Return to Sermon Index
 

Last evening, Jews around the world began the celebration of Passover. Passover honors the Jewish Exodus from Egypt over 3,000 years ago, an exodus that resulted in both freedom and formation of the Jewish nation. As one Rabbi notes:

Most Jews that I know apply Passover with an astonishing immediacy. Passover is an ancient and modern history. The details of Moses and the burning bush, the ten plagues, and the parting of the Red Sea are well known, and parts of the story are re-enacted in the Passover Seder. Even more so, the exodus is a living event. One Haggadah reads "In every generation, every individual person is to view himself as having been personally rescued from Egypt"

Theologian William R. Jones maintains that while Christianity focuses on survival and salvation, the life breath of Judaism is liberation. Not just liberation in the past, but liberation here and now. Are we free, now? Do we participate in systems of liberation or oppression, today? As we heard in the reading for this morning "Unless each member of society actively pursues the happiness of every other member, none is happy. Only the free have life."

Throughout history, Judaism has sought to maintain systems that promote freedom. I was not surprised then, when I saw the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (the official body of Reform Judaism), listed in an official letter as an organization questioning President Bush's faith-based funding initiative. The letter was sent to the President on January 30th of this year, one day after the initiative was launched. Other signatories included the ACLU, NAACP, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Interfaith Alliance, and the National Education Association.

What then, is the concern that faith based funding presents to freedom? This question is actually much more complex that I realized, touching on issues of religious autonomy, the division between church and state, and even job discrimination.

American freedoms are outlined in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution became law in 1788. In 1791, ten amendments, known as "The Bill of Rights", were added. The first amendment reads in part:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Ten amendments were added in 1791. Ten amendments covering everything from the right to bear arms to State's rights. The first amendment, the first phrase of the first amendment, addresses religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

According to the periodical "Church and State", the reason for this language and prominent placement is one man, our fourth President of the United States, James Madison.

Madison wrote the Constitution and co-authored the Bill of Rights. Throughout his political career, he was adamant in his defense of the separation of church and state. Growing up in Virginia, he watched with growing concern while Anglicanism, the official state religious creed, imprisoned Baptists for spreading their version of faith. As early as 1776 Madison argued for more than just religious toleration, but acceptance of the free exercise of religion.

Here are two quotes from Madison, the first insisting that religion actually prospers better if free of the state, and the second noting the disturbing ease with which one "right religion" can become federally mandated. Madison writes "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." He also writes:

Madison was way ahead of his time. The concern expressed in his second quote has already begun to raise its head in our recent debate about faith based funding initiatives.

I oppose President Bush's faith based funding initiative proposal. There are many reasons for this, beginning with my personal theology. I am more concerned with liberation than salvation or survival. I believe that liberation is the higher standard for here and now. I am grateful that Judaism reminds us that exodus is a modern phenomena and that liberation is a daily issue. But beyond this, I have yet to hear anyone speak of faith based funding initiatives in a way that addresses my concerns about church state conflicts and job discrimination.

At the same time, I share my concern; I want to affirm the possibility of positive partnership between religion and the state. Before 1996, several religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities, the Jewish Federation System, and Lutheran Social Services, accepted government grants that came with very strict safeguards. For example, the money went to religious agencies, not specific congregations, programs were generally secular, and, since the money was federal money, job discrimination was illegal.

Within my neighborhood, the Orthodox Jewish community has chosen to buy several apartments building in order to rehab and maintain them. To my knowledge this was not done with federal money, but I like that they are caring for my neighborhood instead of some absentee property owners. Likewise, two years ago First Church had a very positive experience working with Catholic Social Services, who matched the Destani family, refugees from the war in Kosovo, with First Church.

Religious congregations and organizations can provide quality social services. Often they are located in neighborhoods with the greatest needs. Often they also have the trust of the local residents. Clearly, religion has an important role to play in social services.

There may be ways to continue coordination of faith based funding initiatives. My concern with the current proposal is that federal funds may ultimately support one religion and not another, that they could be used (in fact, are already being used) to discriminate against employees, and that they could be used to evangelize a person in need of support services. When I look at these concerns I ask myself, "Are we still equally free?" Are we maintaining justice in our midst?

PBS's NewsHour has done several programs related to President Bush's new proposal. One panelist, Wendy Kaminer, had this observation:

Certainly, this was a concern of James Madison, who understood the correlation between federal affirmation of Christianity and federal affirmation of a certain sect of Christianity. In this same PBS broadcast the interviewer returned to Stephen Goldsmith, the representative from President Bush's new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and asked "What about the Nation of Islam."

I thought Goldsmith really sidestepped the issue, saying this would be a performance-based contracting system, and that a Christian, Jewish, or Islamic door can give help. I wish the interviewer had really pressed him, "What about the doorway of the Nation of Islam?" it is not just Islam, it is the Nation of Islam? The Nation of Islam is a good test case. Over the years, they have offended many Americans through a militant stance and discriminatory remarks. Many people believe their leader, Louis Farrakhan, was instrumental in the murder of Malcolm X. What about the Nation of Islam?

It is not clearly stated, but the current faith based funding initiative implies there is a certain type of acceptable religion (or that we all share the same religion). As Rabbi David Saperstein said:

The current faith based funding proposal also abdicates the role of the federal government in providing social services. Why should religion provide these services instead of the government? How are religions more adept at service delivery?

President Bush's current proposal implies that the federal government is not ultimately responsible to manage social problems, rather, faith based programs are an answer (and so far he seems to lean towards Christian programs). I am uneasy that this proposal creates a back door to ignore social problems (which continues to enslave us to poverty) while promoting a state based religion. The message seems to be, the poor will always be with us, may they find salvation in heaven.

I have also heard faith based funding initiatives touted as offering better services. I have neither seen nor read any evidence that supports this assumption. Gary Bauer, President of American Values had these words to say:

Words like this make me wonder what this proposal truly suggests. I wonder if Mr. Bauer would fight so hard if Unitarian Universalists won a grant and promoted atheism to treat the heart and soul, or a Buddhist group promoted Buddha, or a Hindu group promoted many gods and taught clients to perform puja, or worship to the gods. Who exactly will decide how best to religiously treat the heart and soul of Americans? And is this the government's job?

The doorway for faith based funding initiatives opened in 1996 with the introduction of "charitable choice." I am still a little unclear about charitable choice, but to my best understanding, charitable choice was attached to the Welfare Reform Act in 1996. It enables federal money to go directly to congregations, instead of to faith based social service organizations.

So, for example, if First Church administered a welfare program, federal funds could come directly to our congregation, rather than to a UUA administered social service program. This may sound like a small difference, but it is much bigger than it appears. Religious social service institutions are more accountable than individual congregations. In addition, volunteers people your average congregation with sincere religious loyalty, but minimal legal and professional social service skills or education. Few of us know the particulars of the law and the division between church and state. [Example of candidate literature/client's rights in the mental health field]

Charitable choice also enables religious organizations to receive federal funds and discriminate against employees. Just this past week the New York Times Magazine published an article about a woman, named Alicia Pedreira, who was fired from the Kentucky Baptist Homes for children after a photograph of her, taken in the 1997 AIDS walk, was displayed without her knowledge, at the state fair. The photograph showed her with another woman and it is obvious that they are a couple.

Several weeks after the display, Ms. Pedreira, who had received several outstanding performance evaluations, was fired from her job as a therapist. A letter explained that her "homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Kentucky Baptist Home for Children core values." This becomes all the more troubling when we understand that Kentucky Baptist Home receives three fourths of its funding from the government.

The author of the New York Times article, Eyal Press, explains:

The irony is that federal employees are protected from sexual orientation discrimination. [Explain religion exempt from Civil Rights Act of 1964]. So here we have a religious agency that exists through government funds, which can discriminate against its employees. In this example, the religious agency has both the money and the freedom, while the individual employee has neither. I don't want my federal funds going to any agency that can discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation.

A final freedom I consider is that of the people who receive these services. Are they going to be coerced into a faith they don't share in order to receive the services that they need? Currently charitable choice programs use federal money and they are prohibited from using this federal money for proselytizing. However, a religious group can collect federal money to run the details of their program, and then use private funds to proselytize the participants. It is as if the federal government has sent people to receive social services and religion.

While writing this sermon I spoke to a rabbi colleague and discovered that he was preaching on the same topic this weekend, only he was preaching in favor of faith based funding initiatives. We had an intense conversation about our respective sermons that gave us both pause. His thesis is that faith based funding initiatives could work and why throw the baby out with the bath water? He used a wonderful analogy about how baseball widened the strike zone this year, and couldn't we widen our strike zone, before arch liberals and conservatives dominated the debate, to see if a religious/social service partnership could be enhanced. He said, "This is where religion needs to be in America."

I agree that this is where religion needs to be, that religion needs to help others, but in the end, I don't think religion wants to help people in this way. I keep going back to Madison's thought "The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."

Faith based funding initiatives are viable if participants adhere to federal discrimination law, if clients will not be proselytized with federal or private money, and if congregations and religious social service institutions are held accountable to higher training and administration standards. If I saw these standards set in place, I would be willing to widen my strike zone and consider faith based funding initiatives. I am still hesitant about money going to local congregations instead of religious social service organizations, but I would be willing to try it.

However, those are a lot of ifs and I don't believe that the majority of American religions want to share them. I don't believe that American religions really want this job. They would have to change too much in order to take it. We live in a country that promotes the free exercise of religion; therefore, religions are exempted from standards we apply to secular organizations. Why dilute religion? Why compromise our civil rights?

Rabbi Saperstein was correct about the divisiveness and competition that will come between religions if federal money is involved. I respect religion enough to believe that its variations should live and die on their own merits, without federal benefits. I respect the American people enough to believe that they have earned the civil right of freedom of religion. I respect America enough to believe that we must maintain the civil right of freedom of religion.

Passover teaches us that exodus is still alive, still a modern imperative. Pharaoh lives and there are people still seeking freedom. I say let our people voluntarily choose their own religious affiliations (or lack thereof), and let those in need receive our care without persuasion that adds to the imprisonment of want and poverty. Each of us has the right of religious freedom. May we be granted freedom, not merely from slavery but for the task of establishing justice in our midst.
 

Return to Sermon Index