|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
by Esther Sung thresher staff
The three panelists at the discussion, "Faith-Based Organization and the Provision of Social Services," were University of Texas at Austin journalism professor Marvin Olasky, Associate Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism Mark Pelavin and Executive Director of the Texas Freedom Network Samantha Smoot. Rice Sociology Professor William Martin moderated the discussion. The "Charitable Choice" provision of the 1996 welfare reform bill now allows private charities to receive government funds in order to provide social services such as shelter and food for the homeless, drug rehabilitation and childcare, Martin said. After taking office this year, President George W. Bush has elaborated upon the Charitable Choice provision by creating a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. This agency will report directly to Bush and will be responsible for distributing billions of federal funds to religious groups and charities over the next 10 years. Federal funds currently go to such religious groups as Catholic Charities, Martin said, but these groups dispense strictly secular services and do not attempt to proselytize the recipients, panelists said. The faith-based initiative of Charitable Choice, however, would allow government money to go to religious charities who do not necessarily separate their religious values and teachings from the services they would provide. The United States has always had a tradition of a separation between church and state, and Charitable Choice may blur that separation, Pelavin said. The panelists each gave a talk to establish their views regarding faith-based organizations, Charitable Choice and social services, and the role that the separation of church and state plays in the issue. As the first speaker, Olasky gave a timeline of relevant developments on this issue in the United States, including the evolution of "compassionate conservatism," President Bush's campaign slogan. It prompted a promise from Bush not to discriminate against religious groups in the dispensing of federal funds. Olasky argued that religious institutions suffer discrimination from the government. Other charitable groups, he pointed out, may operate according to "the wisdom of Mao Tse Tung, or the wisdom of Mickey Mouse" and can receive federal funding, while faith-based organizations cannot. Olasky stressed that in implementing the Charitable Choice provision, the government must look at the results of the services faith-based organizations provide rather than whether they comply with government regulations that may not be relevant to their modes of operation. Olasky brought up two suggestions to help assuage those doubts about using federal funds to support faith-based groups. One is to require religious organizations to ensure that any government money they receive would go only to fund their charitable activities. Another suggestion is to allow tax credits of up to $500 for every person who files a tax return. Each person would be able to designate that money to go to a charitable organization of his or her choice. Government money would then go to support certain religious institutions only with the consent of each individual taxpayer. Pelavin argued against Charitable Choice as something "dangerous to society, dangerous to congregations, and dangerous to our religious community." Although he stressed that the debate over Charitable Choice was not a question of whether religious groups should be addressing societal concerns such as poverty, Charitable Choice "detracts from efforts to relieve poverty." The separation of church and state, he said, "is not to protect government from religion, but to protect religion from government." He pointed out that government funds inherently come with rules and regulations and other strings attached, which inevitably holds danger for religious organizations. Religious institutions, he argued, "should be given broad latitude to do their mission"; government funds, however, would curtail that latitude by introducing government oversight into those institutions' daily operations. Palavin stressed the divisiveness that would result from allowing numerous faith-based organizations to compete for limited federal monies. Obviously some groups would not receive money - how would the government choose which groups to fund? Smoot, who spoke last, argued that the "most fundamental rights of taxpaying citizens and faith-based organizations" are irreconcilable. Religious groups have autonomy from the government regarding their operation and fiscal affairs. But taxpayers have a right to government accountability, not only to see how their money is being spent but also to ensure government enforcement of health and safety standards in the provision of social services. These two rights, Smoot asserted, cannot be compromised. Smoot also emphasized that the competition between different religions, between small churches and big churches, or between urban and rural ones, was a "nightmare" that held possibilities for pork-barreling and corruption. Trying to determine how funds would be distributed would be a "legal quagmire." In a brief discussion after the third speaker, the panelists reiterated their points. "I think they brought up some really good points, but I don't think they really resolved anything," said Jones College sophomore Anna Ahrens, who thought Smoot was the best speaker. "She seemed to have more factual arguments rather than theoretical." Wiess College sophomore Edward Liu agreed with Ahrens' choice of Smoot as the best speaker, adding that he learned from the discussion. "[The discussion] helped me get to know more about the issues surrounding faith-based organizations," Liu said. Lovett College senior Sharon Bzostek said the panel exceeded her expectations. "I thought it was really interesting and much more dynamic than I thought it would be," Bzostek said. "I thought that [the speakers] were all interesting. ... I thought that they all made some good points; I really enjoyed them all." "Faith-Based Organizations and the Provision of Social Services" was the third and final presentation this semester of the Harry and Hazel Chavanne Lecture Series on Religion and American Public Policy. The lecture series will resume with two presentations in the fall.
- back - |
|||
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
