Religious Funding and the 2008 US Election

As we inch closer to November, different issues gain and lose priority. Even the Iraq war has been somewhat ironically eclipsed by concerns for an economy in recession, without enough attention to the roughly $1 billion per week price tag. In fact, the mismanagement of funds has been a central theme of the Bush presidency. One issue that has fallen slightly off the radar amidst wars abroad and pocketbook concerns is the separation of church and state.

A specific discussion of where the presidential candidates stand on funding for religious organizations has been lacking so far this election cycle. The religious focus so far has been over the Rev. Wright controversy, the overblown relevance of Obama’s former pastor and his inflammatory statements about America. Thus far, one of the main criticisms leveled at Wright, and, by curious extension, at Obama, is that his attitude is clearly unpatriotic. (This is to say nothing of lapel pins.) However, to me, the more important discussion arising from this situation is the separation of church and state, and why this on-paper separation does not extend to politics.

Why is it so important that Obama’s pastor is a model citizen? Under what circumstances can one man be blamed for another man’s opinions? Well, when you’re running for president in a religious country, and the opinions belong to your chosen pastor, the man who’s meant to be your spiritual guide. Interestingly enough, there’s no separation granted between spiritual nourishment and the political opinions of the man who provides that godly guidance.

Despite the ongoing separation of church of state in the letter of the law, the spirit of American politics tells a different story. Indeed, the religion to morality to government administration chain has been used and argued for, rather explicitly, from the Bush administration – “I am a religious man, therefore a moral man, and therefore you should elect me.” Bush went even so far as to imply a kind of divine endorsement for attacking Iraq. In an address to the National Religious Broadcasters on March 11^th, 2008, Bush said:

The effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries. . . It will show others what’s possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That’s why we’re doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave.

Another gem from the same speech: “The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America’s gift to the world; it is God’s gift to all humanity.” Audience members called out “Amen!”

This rationale – if there’s anything rational about it – is especially disturbing for the non-religious, or even non-Christians, who face a growing body of people with increasing political power who believe in a rapturous near-future.

In 2002, Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” began, letting contractors modify their hiring practices along religious lines, and notably increasing funding for religious organizations that provide social services. Apologizing in advance, Bush put the “fund” into fundamentalist.

As far as funding is concerned, the argument is compelling. If the organizations that are in place to offer services are religious, then kudos to them for stepping up to the plate to get government help. Indeed, in many cases, the groups that do try to help are the religious ones, and it’s a shame to not let them do their part for those in need. Considering Republican traditional party values of small government and low taxes, a policy of systematically redistributing government money for those kinds of social services is strange, but religion trumps when donations and votes are involved. The issue becomes especially problematic when a specific doctrinal message is mixed with the help. The group can be religious, but the help should be secular. And when the money is given directly to the organization, that separation can’t be trusted to take place.

It also doesn’t cut both ways: the Boston Globe reported several cases of secular groups being denied funding because they emphasized the distribution of condoms or worked with sex-workers in efforts to combat the spread of the AIDS virus.

In fact, there are religious figures that insist on a separation of church and state, on social grounds. In April 2006, the Rev. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance, argued that state funding of religious organizations conflicts with religious liberty, with an inevitably damaging favoritism. Those are the concerns that spawned the original separation of church and state. While Bush maintained that he was looking to give fair treatment to religious groups that were excluded from funding, there can be no doubt about which groups benefited most.

So where do we stand with religious funding in the current election? While there hasn’t been much direct discussion, no running candidate is clearly against it. Democrats could stand to distance themselves from Bush’s pioneer policies, but it’s not always easy to take away money from religious groups, rather than just not give – especially when you’re trying to get elected in the United States. In the Bush-Kerry battle of 2004, religion was front and center. No running candidate can afford to be labeled anti-religious in any way, which is one of the reasons Obama’s attempts to deflect the Rev. Wright issue walk a very fine line. Clinton is the only of the remaining three being explicitly pro-religious funding, while neither Obama nor McCain have expressed a firm position. In fact, the only familiar name that is against governmental religious funding is Ron Paul, who happened to be the candidate who most stressed the harsh economic ramifications of the Iraq war.

(image from CBS news)