Inadvertently endorsing discrimination

At a time when Newsweek says Evangelicals are no longer crucial to winning elections -- the firebrands of the last election are in their 70s or have died and younger leaders are wary of politics -- we find Obama appearing to pander to them.

Obama has announced plans to continue and expand Bush's efforts to steer dollars to faith based social services. He wants to elevate it to a "moral center" of his administration.

Obama dismisses claims that this is bridging the separation of church and state because the money can't be used to discriminate or proselytize.

Sorry, buddy, even if it is in their bylaws such charities (or at least their workers) do discriminate against obvious non-Christians (Wiccans, lesbians) and dollars given to them also suck up private sources leave secular charities without funding.

A lot of gays (frequently the target of discrimination in services or hiring by such faith-based groups) are feeling sold out. This first reaction is of that type.

Another reaction, starting with the premise no matter how big Obama's faults, McCain's are worse. So, Barack, old buddy, if you're going to fund discriminatory charities, here's some questions for you to answer:

You are a constitutional scholar. How does funding such programs not contradict the First Amendment?

You have recently said that religious views of laws and proposed laws should be translated into universal, rather than religion-specific language. How does this proposal translate into non-religious values?

Since funding is appropriated by Congress will you obey their funding guidelines and will you allow these programs to come under court scrutiny?

How will you, and the subordinates running the program, avoid religious discrimination, since you have said that "religious" does not necessarily mean "Christian"?

If an organization proselytizes and discriminates as part of their programs how do you insure that the addition of federal dollars doesn't support those problems?

If the challenges are too big for government to solve alone (as you have said), how does diverting money to faith based groups accomplish the same goal?

If you are taking money from me (reportedly funding these programs with a half billion dollars a year) and giving it to groups with whom I have religious disagreements how is this not religious discrimination?

A much more reasoned look, not at the program itself, but at reactions to it.

Bush's precedent has poisoned the waters, making rational discussion difficult. His administration has consistently politicized and destroyed a lot of what we hold dear and that colors our view. This really isn't a church/state issue, but one of competence -- church organizations were much better at responding to Katrina than federal agencies. But we don't know -- there was no oversight -- how many of those church organizations included preaching with their hammering. (When I was in Biloxi in March of 2007 to replace a roof the other organization that shared our campground definitely did that.)

Obama's intent, whether political, altruistic, both, or neither, is unknown. But with the Bush disaster and destruction it is easy to assume that Obama is succumbing to encroaching theocracy. But there are a lot of faith-based organizations willing and able to run secular programs. Since Obama has already talked at length about his faith and about his time as a constitutional scholar an announcement like this shouldn't be a big surprise. But it does have other Democrats worried.

Obama has been courting gays and religious blacks, which means he has to deal with groups with opposite goals. He has to say both "Marriage is for one man and one woman," and "Gays deserve equal rights." With this kind of balancing act, he will step on land mines.

The reason to partner with local agencies (secular or faith-based) rather than doing it all from Washington is that local agencies know their communities and its problems and they are more willing and able to offer innovative solutions.

Now to the issue of discrimination. Though Obama insists that his programs must comply with state and local non-discrimination laws even though he is offering federal dollars, the big problem is there is no federal discrimination protection for gays. In addition, many states have not enacted such protections. And it is faith-based programs that are most likely to discriminate against gays. Big problem.

But balance that against the sheer numbers -- millions -- of those that could be helped by this proposal. Should the plan be scuttled because a few gays might be excluded? Is the definition of "greater good" dependent on where your blind spot is? And for progressives, there is still a blind spot for gay rights. However, it probably isn't a "few" gays: they are one of the most at-risk populations for addiction, depression, homelessness, and suicide and yet they face significant deterrents to seeking help from faith-based programs.

There is a way out of that bind: along with this proposal announce support for the Employment Non Discrimination Act, which has gotten stuck in Congress.

There is probably merit in this kind of program. Obama will do better at it than Bush but it is unknown if he can pull it off.

There was no way the Obama campaign could have announced this program without causing dissent in the base because current federal means through this program Obama endorses discrimination without a plan to counter it.

Here is Obama's actual report. I've read some and skimmed through the rest. He doesn't say why he feels the government must outsource this much needed work for the poor, but he does list the failings of the program under Bush and does list guiding principles.

Bush's failures: The initiative was underfunded. It was used for partisan purposes. Smaller organizations were ignored.

Guiding principles: Can't use the money for religious efforts, use the money only for secular programs. Can't discriminate against employees or recipients. Must show effectiveness.