back to articles
index
(published in Dallas Morning
News Feb. 24, 2001)
Faith-based
groups have safeguards
(The following
guest editorial was written by Dr. Kurt Senske
regarding President Bush's faith-based initiative.)
A recent Viewpoints column by Kenneth Roe speculated
that President Bush's Office of Faith-based and Community
Initiatives would eliminate the safeguards that have
protected people from unwanted proselytizing by religious
organizations.
Mr. Roe is crying wolf.
For years, Lutheran Social Services of the South has
joined with the government to provide beds in nursing
homes, to recruit and train foster parents, to offer
emergency assistance to families in crisis and to help
youths with severe emotional and behavioral problems.
Under then-Gov. Bush's "charitable choice" legislation,
we developed a mentoring program for women who are making
the transition from welfare to the workforce.
In none of those programs do we force anyone to take
a Bible, say prayers or attend worship services in order
to receive services. Even with the legislative expansion
of faith-based initiatives, we have no intention of changing
how we operate. The reason: We know from experience that
you can't force someone to be faithful. Indeed, attempting
to force religion on someone is likely to backfire.
Rather, we hope the faith of our employees and volunteers
(who aren't required to be Lutheran) will demonstrate
the positive impact that spirituality has in our lives.
We hope that leading by example will encourage those
we serve to begin or to further their own faith journeys.
Only then can the power of faith have the transformative
impact that Mr. Bush has described.
The second point I take issue with is Mr. Roe's assertion
that programs operated under the faith-based initiatives
will lack accountability and will be substandard. Any
time an organization – secular or religious, profit
or nonprofit – is awarded a government grant, specific
performance standards are part of the contract. If an
organization fails to perform, its funding is in jeopardy.
In our mentoring program, we have to prove we are meeting
specific goals. We have to demonstrate that the women
either stayed employed or improved their employment status.
Because we met our performance standards, we were able
to expand our program to include the daughters of those
women. Naturally, there also are goals for that program,
such as reducing the dropout and teen pregnancy rates.
Mr. Roe theorizes that substandard services are likely
to be offered because charitable choice legislation allows
faith-based groups to form their own accreditation bodies
and supervise themselves. While the law allows that,
Lutheran Social Services has elected not to go that route.
We believe we should be required to meet the same reasonable
standards as our secular counterparts and that we should
be monitored by independent agencies. We have no desire
to weaken the standards by which we are judged.
The proposal put forth by Mr. Bush essentially levels
the playing field for faith-based organizations that
want to become partners with government. No longer will
the religious orientation of an organization be a liability
when a government agency solicits proposals for providing
services to society's needy.
Unfortunately, the voices being heard on this issue
are the extreme ends. There are those who are sounding
the alarm that this effort will erode our religious freedoms,
open the door for a "state" religion and force
people to hear prayers they find objectionable. On the
opposite end are folks who believe this will be the cure-all
for our social ills and that if we just restore God in
our society, all will be right with the world.
The reality probably is in the middle – expanded
faith-based initiatives will help some members of society
who haven't been reached. But there still will be some
who refuse assistance or can't be helped. It is the hope
for those who may be helped for the first time that underlies
the case for this new initiative.
back to articles index
