8
Faith-based groups may lose funding
Shepherd Community Center provides lunch or dinner for the kids who come to Shepherd Community Center for school or after school.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
KAI RYSSDAL: It's not just donors asking big questions this holiday season. Some charities have big concerns as well -- religious organizations in particular. During the campaign Barack Obama said he'll expand the government support for them that President Bush started. With one change: He'll prevent religious organizations that take taxpayer money from refusing to hire employees who aren't Christian.
Marketplace's John Dimsdale reports.
JOHN DIMSDALE: Each day, about 3,000 kids from low-income families get a free meal from the Shepherd Community Center, a Christian charity in Indianapolis.
Jay Height is the Center's director.
Jay Height: The tragedy of hunger in America is that 8 out of 10 kids in this neighborhood will not get two meals a day if they're not at school.
Three years ago, Shepherd Community got a federal grant to expand its capacity. That money is about to run out and the center would like to reapply for another contract. But Jay Height says he won't if the next president does what he says he'll do -- prohibit Shepherd from hiring only Christian employees.
HEIGHT: We do what we do out of our faith. That is what drives us. And we would expect those who serve alongside us to share that faith. And so we would not pursue any kind of funding that would limit our ability to do that.
Before President Bush's faith-based initiative, the government didn't specifically recruit religious groups to provide social services. But that changed under Bush, who set up an office to promote partnerships for community services like homeless shelters. The religious organizations wanted the right to hire only like-minded workers.
STANLEY CARLSON-THEIS: For a faith group, faith is what defines who they are. And why they do what they do and so on.
That's Stanley Carlson-Theis at the Christian think tank Center for Public Justice.
The Bush administration exempted religious groups from civil rights laws that ban discrimination on the basis of religion, race or gender. Now, President-elect Obama says he'll reverse the Bush policy and require nondiscriminatory hiring. Carlson-Theiss says that change will chase religious institutions away from government service.
Carlson-Theiss: And so, for many faith groups it just doesn't make sense to say "Sure, you can take part as a faith group, but by the way, get rid of what makes you a faith group."
But Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University, says even in cases where Congress insisted on nondiscriminatory hiring by government contractors, the Bush administration defended hiring on the basis of religion as legal.
ROBERT TUTTLE: The debate over faith-based hiring is really an offshoot of the debate about how much government should be involving intensively religious organizations in social welfare services. Once you have organizations that see not just sort of the provision of services, but the transformation of souls as a core part of it then this conversation or this debate is going to come along with it.
President-elect Obama headed a religious community group himself back in the 1980s, and says he'll increase funding for faith-based service providers, but only if they accept hiring rules just like everybody else.
In Washington, I'm John Dimsdale for Marketplace.
Obama doesn't go far enough. Even leaving such funding to "faith-based" organizations is discriminatory. It should be broadened to other non-profit groups.
As more money goes out to these organizations while jobs are scarce, this is frightening for women, people who are agnostic or atheist, or gays. We must make all jobs available to everyone.
The report doesn't say that Jay Height's Shepherd Community Center will stop feeding children, only that they will stop seeking money that will restrict their bigoted hiring practices. Most likely, they'll scale their service back to what it was before they received the federal contract, and the federal funds will go to another agency which is more concerned with feeding the hungry than with shoring up a set of narrow religious beliefs with public funds.
Who is in a better position to reach out and assist the poor, destitute and needy than faith-based groups? These groups are in place and successful in their mission because of their sense of calling to serve those in need-- and also because they select staff who are of like mind and faith to help them carry out their mission of service. They are in a far better position to provide important services that communities need than neutral agencies who work without the element of faith-based mission. It makes no sense to ignore them or try to tie their hands by limiting their ability to hire needed faith-based staff to carry out the missions which they so do well. To deny faith-based organizations the ability to act on faith in hiring or mission would destroy their effectiveness and their reason for existence.
I believe the real value in the FBCI is that any organization - religous or secular - that is interested in providing critical social services is welcome to apply for government grants. The social services must be secular services. There is no debate about this. All religious groups are not the same. Some religious groups have more of a faith mission; they provide social services as one way to spread their faith. Other religious groups have more of a social services mission and are motivated by faith to meet community needs. These religious groups differ in their views of hiring practices. The important aspect of the FBCI is that, as long as the tax payer funded social services are secular in nature, these groups are eligible for government grants, just like any other group. I prefer that we focus on common ground and ensure that the organizations we fund to provide social services have a track record of results. The FBCI has focused heavily on evaluation, outcome measurment, and results. Any group that can achieve positive social outcomes for its community should be able to compete for government grants. The hiring debate will likely be solved at the supreme court level.
I have a solution for Jay Height hire no one,if this is truly part of his organizations mission he should be able to staff this without paying people. He can still take the money for the food for the children and even use it more efficiently.
One of my favorite jobs in recent years was with a local synagogue. I am not a Jew; there were several non-Jews on staff, yet there was a mutual respect for similarities in values and the differences in which the similarities were expressed. It's important to be clear what's really important: the services provided, or being with like-minded individuals.
While prejudice against hiring people of different faiths (or no faiths) is not new, Mr. Height's comment that he expects those that serve with him to share his faith to strikes me as a form of spiritual McCarthyism: a litmus test which may be counterproductive to the work at hand.
My heart goes out to those 3,000 children who will not be given food because of the Shepherd Community's decision to be bigots. Faith-based charities are wonderful organizations that provide needed support for people in dire need. I have no doubt that many more people are served by FBCs that would otherwise not receive any help.
That being said, it is not, nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the taxpayer to subsidized prejudicial and discriminatory hiring practices, no matter how noble the cause. Any faith-based organization, be it Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim or otherwise, should never be given federal funding if they choose to practice selective hiring. Faith-based charities should emphasis the charity aspect, and offer their faith serviced separately. “We have the resources to shepherd to your needs, and also something that might soothe your soul,†should be their motto. Not “Let us save your soul and we’ll offer you aid.†THAT is nothing more then proselytizing in charity’s clothing.
We should never allow the government to fund the proselytizing practices of any religious group. Should Shepherd Community choose to no longer file to receive governmental aid, then maybe a more deserving, more tolerant charity, perhaps one focused on their mission, rather then their transmission, could receive the funds.
