He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking “as someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he spelled out “a few basic principles” to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.
“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them ”” or against the people you hire ”” on the basis of their religion.”
That little phrase between the dashes ”” “or against the people you hire” ”” ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.
The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama’s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.
This is in no way new. Any religious organization that accepts public funds has to be prepared to abide by “public” (as opposed to their own) perceptions of morality and the good. So, for instance, Catholic charities could be forced to pay for health insurance coverage for contraceptives because they had accepted public funds. What Obama seems to be articulating is nothing more than what those organizations that were smart about it wouldn’t touch Bush’s faith based initiatives with a 10-foot pole, or if they have, they’ve often done so through independent 501c3’s that are focused on a particular issue so that the Church (as a separate organization) that supports it won’t one day be slapped with a lawsuit for not hiring someone who’s lifestyle conflicts with their teachings. There’s always a hook with government funds and you always signal your willingness to sacrifice your independence when you take them. Always.
Much worse are those “legal scholars” that believe any organization “operating in the public sphere” must abide by “public understandings of fairness and morality” as opposed only to those who accept public funds–now that really is scary.
Obama may have unwittingly handed McCain the get-out-the-vote motivation that the latter will need (and might not have otherwise had) among social conservatives.
It’s a long way till November, but in view of events of the past week, if right this second I had to make a bet on the election, I think I’d put my money on McCain.
You take the King’s coin, you do the King’s bidding.
The idea that if the government gives money for a service it values it therefore has rights over the entire organization providing that service is not a little totalitarian. If I hired a man to fix my car I hardly think that would give me the right to tell him how to runs his shop. As long as my car is fixed what business is it of mine?
I agree with Christopher Hathaway. An application for funds should not mean the abandonment of their whole operation, rules and values, but to fulfill a specific purpose or service.
I don’t know if this will be the motivation that social conservatives will need, but the past week may very well be the de-motivator for the leftist contingent that supported Obama against Clinton. Will he do what he now says, or return to them once he’s elected? Who knows?
4 and 5, you may not like it, but the Feds have been doing this for years. Enforcement of civil rights laws, women in sports etc. You want the money you must follow the strings attached. You don’t want the money, they will figure out some way that you derive some Federal benefit and compell your complience. Anyone accept a scholarship with only one dollar of Federal funding and the institution is hooked.
per Chief Justice John Marshall – “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” I would add a corollary -“the power to dole out government money involves the power to compel,”
You have here the basic difference between a liberal and a conservative. The liberal believes government and its money is a power to be wielded to compel the populace to conform to the liberal’s view of utopia. The conservative believes government and its powers are a ravenous beast that need to be carefully controlled and restricted lest the populace be consumed.
I fear being compelled to pay for the Obama vision of America.
As one of Franklin Roosevelt’s advisors is suppsed to have said, “we’ll tax and tax, and spend and spend, and re-elect and re-elect.”