Faith, America, The First Amendment, and a few things in between.


On Monday, the former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, David Kuo, released a book arguing that the White House used the faith-based program more for political purposes than anything else. The charge mirrors Kuo's former colleague in the faith-based initiative program, John DiIulio's, complaint that "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm."

On Tuesday, E.J. Dionne's column in the Post discussed Kuo's book, Tempting Faith. Some relevant lines:

Yet the most useful thing that could flow from Kuo's revelations would not be a splashy exchange of charges and countercharges but rather a quiet reappraisal by rank-and-file evangelicals of their approach to politics.

I hope Kuo's book promotes serious discussions in religious study groups around the country about whether the evangelicals' alliance with political conservatism has actually made the world, well, more godly from their own point of view. What are evangelicals actually getting out of this partnership? Are they mostly being used by a coalition that, when the deals are cut, cares far more about protecting the interests of its wealthy and corporate supporters than its churchgoing foot soldiers?

...I once hoped -- and, for the future, still hope -- that left and right might meet in some compassionate center to offer support for expanded government help to the needy while also fostering the indispensable work of religious and community groups.

...Despite our disagreements, I have always shared Kuo's view that liberals who care about the poor should be less squeamish about building stronger alliances between government and religiously based social action work. Government can do things the religious and community groups can't, but the religious and community groups can do things government can't.

I sent the article to our contributing friends, Mike and Lily, spurring the following discussion. Please send your thoughts.


Mike:

I find myself in much agreement with the article you sent us Andrew. Additionally, I saw the televised interview with Mr. Kuo....I wasn't wholly taken with him though, but would need to read his book to have a better sense of it. The tv show also had one of the Faith Based leaders who disagreed with most of Kuo's points, this again at least bringing several things into question. Overall though, it sounds like there is much to say by Kuo that should be listened too by thoughtful voters, and especially thoughtful Evangelical voters. There are two important issues for me though that cause serious hesitation:

1) once again, the definition of "evangelical"....some of Kuo's most inflammatory statements have been about white house folks calling certain "evangelicals" nuts and so on......again, in articles ad on tv evangelical is equated with Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson. Heaven knows I can see why someone might refer to these gentlemen as nuts, but they are not the sum total of evangelicals. Perhaps fundamentalists....but not evangelicals. As long as the definitions of these 2 words are constantly mis-used and mis-construed, even by people of good natures and thoughtful positions such as the article's author, then there are goig to be serious disconects.

2) The author says: "Despite our disagreements, I have always shared Kuo's view that liberals who care about the poor should be less squeamish about building stronger alliances between government and religiously based social action work. Government can do things the religious and community groups can't, but the religious and community groups can do things government can't.ur disagreements, I have always shared Kuo's view that liberals who care about the poor should be less squeamish about building stronger alliances between government and religiously based social action work. Government can do things the religious and community groups can't, but the religious and community groups can do things government can't."

YES YES, well said, I fully agree! FULLY. But, there is something lacking here, and that is the clarion call to oppose organizations [such as the ACLU] and politicians who act and legislate to create a society in which the public square is agnostic/atheist. Its all fine and dandy for someone to say, like the article's author, that his opinion is [see italics above]....but then we have to go on ad support liberals who specifically vote and/or appoint judges who interpret a society and public domain that is empty of faith.

Finally Andrew, I think its not surprising that the issues come back to this basic premise, one in which I think you and I still mostly disagree [I think! we probably still need to distinguish more!]....if we had a country that interpreted the public square as exactly the kind of places where our faiths flourished openly, side by side with respect....as opposed to an atheist/agnostic public square...if politicians would vote and legislate in this light, and in the light inferred by the article writer in the italics I quoted above, then we as a people could well be on our way to electing a government of the people who would embrace the viewpoints of most of our citizens, and of the writer of this article as he expresses it. Governments and Faiths can work together...yes, great......now let the ACLU hear that......

Cheers, and thanks for the article! Michael

----------------------------------------------------------------


Andrew:

I’m not so sure our disagreements and agreements are in stark light.

We should look into my position on establishment clause law. I will learn more about distinguishing my own position, and we will perhaps shine some light on where we stand together and where we differ. Generally, I am in favor of strong protections for free exercise and in favor of strong protections against establishment. I see the two as going hand in hand—and, with O’Connor, I have consistently thought of coercion as the thing we look out for when looking into whether a Congressional act (and, now, any government activity) violates the first amendment. Coercion best captures what it is I fear…my gut reaction…but it also seems a very reasonable test for what we mean by establishment. I feel that we need this test because I disagree with the position that “establishment” refers only to the establishment of a state church. I feel history is on my side, but this is another conversation. Finally, I regard coercion as the test of establishment because coercion is where the government does something in regards to religion that bites into free exercise.

But, in saying that, perhaps I should clarify free exercise, and my thoughts on the “religion clause” in general. I don’t think the premier notion of free exercise is about physical activity. I don’t think the sentence is so much about our physical activity as much as it is about our soul seeking activities. I think this is reflected in the trail of cases that do not allow free exercise to tramp the police power of prevention of causing others harm. The line of thinking concludes in the Smith decision—if it’s a neutral law, not geared to squashing your religion, it usually trumps free exercise challenges. So, largely agreeing with this line of interpretation, I think the free exercise portion of the religion clause protects our ability to THINK, primarily, and to DO (with limits) things in pursuit of our soul’s journey. With that in mind, the establishment portion of the clause tacks on the necessary compliment to this: government won’t interfere by establishing, for you, the answer to your search. And how do we know if government is doing that? Coercion.

Now, all that said: bodies of government most certain can (and I’ll allow the chorus of “should”) acknowledge, work with, invite, accept, discuss, and ALLOW religion. Government bodies simply cannot do things that amount to coercing a religion. To make this clear: I also don't think government should coerce non-religion.

I am not aware how my position precludes a faith based initiative. Perhaps I would need to respond to arguments. I would be happy to see a group’s argument to the faith-based initiative office.

Yours,
Andrew

-----------------------------------



Mike:

Two points: 1) "neutrality" is often a "nice" word used to create and enforce what I call the agnostic/atheist public square. One man's neutrality is another man's oppression. Here again, I say the definitions are critical. If neutrality means wiping out religion from the public square, then I am utterly and 100% against neutrality. If neutrality means that in a public school an Islamic female may cover all her face but her eyes, a Jew may wear a yarmulke, and a Christian wear his cross, then I utterly and 100% support neutrality. So what does this word mean? 2) Next, the use of the word "coercive" by Andrew is indeed enlightening, I too think it might be an excellent standard or term whereby to measure/assess issues of church and state....once again though, the primary problem being definition/interpretation! To ME it is outrageously coercive to force Christians to take down [or to disallow in the first place] a cross placed on government owned lands during religious holidays, especially if that cross is paid for privately. To others, perhaps you [?] {*this is not a rhetorical question! I would love to know your answer}, a Christian symbol would be coercive of people of other faiths or no faiths. Hence, the problem with "coercive". Once again, one man's "coercive", may be another man's "freedom".

It is my prediction that our discussions, we'll see if Im right, will pivot fundamentally on tangible issues of definitions. I imagine our greatest difficulties won't be so much in mutually choosing words we can like and support, but rather on agreeing on what those words mean. Aye, there's the rub.