Sometimes, reality is so deliciously humorous that there is little one can say beyond reporting and reflecting upon it. President Obama, after copying page after page out of the Bush Administration strategies on the current economic crisis, has decided to copy yet another! He wants to open, or is it reestablish, the Bush office of faith-based initiatives? The supposed improvement is that it will not show any favoritism.
Sending tax dollars to religious organizations is, in my mind, the wrong way to go as a society. On the other hand, if there was a requirement that each recipient of Federal largesse was required to pray for the success of the faith-based financial initiatives that Obama has proposed and, going a step further, pray that the souls of the banksters are (not) condemned to the fires of the Inferno, then maybe there will be some social benefit.
Do any of you have creative suggestions on what the New Office of Faith-based Initiatives could do?
February 5th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Bush’s faith-based initiative was a cynical political ploy, creating the false impression that faith-based organizations were shut out of federal funding and encouraging churches to apply for federal grants. Bush was pandering to the religious right who felt victimized because they weren’t getting “free government money.”
First, many if not most of America’s major social service organizations, which receive billions of federal dollars, are faith based. Volunteers of America and the Salvation Army are actual churches. Mercy Corps, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities and others are faith-based. Others like Goodwill began as church-based, even if they’re now secular. So there’s a long history here that the “faith-based initiative” ignored for political reasons.
Second, federal grants come with lots of requirements that have nothing to do with religion — measurable outcomes, stringent accounting rules, complex reporting and lots of dealing with bureaucracy. Most small church-based groups, conservative or liberal, are totally unprepared for this level of complexity. Bush set them up to fail, so his base could continue to feel victimized.
So what could Obama do? Well, for a beginning acknowledge, celebrate and reward the faith-based groups that are already doing much of the heavy lifting. Encourage churches, mosques, temples and synagogues as centers for the volunteer service he’s promoting. Not pander to either of the camps of “everything should be based on the bible” or “separation of church and state means that religion has no role in society.” What he shouldn’t do is continue pushing religion into government (which he won’t) or even keep the focus on money.
(Disclosure: What I do for a living is write grants so I’m very familiar with the feds, and I used to work for the ACLU so I’m familiar with the church/state question.)
February 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Uh… there was one change. Did you see the addition of “and Neighborhood Partnerships” in the renaming of the organization?
Obama panders to his base: ACORN.
I predict that ACORN storefronts are going to add shrines to Obama, thus becoming churches AND bastions of community organizing.
Ugh. What a mess. May you live in interesting times.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The change in name was a reflection of what had already begun to happen. Under pressure in Congress and legal advise, many of the federal “faith-based” programs had already been opened to other community organizations. My same caveat about small organizations and federal money applies.
By the way, I’m noticing more of the grant scams showing up in the Google ads on the side of these pages. Be aware that none of these “Free Money” promises are legitimate (including the one that says “warning”).
February 5th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Both Obama and Bush know where they can stick their faith-based initiatives, as far as I’m concerned.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I must say that I am a bit taken aback by the tone of this posting, as I was when I read the “Focus on the ball not the eyes” post. There is an implied malfeasance evident in both. I expect better of a site which, historically, has been a place of thoughtful discourse. We have just lived through eight years of an administration culpable for far more egregious practices. This site showed remarkable restraint during that period. I could count on discussion of policies and issues. The Obama administration has been in office for 16 or 17 days, in the midst of a cataclysmic economic crises, and there have been two postings which are scathing? That tone is not worthy of this site.
That said, I agree completely with Michael about the faith-based initiatives. Then again, I’m not certain that decision is the biggest one to be made, given the magnitude of the current economic situation. Is it perpetuating bad policy with a thinly-veiled political manuever? Quite possibly, but I daresay the fact that Obama hasn’t overturned every bad Bush policy in the past 17 day does not necessitate the use of such a tone of condemnation.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Thank you all for your comments. On this question, I would rather remove all of the religious aspects of this and support those doing good work for the benefit of society.
SM2 I believe there is a bigger issue here that you have brought up that is absolutely critical for us as a society. Therefore I answer here at length:
As someone who had great hopes for Obama and supported him very early in the primaries because I believed in his message of change, I am articulating what already is a subtext out there of disappointment (check out Alternet, Juan Cole, even Democratic websites such as Daily Kos. These early days of his Administration are so critically important for his success and our success as a country.
The company that a President keeps has an enormous impact on what he/she does. I do not believe that those of us interested in change should keep our mouths shut when those who represent us are going down the wrong paths or worse yet continuing down the wrong path created by George Bush. We have had eight years of deafening silence when even critics largely gave up (as an aside I asked my student for the last five or six years why they weren’t rioting in the streets because Bush was destroying their future). A cacophony of voices and explosion of discussion is needed. Debate and disagreement are necessary if we are going to forge a new path. If we are silent when we believe the candidate we hoped for is starting out on the wrong foot then when is it that we should criticize, after the policies are already in place and disastrous outcomes have arrived?
Plainly speaking, this is the most important period our nation has faced in 80 years and we need to agitate for what we believe in. If you believe in what Mr. Obama is doing then you need to leap to the defense of those policies.
As the agora in Athens, the British parliament, and every other vibrant democratic institution has been filled with debate and disagreement, so should websites that are about creativity. All creative places are full of argument and passion. Destroy the argument and passion and you have a location populated by lemmings and patsies.
Thank you for your criticisms that is what healthy and constructive debate is about.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Martin,
Thanks for these comments, I agree completely that we need to keep pressure from the left on Washington for the change that Obama promised. He’s actually asking for this when he encourages house parties to lobby congress. A president and administration will inevitably go in the direction the American people support (whether or not that support is manipulated as with Bush).
That said, SM2 is bringing up the same issue I was trying to address with my comments on your “Focus on the ball..” post. I wasn’t disagreeing about the content as much as the tone. Because someone is wrong doesn’t mean their motivations are evil.
February 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The “house parties” are one of the creepier aspects of Obama-mania. Not quite as bad as the fainting and singing children…
This isn’t Maoist China, and politics should not permeate every aspect of our existance.
So Michael and Martin, just to be clear, you’re unhappy with Obama so far? What are you unhappy about, exactly? All the warmed over Clintonistas with tax problems?
February 6th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
To expand on my earlier comments about what Obama could do with his faith-based initiative. As I said above, large faith-based nonprofits provide much of America’s social services. More federal funding for food banks, low income housing, homelessness, safety-net clinics, etc. is going to automatically go directly to a number of faith-based groups. He should acknowledge that.
But even more important are things that don’t involve money. There’s a tremendous opportunity to use the presidency’s bully pulpit to build on the “day of service” he promoted before the inauguration. Without spending a dime, he could encourage religious bodies and congregations to increase volunteer work. As much as anything, he needs to change the tone and pessimism in America, which was as important in what FDR did to combat the Depression as New Deal spending.
There are more areas where religious groups agree with each other, and with sectarian organizations, than there are differences. I’ve been recently working with Catholic Charities and with a Somali community group whose members are all Muslim. Their theologies are different and some of their social views are more conservative than mine. But they’re both working on the same issues — affordable housing, early childhood education, care for dependent elders, etc.
I think this is an arena where Obama can bring people together without getting caught up in the points-scoring games of “Bi-partisanship.”
February 6th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Buzzcut,
I’m not unhappy with Obama, I just realize that his constituency needs to stay vocal and involved on the issues that they care about.
I wasn’t particularly unhappy with Clinton’s 8 years of peace and prosperity either, so bringing back Larry Summers doesn’t upset me.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Well, some things about Larry Summers are a bit disturbing. I’m not sure Clintonomics is what we need right now, but Summers is frighteningly competent, no question.