Put Some Faith In Faith-Based Charity Plan

But if the government can make the program work in practice as well as it does in theory, the new initiative is cause for cautious optimism.

To receive the funds, the agencies must separate their service and religious functions. Thus, volunteers could not talk about Judaism to people at a synagogue soup kitchen and still receive federal funds.

Advocates for and against the proposal met in a televised press conference last week.

Office Director John DiIulio, a Democrat, told critics and the press that the initiative will level the playing field for religious organizations to compete for the same funds as secular organizations. It will seek to connect the two groups and to identify successful models for social service provision.

The idea of federal funding for faith-based organizations, or FBOs, isn't new; it's an expansion of programs that have been a part of the government for years. One of these, called Charitable Choices, provides publicity for organizations that meet its accountability standards, including FBOs.

Bush's idea sparks concern on both sides of church/synagogue/mosque doors. Among local liberals, the fact that a Republican (and therefore, obviously evangelical Christian) signed the executive order makes a widespread conversion effort even more likely.

But Clinton and Gore supported such an office during their terms, and former vice presidential candidate, Democrat Joseph Lieberman, supports the initiative now.

Many who oppose the office wonder if it's realistic to expect religious organizations to separate their religious teaching from their outreach.

Others, such as the People for the Separation of Church and State, worry that the strings that come with government funding will give Washington control over the nation's religion.

Critics also see a catch-22 in hiring for these programs. On one hand, organizations receiving federal funds cannot discriminate based on the religious affiliation of their employees. Yet the other side claims that requiring FBOs to hire people without regard to their religion interferes with the separation between church and state.

If the organizations are doing what they're supposed to do -- keeping religion out of their social service provision -- they should want to hire the most qualified people to provide services, whatever their religion.

If the religious organizations don't agree with the strings, they don't have to apply for the grants. It's that easy.

But those who desire and are able to separate community service from religious mission work have the chance to supplement the federal government in doing great things.

DiIulio noted that Habitat for Humanity has been very successful at separating its religious background from its service mission. While Christianity is still a component for some groups of volunteers, UNC's student chapter is good evidence that people can participate on a purely secular level.

Jim Wallace, director of the Call to Renewal social activist movement, said the wrong way to run the new initiative would be to have FBOs replace government organizations. Instead, he said the FBOs should investigate larger policy questions such as the roots of poverty and model how to solve them.

In addition, Eugene Rivers, co-founder of the Boston Ten Point Coalition, advocated partnerships between different faiths with common interests. "The question is not religion, but results," he said.

Exactly. The initiative is admittedly risky. A team of watchdogs is ready and waiting to make sure neither churches nor the state overstep their boundaries.

But if (and hopefully when) the initiative succeeds, think of all the good it could do.

Columnist Anne Fawcett can be reached at fawcetta@hotmail.com.