Faith-based initiatives are already fixing what ails us
by JIMMY ARCISZ
Since the government began experimenting with programs that endeavored to give aid to “faith-based” social service groups in 1995 and 1996, the unemployment and overall poverty rates of the urban areas affected have seen a drop in excess of five percent.
This number may not sound astronomical, but consider the fact that poverty rates in these areas, pre-aid, had been escalating since the eighties and it’s a step in the right direction. A $1.9 million pilot program launched in New York City saw the number of persons on public assistance fall by over 82,000 in the first year, a vast majority of whom went on to find jobs through and outside of the program.
If these aid packages are bringing in such optimistic results, why then when President Bush announced his promotion of a faith-based initiative agenda was he met with nasty public sentiment and a flood of opposition?
The answer lies in an ignorant misconception most Americans have regarding the heart of the agenda. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance stated, “This $multi-billion proposal will not allocate new monies to deal with poverty; instead it will turn our religious leaders into competitors for a limited pool of money.” This statement and others like it makes me wonder whether such leaders are out to benefit mankind or their own egos. If the goal of your outreach is to pull more money than or grow larger than your competitors, you need to get your priorities straight, especially if you call yourself a religious organization. I should hope most honest religious charities would lean on faith and their congregation before clawing away at each other as soon as someone sticks a couple bills in their face.
Another group of radicals claim that any faith-based initiative program will create a sort of Gestapo government force to regulate away our freedom of religion. This simply is not true in the case of Bush’s agenda. He made it very clear in his speech introducing the plan that those charities that integrate religion into every aspect of their programs are not the targeted recipients. In another speech he said, “the government will not fund the religious activities of any group.” I don’t think it’s possible to make the point any more clear-cut or concise than that.
This agenda in no way threatens to “regulate away “ our freedom of religion. I believe at its heart beats a simple, non-binding, achievable ideal–to offer funds to those who help those who can’t help themselves without cram-ming beliefs down any throats. By the same token, the government is not cramming funds down any religious throats (money doesn’t kill people, people kill people). So what if there’s a cross on the door? Décor is no stipulation for application.
At this point, the American people are faced with an important decision: rally behind a new idea and effect some desperately needed change or keep banging our heads against the same old wall.
March 30, 2001
Comments Off