by Eyck Freymann
Nick Kristof at the NY Times argues that the "faith-based initiatives" funded by Bush (and criticized by liberals) are leading the way in Haiti and Congo. Many evangelical groups have promoted international aid. One of these is World Vision, which America’s largest international aid organization and is larger and better organized on the ground than any secular organization. He writes:Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations. That change would be a catastrophe. In Haiti, more than half of food distributions go through religious groups like World Vision that have indispensable networks on the ground. We mustn’t make Haitians the casualties in our cultural wars.
My only concern would be the Supreme Court precedent from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The Constitution's famous Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The court clarified this in the so-called Lemon Test:
- The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
The Court has approved government funding for school buses for parochial schools and similar programs, suggesting that they don't conflict with part two of Lemon.
If these organizations are operating as reported, then Kristof is absolutely right. When the US government decides to give international humanitarian aid, it should work through the organizations that can most effectively distribute it. If those organizations happen to be religious, then so be it. Power to them.
2 comments:
here's my question: while they make tremendous efforts in delivering aid, these organizations are at the root based on christian evangelism. Is it wrong, then, for America to provide funding if World Vision is handing out a bible along with food?
As long as government funds are not being spent for evangelism and as long as the program is primarily aid-based, not primarily proselytism-based, I see no problem.
So in short, my answer is: as long as I'm not paying for that Bible, I don't care. It doesn't crack the wall between church and state. But I will flat-out refuse to fund the Bibles themselves (or whatever other religious literature faith-based groups want to disseminate).
Post a Comment