Dr. Peter Lipson (“PalMD”), a stellar science blogger and a fine human being, has recently critiqued a fellow ScienceBlogs member for supporting faith-based initiatives (FBIs) or, more accurately, for supporting Barack Obama’s recent embrace of the same.
I for one am actually with Barack Obama on this one. While I consider myself a strong advocate of a firm line between church and state – Thomas Jefferson’s Wall of Separation ought to be at least six feet tall – I don’t think FBIs are that bad. Namely, they don’t present the same problem that so many attempts to blend church and state do. FBIs neither freeze out a section of the electorate, thereby creating a “state religion,” nor do they taint the objectivity of the political decisionmaking process.
Of course, FBIs do endorse a state religion in that they embrace any religion over no religion. Setting aside the constitutional doctrine and thinking strategically, I don’t think this is something we want to get too worked up about. The last thing we want is atheism classified as a religion to which the state must also remain neutral (that’s a creationist talking point). So let’s be careful how we phrase that objection. Here’s my take: FBIs, as an attempt to inspire charitable giving and help community organizations, are under-inclusive in that they fail to take account of and spread charity through non-affiliated organizations. FBI schemes aren’t narrowly tailored to the stated purpose of helping communities. They leave value on the table, and that’s certainly something to take issue with, pragmatically and constitutionally.
But it’s something for courts to take issue with. Just like McCain intends to stealthily pack the court with conservatives (regardless of what a “maverick” or a “moderate” he is), die-hard liberals should remember and trust that Obama intends the reverse. Let’s be cynical: I say, let Obama stump for religion, win a few points with moderates, and rebuild the Wall of Separation once he’s in office through his Supreme Court appointees.
Trust…. that’s the problem. I largely agree that he’ll do what we want with the courts, but its a bit odd to suggest supporting bad policy in the hopes the court will correct your mistakes.
There is no danger, by the way, in insisting the 1st amendment (at least in spirit) allows people to be nonreligious. Even if interpreted as requiring a religion, not all religions are theistic.
Posted by Dan (Fitness) | July 9, 2008, 7:39 pmIf you haven’t seen it already, there was an interesting article in Journal of Church and State 49:3 (Summer 07) about the way that FBIs are being implemented in practice, especially through the Faith-Based Liaisons.
I don’t know much about the FBIs other than what I read in that article, but it seems that as with so much else, the actual consequences are very much dependent on who is put in charge of the implementation at the local level, and on whether there are local forces that try to use it for their own agendas.
Posted by AKjeldsen | July 10, 2008, 5:58 amI was busy having a migraine yesterday, but did you SEE what Jesse Jackson said about this stuff when he thought he was off-camera?
Posted by Collin | July 10, 2008, 9:36 am