Faith-Based Initiatives Falter

President George W. Bush's new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has found itself the unhappy lead in a morality play: Pride Goeth Before a Fall. The office, the first large-scale federal effort to aid religious groups in providing social services, began in a ceremony of majesty and fanfare, with dozens of smiling religious leaders surrounding Bush as he signed the executive order. But now, surrounded in controversy, it has pushed back its ambitious timetable--"we're postponing," explained deputy director Don Eberly.

The drama shows the Supreme Court's wisdom in advising against excessive entanglement with religion. Ever since President Clinton signed the 'charitable choice' provision of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, we have seen religious groups vying for government funding in specific areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services. Bush, however, seeks to expand this concept widely across the federal government, including the Departments of Education, Labor, Justice and Housing and Urban Development. But difficulties have arisen in determining which groups are "too religious" to receive government aid.

The obvious problem is that certain groups may provide valuable services, but at the same time require participants to be of a certain faith or place a heavy emphasis on conversion. Allowing these groups government funding--giving government assistance to proselytizing efforts--would clearly threaten the separation of church and state.

One example of the many uncomfortable choices that have resulted from the program was the decision of the office's director John DiIulio to separate out certain evangelical groups and exclude them from direct grants, instead allowing them only to use personal vouchers that are to be given to individuals seeking social services. The groups have protested that they were prejudged as inherently more missionary--and consequently less eligible for funding and less palatable to the government--than mainline denominations.

Moreover, the line between what is encouraging spirituality and what is encouraging conversion is not always clear. If encouraging prayer time is permissible, is encouraging the recitation of certain prayers to certain religious figures permissible as well? How would the govenment treat 12-step programs that save thousands from drug and alcohol addiction, but include "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior" as one of the steps?

Where does government draw the line? The answer is simple: it should put away its pencil and stay out of religion's programs, which have been highly successful as private enterprises so far. To his credit, Bush is open to other ways of encouraging charity, such as expanding tax deductions for charitable donations and urging states to do the same.

We hope that this 'delay' in implementation will allow Bush to think twice about his plans to erode the wall between church and state and lead him to more creative--and constitutional--ways of supporting charity.