News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.My Concerns With Faith-Based Funding
This commentary is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect those of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.
Timothy Kincaid
February 9th, 2009
Jennifer Venasco has a well reasoned argument why gay and gay-supportive religious organizations should step up and take our rightful place in the community of faith that is receiving federal assistance for charitable efforts. And while I agree with Venasco that gay men and women of faith should not be excluded from national efforts or programs generally, I hope that such churches and organizations refrain from joining and instead take a lead in resisting the continued intermingling of the political and the divine.
I do not support federal funding of religious charitable efforts for a number of reasons – all of them, incidentally, from a pro-religion perspective:
- This sort of program naturally gives preference to those large mega-churches that have the staff and the funding and the political access to go after government grants.
- All faith-based charity is tied to evangelism of that faith. Until such time as they become entirely impersonal (which is rather likely), it is the acting of their faith that motivates believers. They are “letting their light shine” and “living Christ to a hurting world”.
And while they are doing good, it isn’t right that they receive credit or religious goodwill for spending my money. The government should not be funding any other religion’s evangelism – that is unfair to my religion.
- Churches that meet social needs do so as a form of worship. Part of Christian theology is that giving to the less fortunate provides a blessing to the one that gives. “It’s better to give than receive”, you know.
But if the Feds are doing the funding, then the local person loses the blessing. God does not reward you for administering the largess of others.
Or, in a less religion-talk way, being personally invested in the less fortunate around you builds community. You care about whether your money is doing good or ill, you begin to see the lives of the less fortunate, you begin to think about what you can do and how your world impacts that of others. If charity becomes nothing but the job of hired staff paid for by a distant government, social connections break down. Those who provide the caring may soon become no more invested than the most jaded social worker.
- He who pays the bills makes the rules.
It is a matter of indisputable fact that federal governmental money comes with strings. And it is a matter of absolute certainty that in the future a great many of these strings will not be advantageous to the mission of those religious bodies that are currently lining up at the trough with their bowls out.
An obvious example is in Venasco’s argument wherein she tells us that that under the Obama administration, those churches who object to homosexuality as a matter of their understanding of their ancient religious wisdom now cannot exclude gay men and women from being the voice and face of their religion-based good works. They must sacrifice their religious principle in order to receive the funds.
And while some readers may think, “well, its about time”, I would caution that administrations change. In as little as four years, it could be possible that gay-affirming religious charitable efforts would be the ones to choose between upholding their religious principles or closing programs.
- Government does not have a very good history of connecting with the lives of individuals. Even in those institutions that seek to meet the needs of the most vulnerable and helpless, paperwork and procedure seem to rule the day. We all know – and shudder at – the way in which unwanted children get lost in “the system”
Breaking the barrier between government and religious charity will not make bureaucracy more loving or personal. But it does have the potential of taking what is currently a hands-on caring effort and endowing it with all of the warmth of a DMV office with a cross on the wall.
- And finally, those of us in the gay community have been there before. We have watched community centers – those which at one time provided a common meeting place – turn into administrators of state-funded social programs with no use for gay men and women unless they have program-identified needs.
We’ve seen AIDS groups morph from being the voice of an outraged people to pill distributors. We’ve seen community replaced with committee and know the dismal consequence of a message and method that is no longer able to see and reach those most at risk.
We’ve have experience and we should know that there’s something about public money, however needed, that drains the soul from an organization. The best intentioned and most caring of volunteers soon begin to measure the needy against standards and quotas and tick-boxes.
Churches that are excited about this idea need to ask themselves whether they’d rather be churches or part of a defacto government bureaucracy; whether they want to meet the needs of individuals or impersonally process paperwork. Because once you have taxpayer dollars, you have forms and formulae, rules and restrictions.
If you take the public money, you answer to public administrators. And any religious leader that believes that politicians will make choices that are truly moral is deeply deluded or intentionally naive.
So while I know where Venasco is coming from and respect her opinion, I have to disagree. I would caution churches – affirming or rejecting, conservative or liberal – don’t sell your soul. And especially don’t sell your soul to Washington.
Jim Burroway
February 9th, 2009 | LINK
My preference would be for the whole faith-based funding initiative to be eliminated completely, for may of the reasons Timothy gives here.
I do have one observation though. The office is now called the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which, if I read it correctly, now includes non faith-based groups. Obama has been carefull to include people of “no faith” in a lot of his faith messages lately, and I think this rechristening is a reflection of that.
Now if Obama can change the nature of this initiative, a future president could always change it back — which is just one more good reason for abandoning the concept altogether.
However, since we do have it, I believe that it’s counterproductive for us to stand on principle and not go after the money for some of our own community needs. As it is, we’re essentially letting the anti-gay establishment have a monopoly on these dollars.
As I said, I think the office should be abolished altogether. But it looks like it’s not going away.
We have too many battles we’re fighting with one hand tied behind our backs because of noble principles, while our opponents are running circles around us with far greater resources. I think it’s time to think more strategically than that.
David C.
February 10th, 2009 | LINK
Indeed, Jim.
The thing to avoid is becoming dependent on such programs while still getting our rightful share of the feed in the public trough. A principled argument can be made for access by gay-supportive community organizations to public money that is also being offered to those that are likely to oppose gay rights, and that access should be sought and exploited for whatever good can be made of it.
From a strategy standpoint, if gay community service organizations can wisely manage public money in the communities they serve, they can build credibility for support from private sources of funding, too. That will in the long run somewhat insulate them from the political winds of change in Washington.
By obtaining a larger slice of the total pie, we can get both hands into the fight and improve the chances that gay-supportive community service organizations also compete in the marketplace of ideas, helping to neutralize the negative message of religious groups that preach intolerance of LGBT people.
Opponents of rights and legal protections for LGBT people will have no compunction in seeking out and obtaining resources wherever they can get them. We cannot concede that advantage to our opponents and expect to prevail in our struggle.
grantdale
February 11th, 2009 | LINK
Your gop* motivations betray you Timothy, but that’s OK — ya wouldn’t be the same dear self without them! Other concerns apply, and others are willing to fill in at the places you don’t care to go.
1] Firstly, it does pay to recall why secular government took over many of the responsibilities for ‘charity’ in the first place… the churches were NOT able to be either adequate or unbiased. Those involved were often not only ‘jaded’ but relentlessly heartless, unanswerable and motivated for less than reputable reasons to boot.
2] Second, ‘religion’ in the USA (and elsewhere) is a big and powerful business. The industry of souls has not insulated them from greed, corruption, influence peddling, politics, ‘indulgences’ and selfishness; both as organisations and at the level of individuals within. Timothy, you have mentioned only the better attributes that organised religions claim for themselves however a balanced reflection would look also too how things actually operate. (Not wholly unflattering but at least no better either. On many points… arguably for worse.)
3] If you fuel them with public money you are creating religious power-bases that will demand that you answer to their unelected selves. And any politician that believes that powerful religious leaders will make choices that are truly moral is deeply deluded or intentionally naive. Cuts both ways.
4] Religious organisations do not have a very good history of connecting with the lives of individuals, unless that individual is conforming to the faith. Even in those faith-based institutions that seek to meet the needs of the most vulnerable and helpless, lack of accountability and lack of evidence-based programming seems to rule the day. We all know – and shudder at – the way in which vulnerable children were (and are) abused, molested and indoctrinated when in ‘the faith-based system’.
5] These sort of programs naturally give preference to those churches that have the staff and the funding and the political access and the lack of scruples to go after the influencing of government. Putting ‘faith-based’ in front of ‘lobbyist’ should reassure nobody. Enron-under-the-cross.
Breaking the barrier between government and religious hierarchy will not make religious bureaucracy more loving or personal. But it does have the potential of taking what is currently a genuine attempt to offer unbiased community-based support for all those in difficulty and endowing it with all of the unquestioning rigidity and exclusion that is offered by a stake in the middle of a pile of kindling. (Yes Mother T, I’m thinking of you here…)
6] All faith-based charity is tied to evangelism of that faith. Until such time as they become entirely non-partisan (which is rather unlikely), it is the spreading of their faith that motivates believers. By the sword or by the soup kitchen… I don’t care for proselytism that enforces kow-towing, dependency and silencing based on the real risk of exclusion from needed resources. Especially when it’s directed at people at vulnerable times of their life. Pick on someone your own size.
7] there is a reason there should be no cross on the wall at the DMV — it’s unnecessary. It would serve only nefarious recruitment purposes and as a reminder to all about who’s got power and influence. (Apart from that… what on Earth could be considered remotely “charitable” about working in a department established for the sole purpose of processing paperwork? DMV??? Bad example Timothy.)
8] “jaded” social workers are a minority. Most are as keen to do as conscientious a day’s (and frequently overnight’s) work as anyone. Most are motivated by a genuine desire to both reflect and support an extremely diverse community without fear or favour. By its very nature, working in this sector can be exhausting and frustrating; that’s the nature of the work not a reflection on the workers themselves.
Never mistake an aggressively smiley-faced “on fire for Jesus” attitude with either the experience, knowledge, education or motivation required to reflect and support an extremely diverse community without fear or favour.
9] when all and said and done… think of an extreme example… what if police forces were to be ‘privatised’ and opened to ‘faith-based funding’? Or the military? Why exclude these forms of government funded services, but allow others to fall under the influence of religious organisations? Well???
Personally**, we often reflect on the ‘grey nuns’ as a model (ie “The Sisters of Charity”, who aren’t actually nuns). As you’ve mentioned, they are involved in charitable works for their own soul; not to save (as such) those of others. Always uncloistered. Often at odds with the Church and their bishops. Action, not prayer; placing a high emphasis on secular education in teaching and nursing. And therefore a dying order in a faith-based World that has become polarised. For the remaining few, they are (we’ve found) educated, informed, non-judgemental and approachable. Sure, they can tell you what the Church ‘thinks’; but you’ll need to ask.
And, fortunately, they have kept their ‘lesbian haircuts’ even after ditching the previously distinctive brown and black clobber :)
——————-
*that’s a “little GOP”… you’ve nearly died out, you know.
** for two sweet reasons, CLC, Eltham
Timothy Kincaid
February 11th, 2009 | LINK
Grantdale,
I’m a bit confused about your point.
You listed why government should not mingle with religion (as best I can tell). I’ve listed why religion should not mingle with government.
I think we can find more agreement there than disagreement.
grantdale
February 11th, 2009 | LINK
Oh, we’re not in disagreement with any your points Timothy. ???
With a post titled “My Concerns With Faith-Based Funding”, we thought we add ours. Some extras.
Unless you meant only “My Concerns For The Churches With Faith-Based Funding”… umm, yep yep yep. Agree etc. All valid points you raised etc :)
Leave A Comment