Posted by Anthony Gregory on 02/05/09 09:31 AM Last updated 02/05/09 12:36 PM   [Newer: Jobs Government Creates, and Destroys ] [Older: The Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act]

When George W. Bush established his "faith-based" welfare programs, much of the left screamed in horror. It would usher in a theocracy, we were told. The hysterical protests were deafening.

Now that Barack Obama is running with the idea with his "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," there is dissent, but not as loud as I recall it being under Bush. This is perhaps another instance of the Democrats getting away with more of what you would expect from Republicans, because those who would most complain are quieted by the fact that their allies are in power.

The Bush/Obama logic is not completely without validity: Why should churches and religious institutions be shut off from government money just because they are religious? If they work better than traditional welfare programs in helping those in need, why stand in the way of their success?

But this begs the question: The faith-based programs work better partly because, traditionally, they have not been supported by the federal government nor hampered by its regulations. They have acted as religious organizations, not government programs.

As soon as religious groups get on the dole, they have to obey counterproductive guidelines and end up devoting much too much time on lobbying efforts. Before Catholic Charities, for example, got money from the feds, they had nearly no lobbying infrastructure. In the last decade, they began devoting more and more resources to lobbying Washington. Now, their president, Rev. Larry Snyder, is scheduled to serve on Obama's new Faith-Based Council.

There is nothing wrong with faith guiding public officials, especially if they are guided to do the right thing within their constitutionally prescribed limits. But unfortunately, this kind of measure does risk compromising the First Amendment separation of the federal government from matters of religion. And here's the Catch-22: The more socialized a society, the more resources are handed out by government. Now we have an intractable situation. Under socialism, religion is either subsidized or crowded out, and neither option is consistent with our Constitution or religious liberty.

Consider the choice we must face once religious groups accept money. Should they be allowed to discriminate in choosing their patrons or employees? Should they be allowed to practice their faith in ways that alienate many taxpayers? Either answer to these questions is divisive. If they are allowed to practice freely, taxpayers are forced to support religious programs they might disagree with. If they are not, their value and uniqueness as religious orgranizations are diminished, as their strings are now pulled by a secular government. To avoid this problem, government in a free society avoids supporting or hindering religion, and maintains a very small role in civil society in general. The more freedom, the more we are brought together. The less freedom and more government, the more divided we become.

Aside from the friction with the First Amendment, these federal programs certainly are an affront to the Tenth Amendment, which bars the federal government, which has no enumerated Constitutional authority to be involved in charity, from any kind of welfare program, whether it be religious or secular.

Furthermore, there is a risk that the religious organizations, like private schools under a heavy-handed voucher system, will become compromised or even corrupted by a close relationship with the government. If something is virtuous, subsidizing it might sound like a good idea, but it could very well taint the very virtue that made it special and effective.

Obama is not getting quite the same reaction Bush did in pursuing faith-based socialism. Perhaps it is because he, unlike Bush, is not feared by the left for allegedly having theocratic impulses. But although that might in some cases be a real concern, the more fundamental issue here has always been different: Faith-based socialism is unconstitutional, it's unethical as redistribution programs are in general, and like all other welfare schemes, it threatens to weaken the very social institutions and fabric it seeks to strenghten. Had that been the left's main critique of Bush's faith-based socialism, perhaps it would have never continued and become inherited by the new president, who seems determined to expand upon his predecessor's religious welfare program.

Posted 02/05/09 10:02 AM evangelios Henderson, NV

Ahh it doesn't bother me much, I'm not religious. Spiritual yes, religious, no. God! Save us from religion!

Posted 02/05/09 10:07 AM Heather D Port Byron, IL

Thank you for the excellent read. The government getting involved with churches and charities is the worst idea in a very long list of bad ideas. When the church relents and accepts the moneys from the government, they must also accept the dictates that are put in place. No matter which party has the majority or the Presidency, there should be a line in the sand between the fed gov and churches/charities, of which the government will never cross.

Posted 02/05/09 10:27 AM C00kieM0nster Oxnard, CA

"Let's do the inquisition" I applaud organizations that refuse to accept funding. If there are any that have enough faith in themselves to do so.

Posted 02/05/09 10:28 AM ifc69 Midland, MI

Heather D, "When the church relents and accepts the moneys from the government, they must also accept the dictates that are put in place." I think that's the point. ; )

Posted 02/05/09 10:47 AM Andrew76 Ballwin, MO

"The Bush/Obama logic is not completely without validity: Why should churches and religious institutions be shut off from government money just because they are religious?" It is completey invalid because, regardless of the misinterpretations of many modern Christians, there is a clear divide in the U.S. between the Church and State. Forcing tax payers to give money to churches is a violation of individual rights, no matter how "noble" the aim. Ayn Rand explained it best when she said, (I'm paraphrasing here) "We need a seperation of economics and state for the same reason we have a seperation of church and state. Each will eventually corrupt the other and for the same reasons." If Federal or State governments start playing favorites with who's church under what religious doctrine recieves who's money... how could this not implicitly be government sponsorship of a particular religion? I realize this article is basically saying the same thing, I only wanted to add that it is inherently invalid and unconstitutional for the state to divy up tax payer money to churches. Some of you who are christian may disagree with what I'm saying, but would you also then say it's perfectly acceptable for Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Satanic, Wiccan, Mormon, Animist et al, churches to recieve tax payer money? Why not? You can already donate, of your own individual accord, as much money and time as you deem fit to whichever religious institution of your choice. You have no right to force another to do the same against his or her will.

Posted 02/05/09 12:00 PM BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Certain things are just intuitive. When I first heard Bush propose this I thought he had lost his ever loving mind! Government in religion? Take the money from the citizens and then give it to religious organizations???? To paraphrase Jefferson, to take a man's money and spend it on that of which he disapproves is the highest form of tyranny! That smacks of the same problem I have as a pro-life person with giving billions to planned parenthood to further the abortion business.

Posted 02/05/09 12:14 PM marvincooley Perigueux, France

Where does it say in the Constitution of 1788 that the government can take money from one person and give it to another? We would be considered criminals if we did the same. The governemnt is a criminal.

Posted 02/05/09 12:42 PM Anthony Gregory Berkeley, CA

Andrew76, a thought experiment. Let's say the state taxes people 95% (it did during WWII). And let's say some religious people want the schools they are forced to fund to allow religious expression in them. Or let's say the government takes the money and doles it back to people on an individual basis, but then says none of that money can be spent on religion. Is this fair? Absolutely not. Once the government gets big enough, religious freedom is inevitably in peril, for so much of society's wealth is being controlled by the public sector, and any use of that wealth contrary to the faith or non-faith of those who earned it adds insult to injury. That's the problem. A secular socialist government itself is in a sense a religion. Under socialism, religious liberty, and all other liberties, are threatened.

Posted 02/05/09 2:09 PM BillNM Carlsbad, NM

Validity generally runs to the reasoning process. I think Anthony's comment pertains to the current conditions of redistribution. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. In my view though the process of redistribution is unconstitutional at its core. As Kipling said (paraphrasing) to rob from collective Peter to give to selective Paul. I despise the fact that my tax dollars go to support government immoral and criminal enterprises thereby making me complicit. And what is my remedy? If I object, I land in jail or get shot. But the special interests love to have it so.

Posted 02/05/09 2:27 PM Broadlighter Santa Cruz, CA

So the Left shrieked in horror when Bush proposed his faith-based initiatives, but went silent when Obama announced his. I guess it all depends on who's church benefits. What does the ACLU say about this?

Posted 02/05/09 2:46 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA

February 5, 2009 "Faith-Based" Lies And Propaganda. If things go according to the plan of the unConstitutional coup they will successfully inject welfarism into religious communities. Then they will have these communities under control so that next, the unConstitutional coup can draw the religious communities into their wars. Without this deep-seated hook of welfarism the religious communities would strongly oppose the wars on moral and religious reasons. Under the insidious stranglehold of welfarism the religious communities will lose their independence, their identity, and their souls! The irony of ironies! All because they were seduced by the satanic unConstituional coup! Oppose these socialist and fascist mandates guised as faith-based. They are no such thing. They are vile, and rearranging these letters, e v i l.

Posted 02/05/09 4:13 PM StatusQuoJoe Phoenix, AZ

Great article thanks for taking the time to write this so clearly. I am a Christian and it offends me to no end. As soon as the government begins sponsoring something it begins to become a privilege versus a right. As for the Christian perspective (I am speaking to Christians) this is sounding more and more like an ecumenical church. Charity is near the heart of faith although perhaps better described as the blood for the heart is truly faith itself but without the blood to be pumped the body would in fact be dead.

Posted 02/05/09 4:22 PM AuthenticAuthor Canutillo, TX

As a Catholic, and involved with the non-profit org called Border Interfaith, I'm concerned over government welfare towards any particular religious organization. The last thing I want is for religious orders to become government puppets. Non-Profit orgs work precisely because their income is not forced out of the pockets of individuals. Generosity cannot be legislated.

Posted 02/05/09 5:14 PM truthbeknown2 Upland, CA

Great article on an important and often misunderstood topic. There is a Christian humanitarian charity that I supported for a number of years before they started heavily pushing the One Campaign. That is the campaign that was (or possibly still is) seeking a one percent increase in the amount of the federal budget that is devoted to food and medical supplies for other countries. Previously the charity would send us all sorts of pamphlets showing how they were being good stewards of our money. Later they started sending us pamphlets asking us to contact our congressman to push them to vote a certain way on this bill or that bill, since the organization would get more money from the government that way. Their own published data also showed that their percentage of revenues going to fundraising increased while their percentage of revenues going to actual humanitarian programs decreased. Like the article says, "If something is virtuous, subsidizing it might sound like a good idea, but it could very well taint the very virtue that made it special and effective."

Posted 02/05/09 6:28 PM rightsman Las Vegas,, NV

This is a very interesting article. And the comments are likewise interesting. I am becoming associated with some very bright people. Only one comment, though, mentioned a right versus a privilege. There is a big difference. We have the natural right to travel. We give up that right when we "buy" the privilege of driving. If we don't "buy" the privilege of driving, the Revenue Enhancement Officers (plicemen) can put you in jail, if you exercise your right to travel in your own self-propelled wagon, for which you have paid, without "buying" the privilege of driving. What do you reckon the cost of "buying" the privilege of going to your church will be? The government will eventually be forced to collect a tax to continue funding the centers for faith. Thank You Robert Walker

Posted 02/05/09 7:35 PM forjustice Ames, IA

Here is more info on faith-based initiative funding: http://www.cpjustice.org/node/1632 http://www.cpjustice.org/node/ 320

Posted 02/05/09 8:48 PM WarIsARacket Boynton Beach, FL

Nice post Anthony thank you.

Posted 02/06/09 07:56 AM wturri78 Beavercreek, OH

"Aside from the friction with the First Amendment, these federal programs certainly are an affront to the Tenth Amendment, which bars the federal government, which has no enumerated Constitutional authority to be involved in charity, from any kind of welfare program, whether it be religious or secular." Forgive my constitutional ignorance, but how exactly does the 10th Amandment bar the government from charity or welfare? Is that reasoned by considering as "excessive fines imposed," any tax that goes toward redistributing one person's money to another?

Posted 02/06/09 11:35 AM truthbeknown2 Upland, CA

wturri78, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which part of the Constitution do you feel is specifically delegating the power of welfare (e.g. taking from one person to give to another person) to the federal government? If the Constitution doesn't specifically state that a certain power is given to the federal government, then it's a power that the federal government isn't allowed to have. If you "reserve" a table at a restaurant, then no one else is allowed to have that table. The table is yours. Likewise, powers "reserved" to the states or the people are powers that the federal government isn't allowed to have.

Posted 02/06/09 11:37 AM truthbeknown2 Upland, CA

Whoops, that should have been an "i.e." not an "e.g."