Republican faith based initiatives

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_2.html

Please, Keep Faith

David Kuo

Former Bush Aide: 'Minimal commitment' from the White House plus Democratic hostility hinder the faith-based plan


Four years ago, while visiting a small urban charity, President Bush launched the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He called it "one of the most important initiatives" of his administration.

It was hard evidence of the "compassionate conservatism" that Texas Governor George Bush embraced in his first major policy speech of the Presidential campaign, "It is not enough for conservatives like me to praise [compassionate] efforts. ...."

That day a conservative Texas governor promised more than $8 billion during his first year in office to help social service organizations better serve "the least, the last, and the lost." More than $6 billion was to go for new tax incentives that would generate billions more in private charitable giving. ... . A new White House Faith-Based Office would lead the charge.

It was more than a bunch of promises. It was a new political philosophy of aggressive, government-encouraged (but not controlled) compassion that simultaneously rejected the dollars-equal-compassion equation of the "War on Poverty" mindset and the laissez-faire social policy of many conservatives. It was political philosophy of the heart as much as the head.

This was a dream come true for me. Yes, I actually dream of social policy. But since the early-1990s I've been what columnist E.J. Dionne termed a "com-con" or "compassionate conservative." ...

While pure com-cons were never terribly powerful in Republican circles, Bush's endorsement of this progressive conservatism was exciting. And when he became the president, there was every reason to believe he'd be not only pro-life and pro-family, as conservatives tended to be, but also pro-poor, which was daringly radical. After all, there were specific promises he intended to keep.

Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact. In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million during the past four years. And new programs including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years--or approximately $6.3 billion less than the promised $6.8 billion.


I left the White House in December 2003. By that time, I'd grown quite frustrated with White House and Congressional approaches to faith-based issues and I let those in power know it. Virtually everything I've written here I told to those above me more than a year ago. I hoped things would change. ... I figured that with time, my anger would subside.

I was right. The anger did. The sadness hasn't.

I'm writing this now because there is a lot of time left. There are more budget supplementals to come for Social Security and Iraq totaling scores of billions. The White House can still do a great deal for the poor. It can add another few billion to insure every American child has health care. It could launch a program to simply eliminate hunger. Groups like America's Second Harvest have the plan. Bump up the Compassion Capital Fund to $500 million a year and be marveled by change.

Given new budget realities, climates, and conditions it is easy to dismiss these suggestions as naive. But no one ever said faith was easy...or cheap. In 2000, Gov. Bush said, "I know that economic growth is not the solution to every problem. A rising tide lifts many boats, but not all." He then went on to propose a new approach to those who were still stuck behind. The promises are still there and I am trying to keep the faith.

Congress Assaults the Courts, Again

Published: June 18, 2005
The House of Representatives took a little- noticed but dangerous swipe at the power of the courts this week. It passed an amendment to a budget bill that would bar money from being spent to enforce a federal court ruling regarding the Ten Commandments. The vote threatens the judiciary's long-acknowledged position as the final arbiter of the Constitution. It is important that this amendment be removed before the bill becomes law.

During consideration of an appropriations bill for the Departments of State, Justice and Commerce, Representative John Hostettler, Republican of Indiana, introduced an amendment to prohibit any funds from being used to enforce Russelburg v. Gibson County. In that case, a federal court ruled that a courthouse Ten Commandments display violated the First Amendment and had to be removed. Mr. Hostettler declared that the ruling was unconstitutional, and inconsistent with "the Christian heritage of the United States."

Since the Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it has been clearly established that the courts have the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. But right-wing ideologues, unhappy with some of the courts' rulings, have begun to question this principle as part of a broader war on the federal judiciary. The amendment that passed this week reflected an effort to use Congress's power to stop the courts from standing up for the First Amendment and other constitutional principles.

The budget amendment was truly radical. The genius of the American system is that the founders carefully balanced power among three coequal branches. Mr. Hostettler's amendment would throw out this brilliant structure, and 200 years of constitutional history, and make Congress the final interpreter of the Constitution. If the amendment succeeded, Congress would no doubt begin designating other cases and constitutional doctrines the courts would be barred from enforcing.

There is little doubt that if the amendment became law it would itself be held unconstitutional, but it should not reach that point. The Senate should show the responsibility, and respect for the founders' vision, that the House did not and excise this offensive provision

JTT -- In your initial post, you say that Mr. Bush is trying to force his version of Christianity upon the American public. You cite two articles who assert the same thing, one of them rather long.

At that time, Thomas, I had actually said nothing on this topic. It may have appeared that way, in fact McG too, was confused. In a posting just a few after my inital one, I tried to clear this up. I've quoted it here so you don't have to go back searching.

[quote] I suspect that I'm the 'you'. I don't see anything because I'm not that well informed on this issue, McG. I was responding to your request for more info about a specific point. I don't believe I 'spoke' a word, ... or did I?

At first blush, it seems like there could be pluses. I can also see some "difficulties" that could arise. Either way, it's something that can be debated, don't you think?

JTT -- In your initial post, you say that Mr. Bush is trying to force his version of Christianity upon the American public. You cite two articles who assert the same thing, one of them rather long.

At that time, Thomas, I had actually said nothing on this topic. It may have appeared that way, in fact McG too, was confused. In a posting just a few after my inital one, I tried to clear this up. I've quoted it here so you don't have to go back searching.

[quote] I suspect that I'm the 'you'. I don't see anything because I'm not that well informed on this issue, McG. I was responding to your request for more info about a specific point. I don't believe I 'spoke' a word, ... or did I?

At first blush, it seems like there could be pluses. I can also see some "difficulties" that could arise. Either way, it's something that can be debated, don't you think?

Sorry, JTT, I responded to your initial post, before reading the others.

The reason I asked about your freedom not to be a Christian (not knowing your religion) is because while I see that this is an issue of (not) separating church and state, I don't see how it infringes on religious liberty. Religious liberty is a matter of tolerance, and it can thrive even in countries with officially established religions. Examples include Sweden, Spain, and England.

June 17, 2005
Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers
By JOHN C. DANFORTH
St. Louis

IT would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action. So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to "put God back" into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

CONTINUED AT,

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?

John C. Danforth is an Episcopal minister and former Republican senator from Missouri.

The Church is the middle man because desperatepeople show up at church offices, pleading for help. This has been going on likely soince the beginning of time. It is still going on in urban and rural churches all over the world...likely in ever town in every country where churches exist.

Because of this phenomenon, churches raise money to pay for the needs of those who come asking for help.

They've gotten good at it. So good, some people think governmental money would be quite well spent in adding to programs that are already doing a good job--rather than throw it away creating more bureaucracy that won't do such a good job.

It seems that my experience--and yours--prove that mandatory church indoctrination is not a part of the church's outreach program to people in need...at least in 6 out of 6 cases personally investigated.