faith-based initiatives
In a nation where the separation of Church and state is central to our ideology and government, it seems somewhat ironic that our current administration has adopted Faith-based initiatives as the main means of helping the needy. The mission of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI) is:
“To create an environment within the Department (HHS) that welcomes the participation of faith-based and community-based organizations as valued and essential partners assisting Americans in need. The CFBCI's mission is part of the Department's focus on improving human services for our country's neediest citizens.” (http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/)
In general, the poor has been most helped by faith-based institutions such as churches, synagogues and mosques. American citizens tend to grumble about increasingly high taxes, regardless of whether the money is going to help the poor. Americans in general as autonomous citizens do not like being required to redistribute their income from hard work. However, many Americans are more than willing to give to charity at their own will; they feel morally obligated to give to their religious institutions as part of their religious belief systems.
It is strange that our willingness to give to the poor is really a matter of rhetoric; we want to give because we are fulfilling a religious duty, not because our hard-earned money is being taken from us in tax-dollars. Either way, we are still giving away our money, hard earned or not, to the poor. In many ways, faith-based initiatives are a brilliant manipulation of rhetoric so the government can help fund these religious institutions in helping the poor.
However, inevitable issues arise from government giving money selectively to certain institutions. Perhaps allocating more money to faith-based initiatives means allocating less money to social services like welfare and DYFS. These secular services are vital to our nations’ poor and due to lack of funding and attention they are corrupt and mismanaged. In addition, Faith-based initiatives can threaten civil rights. In 1996, a “charitable choice” law was passed as part of the Welfare Reform Act. It states:
“Religious groups are allowed to refuse hiring certain types of people—such as gays or unwed mothers—if it violates the basic beliefs of that religion. The law also allows groups to hire only from particular religions—as when a Christian group hires a Christian administrator—if such a policy is deemed important to their mission.” (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/66/story_6608_1.html)
From a utilitarian point of view, faith-based initiatives are ethical because they can do a lot of good for a great number of people, but there are still many issues that need to be worked out. Would Bush be willing to give government grants to fundamentalist Muslim groups? Would he support a congregation with a gay pastor? Faith-based initiatives may be effective and hopefully, they can do so without stripping Americans of their civil rights or mixing Church and state in an unjust way.
“To create an environment within the Department (HHS) that welcomes the participation of faith-based and community-based organizations as valued and essential partners assisting Americans in need. The CFBCI's mission is part of the Department's focus on improving human services for our country's neediest citizens.” (http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/)
In general, the poor has been most helped by faith-based institutions such as churches, synagogues and mosques. American citizens tend to grumble about increasingly high taxes, regardless of whether the money is going to help the poor. Americans in general as autonomous citizens do not like being required to redistribute their income from hard work. However, many Americans are more than willing to give to charity at their own will; they feel morally obligated to give to their religious institutions as part of their religious belief systems.
It is strange that our willingness to give to the poor is really a matter of rhetoric; we want to give because we are fulfilling a religious duty, not because our hard-earned money is being taken from us in tax-dollars. Either way, we are still giving away our money, hard earned or not, to the poor. In many ways, faith-based initiatives are a brilliant manipulation of rhetoric so the government can help fund these religious institutions in helping the poor.
However, inevitable issues arise from government giving money selectively to certain institutions. Perhaps allocating more money to faith-based initiatives means allocating less money to social services like welfare and DYFS. These secular services are vital to our nations’ poor and due to lack of funding and attention they are corrupt and mismanaged. In addition, Faith-based initiatives can threaten civil rights. In 1996, a “charitable choice” law was passed as part of the Welfare Reform Act. It states:
“Religious groups are allowed to refuse hiring certain types of people—such as gays or unwed mothers—if it violates the basic beliefs of that religion. The law also allows groups to hire only from particular religions—as when a Christian group hires a Christian administrator—if such a policy is deemed important to their mission.” (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/66/story_6608_1.html)
From a utilitarian point of view, faith-based initiatives are ethical because they can do a lot of good for a great number of people, but there are still many issues that need to be worked out. Would Bush be willing to give government grants to fundamentalist Muslim groups? Would he support a congregation with a gay pastor? Faith-based initiatives may be effective and hopefully, they can do so without stripping Americans of their civil rights or mixing Church and state in an unjust way.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home