Philip Terzian
As a political matter, there are three signs in its favor. The first, of course, is the
automatic opposition of the American Civil Liberties Union, which for reasons having little to
do with civil liberties, seems determined to eradicate religious institutions from civil life.
Second is the equally emphatic opposition of the Rev. Barry Lynn and his organization,
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. The Reverend Lynn is now treated in
the media as a thoughtful watchdog on church-state relations, and trenchant critic of the
Religious Right. But in fact, the Reverend Lynn and his organization began as virulent critics
of the prospect of federal aid to parochial (that is to say, Roman Catholic) schools; and in
its earlier incarnation, Americans United was always detecting the Pope's nefarious influence
in American life. Seldom has bigotry moved so effortlessly into the mainstream.
The third sign in Mr. Bush's favor is the sentiment of Americans. A recent poll, conducted
by the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, asked respondents to rate those institutions they
consider best suited to solve social problems in their communities. Out of 15 possible
candidates, the federal government ranked 14th -- the choice of 28 percent of respondents--
just ahead of unions (21 percent) and behind state governments (33 percent). First in line were
the cops (58 percent), but second was "local churches, synagogues or mosques" (56 percent),
followed by "non-profit organizations such as the Salvation Army, Goodwill Industries and
Habitat for Humanity" (53 percent).
One of the discouraging aspects of Al Gore's recent presidential campaign was his seeming
determination to revive all the old, discredited Great Society programs that, well-intentioned
or not, gravely aggravated America's burgeoning social problems during the past three decades.
The Pew survey reveals the deep skepticism of Americans about government's ability to alleviate
despair, and their corresponding trust in "faith-based" institutions.
Whether that trust is justified is a matter of opinion, at this juncture; but Mr. Bush is
to be commended for giving it a try, and putting his proposal in the hands of John DiIulio, an
academic with a long history of commitment to social service. There is a notion that Americans
are largely indifferent to social problems in their communities, and the Pew survey reveals
that this is not only untrue, but contradicted by the fact that Americans have strongly-held
views about what works and what doesn't.
Still, you don't have to share the hostility of the ACLU to all this in order to feel a
certain unease about the subject. I don't mean the question of religious proselytizing, which
seems to have the usual suspects agitated, and strikes me as irrelevant. I mean the question of
connecting religious charities to the government. As any university administrator can attest,
the federal government may do a limited number of things well, but one of those things is
handing out money. And as surely as the cash arrives from Washington, it is followed by
mandates, requirements and stipulations. And pretty soon the relationship evolves from
philanthropy to coercion.
Religious organizations will be sorely tempted to solicit federal funds for theirgood
works, and Congress and the federal government will be equally tempted to attach all manner of
conditions to the cash. It happens everywhere else; why not here? The lure of federal funds is
not to be overestimated: There are billions of dollars available out there, and the tiniest
fraction could transform any number of struggling, successful programs. But it could transform
them in other ways as well: By making them dependent on federal grants, and changing them from
charitable institutions into lobbying organizations trading money for votes.
George W. Bush is not going to be president forever. The next administration might well cut
off funds to programs that work, and happily endow their political allies, whose primary
charitable beneficiaries are themselves. It's a terrible thing to say, but good laws are often
administered by bad men, and even "faith-based" institutions are vulnerable to corruption. This
isn't destined to happen, but it's a danger Messrs. Bush and DiIulio should
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
I LEAVE IT to the historians of language to determine when the word
"religious" was replaced by "faith-based." But no matter how it is expressed, President Bush's
proposal to offer federal funds to "faith-based" charities and institutions that offer social
services is a sensible one. Within appropriate guidelines, it may very well serve Mr. Bush's
determination to help those Americans whom prosperity has left behind, and help them in ways no
one now suspects. 
JWR contributor Philip Terzian is associate editor of The Providence Journal.
Comment by clicking here.
01/25/01: The quantity of mercy
01/22/01: Run, Jesse, run
01/18/01: Clinton knows history's verdict
01/16/01: Take this job and ...
01/09/01: Washed in the blood
01/04/01: Up for the count
12/26/00: Remembering Comet Lindsay
12/20/00: Cooling down
12/18/00: Presidential legacies are not so obvious to contemporaries
12/13/00: Cops and soccer moms
12/11/00: The 'Net horrifies Stephen King
12/04/00: Downey behind bars
11/29/00: By any means necessary
11/16/00: Government sanctioned historical revisionism?
11/10/00: Breaking news: They don't know
11/09/00: Steve Allen: Smart TV
11/07/00: The November surprise
11/01/00: Take the Lieberman test
10/30/00: P.S. Don't tell Congress!
10/25/00: The election is close, but ...
10/23/00: King or jester?
10/19/00: The Million T-Shirt March
10/16/00: I like (fill in the blank)
10/12/00: Now comes the hard part
10/05/00: Good show, bad sports
10/02/00: It's a wonderful life?
09/28/00: Driving on America's Main Street
09/22/00: Preparing for a new administration
09/20/00: They've got a secret
09/18/00: Today, Dr. Laura. Tomorrow ...
09/12/00: What passes for knowledge
09/05/00: The catcher gets caught
08/31/00: A Golden Age that never was
08/28/00: Blame communism, not Russia
08/24/00: Social progress on one front, regression on the other
08/21/00: The beat goes awry
08/17/00: The unwelcome democrat