectation that services depend on the client's expression of a particular religious belief or creed? When you get government funds, you are accountable to the government for how you spend the money. Obama doesn't explain how such accountability will occur; McCain says there won't be any at all. Neither is an acceptable solution.
What about the intended beneficiaries of these programs? If limited funds mean only one program gets government money in a particular small town or city, will everyone feel comfortable seeking help from an explicitly religious organization with a message contradicting one's own personal beliefs? Since the United States is overwhelmingly Christian, the chances are overwhelming that the program will be Christian, too. President Bush seems to assume that is true. While campaigning in 2000, he extolled the success of religious organizations "because they change hearts, they convince a person to turn their life over to Christ."
The justifications for departing from the traditional nonprofit model just don't hold up under scrutiny. On its website, the White House asserts that 'all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs [faith-based and community organizations] from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations.' What are these rules and regulations? They are the standard policies and laws governing the use of taxpayer funds -- the policies that require nondiscrimination in all aspects of funded programs. Far from preventing competition for funds on equal footing, they require it.
The White House goes on to assert that 'the ultimate beneficiaries are America's poor,' when in fact it is the poor and powerless who are least able to object to having religious indoctrination served up with their soup. And the assertions of program efficacy are highly problematic. A Ford Foundation study found that faith-based job training programs placed only 31 percent of their clients in full-time employment compared to 53 percent for secular organizations. Other studies report that too often claims of success are based on anecdotal evidence and small samples.
Supporting religion?
Our nation needs a renewal of its commitment to assist those ill-equipped to prosper in a 21st century economy. It needs programs to treat substance abuse, to care for to the chronically ill, to reintegrate ex-convicts and to prevent AIDS, among many other initiatives. Our problem has not been a lack of solutions to such problems but rather a lack of will to create and fund public and private programs at an adequate level. Getting caught in the weeds of a constitutional argument over government funding of religion is a distraction, not a solution.
The National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) is a grassroots organization of volunteers and advocates who turn progressive ideals into action. Inspired by Jewish values, NCJW strives for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children, and families and by safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.
Contact:
Emily Alfano
202 296 2588 x5; emily@ncjwdc.org