Monday, June 26, 2006

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Christianty Today has a report on a study of 500 welfare-to-work programs in five cities by a former Pepperdine professor who is now a fellow at the Paul B. Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College (a 4-year college operated by the Christian Reformed Church). (If it sounds familiar, George W. Bush was their commencement speaker last year.)

This researcher found that, of the 500 programs he studied, 117 were faith-based, and of the 96 Protestant programs, 61 were evangelical and 35 were "mainline." From an interview:
What did you find regarding evangelical programs?
Both from the surveys and the visits, it was clear that evangelical programs tend to integrate religious aspects into their services, whereas in mainline programs, Christianity tends to be more implicit.

For example, 48 percent of the evangelical programs reported that they encourage their clients to make personal religious commitments. And an impressive 77 percent reported that they would use religious values or motivations to encourage clients to change their attitudes or values.

What did that look and sound like?
In some classes, evangelical staff would talk about how God loves persons who are out of work, who are on welfare, who are trying to become economically self-supporting. They would talk about work as a way to honor God: that Jesus himself had been a carpenter and worked with his hands, and that work is more than just a way to earn money—it's a way to honor the Creator. Social Justice Surprise

Now, this should be a red flag. I don't know everything about this, but it was my understanding that some of these programs received money from the government...

Oh yes:
What percentage of evangelical programs receive government funding?
One of the surprises was that more evangelical programs were receiving government funding—51 percent, versus 40 percent of the mainline programs.

This carried through also when you looked at the amount of funding: 38 percent of the evangelical programs reported receiving more than half of their funding from the government, compared to 31 percent for mainline programs.

The interviewer suspects that someone like me just might hear about this:
What do you say to critics who see incorporating evangelism and religious values as a violation of church-state separation?
Many evangelical programs, when they have Bible studies or devotional activities, make them voluntary. Many of these efforts to encourage clients to make religious commitments are done with private money at a time separate from the other services. That's a partial answer.

But even more fundamentally, we know that government funding cannot be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytizing. Yet those words are not self-defining. If welfare-to-work staff reassure recipients that Jesus loves them, that work is a way to honor God, and that we all have a calling to fulfill in life—is that sectarian instruction? I think not.

Now the ACLU might disagree with me on that. But to me, this is using broad Christian values to help people overcome tremendous obstacles in becoming economically self-sufficient. I attended similar classes at secular nonprofit organizations. They also used values -- non-religious values. They would talk about earning the respect of your family by going out to work or feeling better about yourself. But both evangelical and secular programs use values to motivate and improve the self-esteem of their clients.

Wow, can you remember the days when "that depends on what is is" sounded evasive? These guys know that what they're doing is right, that God wants them to do this, and so they have figured out all these ways to explain their proselytizing so that it sounds -- to themselves -- like they're obeying the law.

They're not.
How do the government and faith-based agencies get along?
Whether or not evangelical programs receive government funds, they seem to be part of an informal network of consultation and referral.

A majority of evangelical programs indicated that they sometimes referred recipients to government agencies. And government agencies refer clients to them; sometimes, evangelical agencies are contacted by government agencies just for advice.

Warning bells should be going off like crazy as you read this. This is one arm of a theocratic movement that is going to be extremely difficult to trim back, even after sanity returns to America.

It is fine for religious institutions to provide aid to the downtrodden. It's great for them to help people get off welfare, get them off the streets and back into living a good respectable life. That has been an important function of the church for thousands of years.

In fact, this is one thing that Jesus would have approved of, even encouraged.

But they should not be using government money to do it. It is obvious that this little thing, letting faith-based organizations take government money, is getting to be very thick, a tight underground connection is growing between religious groups who are trying to add new members and government organizations that have a public emergency to deal with. We'll be spending a long time undoing this.

(Hat-tip to Red State Rabble for catching this.)

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is fine for religious institutions to provide aid to the downtrodden. It's great for them to help people get off welfare, get them off the streets and back into living a good respectable life. That has been an important function of the church for thousands of years.

In fact, this is one thing that Jesus would have approved of, even encouraged.

But they should not be using government money to do it."

??????????

June 26, 2006 4:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's Wall Street Journal, page A14:

Richard Lindzen, professor at MIT, explains how Al Gore is wrong: the scientific debate on global warning is not over.

June 26, 2006 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's Wall Street Journal, page A15:

Peter Hoekstra, chair of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence details WMD that has been found in Iraq since overthrow of Saddam.

June 26, 2006 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Monsma also says, the clients of evangelical programs believe they are more caring than the main line Protestant churches.

June 26, 2006 5:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When Stephen V. Monsma completed his four-year study of 500 welfare-to-work programs in four cities (Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Dallas), he concluded that "much of conventional wisdom was wrong" about religious organizations. He talked about his stereotype-defying findings with senior associate editor Agnieszka Tennant.

What fallacy does your study correct?

It's that mainline Protestants are more active in social service programs than evangelicals—and that evangelicals merely serve their own congregations and are more concerned with evangelism than with social welfare programs. I found the opposite to be true: Of the welfare-to-work programs in the four cities that I studied, there were more evangelical programs than mainline Protestant programs.

June 26, 2006 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Richard Lindzen, professor at MIT, explains how Al Gore is wrong: the scientific debate on global warning is not over."

Yeah, they were debating global warming outside the closed Metro stations and office buildings all over the DC metropolitan area yesterday. I bet they are debating it again today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/06/27/GR2006062700159.html

June 27, 2006 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Lindzen addresses your type of flippant, unreasoned remark. Why don't you read his article?

June 27, 2006 8:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want me or anyone else to read what Lindzen said, you'll have to provide a link to the article.

June 27, 2006 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wall Street Journal, Monday, June 26,2006: page A14

June 27, 2006 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wyatt = SpamBot

June 27, 2006 12:17 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Monsma also said It is true that there is not as much evidence [that faith-based providers are more effective than their government or secular counterparts], based on careful, empirical studies as one ideally would want—and not as much, frankly, as some supporters of the faith-based initiative have sometimes claimed.

We've noted this same observation many times. While there are some faith based programs that have been found to be effective (working with jail populations for example), when it comes to federally funded faith based abstinence-only programs, the evidence shows they are ineffective at reducing STD rates.

Faith based abstinence-only programs must follow these rules in order to receive federal funding. The rules list many prohibitions including:
- "Material must not promote contraception and/or condom use (as opposed to risk elimination)"
- "A curriculum must not promote or encourage the use of any type of contraceptives outside of marriage or refer to abstinence as a form of contraception."

These rules mean that sexually active public school students in federally funded abstinence-only sex "education" classes are denied medically accurate information to protect themselves from unplanned pregnancy and STD's. As a result, studies of tens of thousands of participants in these programs by Congressman Henry Waxman and Bruckner and Bearman have come to the same conclusion: federally funded abstinence only programs provide medically inaccuration information about contraceptives and are ineffective at reducing STD rates among American students.

Christine

June 29, 2006 12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home