Last night was my night to be the Discussion Leader in my Nonprofit-Public Sector Relations class. The topic? Faith-based organizations and the public policy issues surrounding their relationship with government.
Although the syllabus describes this discussion-leading event as a “15-20 minute presentation of the week’s readings,” it has somehow, throughout the semester, morphed into teaching the class for the entire freaking evening. So not cool.
I spent the last couple of days poring over the assigned reading material, taking notes, thinking about the subject. And last night, I kicked so much freaking ass, if I say so myself. Barely a nerve in sight.
It’s funny how unfazed I’ve become by public speaking over the last nine months. I remember when I had to give my first presentation last semester, and how absolutely sick I felt. Now, I can get up in front of the class for a couple of hours and talk. Who woulda thought?
Of course, my interest in last night’s subject helped a lot. As readers of this blog already know, church-state issues are something I geek out over very easily.
I knew very little about faith-based organizations at the beginning, only that I hated Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Hey! Separation of church and state, hello?! The government has no business getting mixed up with faith-based organizations! It seemed, to me, like little more than a cover for endorsing religion.
Once I started reading up on this stuff, though, I realized things were, naturally, a bit more nuanced. First of all, I had no idea that Bush’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives was actually the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As in, doesn’t have-to-be-religious.
Oh.
Nor was I aware of the Neutrality Principle, which the courts have basically adopted as their stance in dealing with any church-state issues that may arise. The Neutrality Principle essentially states that it’s okay for the government to fund faith-based organizations, as long as they’re being neutral about it. In other words, faith-based organizations should be treated no worse than, but also no better than, secular organizations.
Of course, I still don’t trust Bush, and there could still be an element of governmental religion-endorsing going on here – but in theory anyway, it ain’t that bad of an idea. My reasoning:
There are way too many problems in this country, poverty perhaps being the largest. And, the government has way too little money to properly address these problems (and many people think the government has no business providing social services, anyway). Therefore, it only makes sense that we try to enlist voluntary sector help. And there’s no reason that shouldn’t include religious organizations.
Although they do a lot of good work, faith-based and small, secular, community-based organizations generally don’t have the same levels of resources as larger, more established nonprofits – so it makes sense to establish an office to help reach out to them and give them support in their missions. These are largely untapped resources, and it would be silly to fail to seek out any help (secular or religious) in addressing poverty and other issues that affect so many of us.
However.
Keeping the Neutrality Principle in mind, I still see some things that strike me as rather un-neutral. Supporters of faith-based organizations often say that these organizations are being discriminated against because they don’t receive the same level of governmental assistance as secular organizations. There is some evidence (albeit circumstantial evidence) that this may be the case. But, it seems to me that faith-based organizations enjoy certain privileges secular organizations do not:
First of all, religious organizations can make hiring decisions on the basis of religious orientation. If a qualified person walks in to interview for a job, but doesn’t share the same religious beliefs as the organization, the courts have decided that the organization doesn’t have to hire that person. Even if the organization’s primary function is something other than advancing their particular religion. Even if that person has nothing to do with the religious mission (i.e. a janitor, in the case of Presiding Bishop v. Amos).
That doesn’t sit well with me, especially if the organization is receiving any public money. And all the while, secular organizations are forbidden from discriminating on the basis of religion when hiring employees.
Secondly, some states have different licensing and accreditation requirements for religious and secular entities. Sometimes, religious day cares and drug treatment programs are allowed to remain unlicensed, whereas their secular counterparts are not. I could go much more in depth here and talk about day care centers in Alabama and Texas’s attempt at an alternative accreditation program, but in the interest of brevity, I’ll just say that this is also something I’m not cool with.
What mucks everything up is the idea of religious freedom. I understand the desire of faith-based organizations to retain their autonomy and individuality, and that’s been the rationale behind both of these issues. They feel that by having to hire people who don’t share their beliefs, they’d be put at risk of losing their religious identity. Similarly, by having to comply with professional licensing requirements that may operate under different assumptions than theirs (i.e. drug dependency is a medical vs. a moral problem), they’d be forced into accommodating beliefs other than their own.
While I brought up some of these issues in class last night, and some fairly lively discussion ensued, I still bit my tongue numerous times. There are two or three conservative Christians in my class – and to my chagrin, I continue to live in fear of being labeled “The Crazy Atheist Chick.” Regardless, it was still the most fun I’ve ever had in a public speaking situation.
I shouldn’t be ashamed of being an Atheist – if anything, I should be ashamed for being so awesome.