Pubdate: Thu, 01 Feb 2001
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2001 News World Communications, Inc.
Contact:  202-832-8285
Website: http://www.washtimes.com/
Author: Linda Chavez

SPOOKED BY FAITH

Want to drive liberals crazy?

Try suggesting that tax dollars go to faith-based organizations to help the 
poor, treat drug addicts or reform criminals. It certainly worked for 
President Bush. Within hours of the president's announcement this week that 
he was creating a White House office to distribute billions of dollars to 
religious and other faith-based organizations to provide social services, 
he had nearly every liberal interest group in the country foaming at the mouth.

The American Civil Liberties Union warned ominously that allowing 
government to dispense social services through faith-based groups is a 
"prescription for discrimination." Americans United for Separation of 
Church and State denounced the initiative as a "radical assault on 
America's tradition of church-state separation," outlining their objections 
in an eight-page paper.

One of the few left-wing groups not to go on the immediate attack was 
People for the American Way. But that's probably because PAW was too busy 
trying to kill attorney general-designate John Ashcroft's nomination by 
accusing him of being a liar. Character assassination is a full-time job.

So what exactly has the president proposed that worked these groups into 
such a lather?

Most of the groups attacking the Bush proposal claimed the program violates 
the First Amendment. But since none of the money will go for religious 
proselytizing, it is unlikely the program will run afoul of the 
Constitution. And besides, religious organizations like Catholic Charities 
and the Council of Jewish Federations have been getting government money 
for decades to help resettle refugees, shelter the homeless and treat AIDS 
victims.

No, the First Amendment argument is a red herring.

Liberals are unhappy with the Bush proposal because it undercuts their 
basic belief that powerful social forces are to blame for everything from 
poverty to criminality. Liberals dismiss as "blaming the victim" any 
suggestion that bad decisions - such as having a child out of wedlock, or 
getting high or breaking into someone else's house to steal a television - 
create and perpetuate poverty, addiction and crime.

Since individuals aren't to blame for their own predicament, there is no 
point in trying to change individual behavior. Instead, liberals favor 
treating social problems in the most anonymous, least judgmental fashion.

A few years ago, the state of Maryland decided to disburse welfare through 
automatic teller machines, for example.

Advocates for the program argued that not only would it cut down on the 
theft of welfare checks common in many poor communities, it also would 
eliminate any stigma attached to receiving welfare.

Recipients could take their money out of an ATM just like everyone who 
worked, making them feel less like charity cases - and far less likely ever 
to give up their welfare entitlement.

But if you believe individuals should be held responsible for their own 
actions, as most conservatives do, then helping people often entails 
getting them to change their behavior.

Government bureaucracies are lousy at persuading people to change 
destructive behavior, however.

Welfare offices may be good at dispensing checks, but they're usually 
terrible at getting their clients off the dole and into jobs. Drug clinics 
can substitute a prescribed drug, methadone, for an illicit one, heroin, 
but their track record in getting addicts to abandon drugs altogether is 
pathetic. Prisons can keep criminals off the street - temporarily - but 
they're notoriously bad when it comes to reforming those behind bars so 
they won't commit more crimes when they eventually go free.

Faith-based groups, on the other hand, minister to the individual, not the 
social problem.

And that usually means trying to get individuals to change their conduct, 
especially if it contributes to their plight.

President Bush doesn't expect miracles from his new, faith-based 
initiative, and neither should we. But allowing religious organizations to 
compete for some of the billions of dollars the government will spend in 
the next decade to treat drug addicts, or rehabilitate convicts or help 
poor people seems worth at least a small leap of faith - even by liberals.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D