Population: One

Largely because of this post, I’ve been thinking about Bush’s faith-based initiatives some more. Bunch of aspects to this. Let’s break ‘em down.

First off, yes, this is advantageous to Bush politicially. As NPR pointed out a few nights ago, this will demonstrably and directly benefit some portions of society which have tended to vote Democratic in the past. I’m sure Bush knows that. I also don’t think it’s relevant to whether or not the initiatives are a good idea.

Second, there’s a question as to whether or not Bush had the right to issue this executive order. That’s the one that says religious groups can receive federal grants even if they display religious symbols in their facilities or discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. As Daily KOS pointed out earlier this month, this may be more rightfully a Congressional decision. In fact, discussion of this topic stalled in Congress last year. I dislike the idea that something devolves to Presidential decision simply because Congress is stuck on the issue.

Third, is it a good idea? I think yes, with caveats. Bush specifically called out some continuing and unaffected requirements for faith-based groups recieving funds. First, they can’t discriminate in who they help. Second, they can’t use the grant to proselytize. Those are key points, and he’s got ‘em covered.

The handbook (PDF) providing guidance to faith-based groups on these issues is worth reading, to get an idea of how careful Bush is being. Example question: “If someone asks me about my faith, can I share it with them?” “If someone asks you about your personal faith while you are providing a government-funded service, you may answer briefly. But if you wish to have a longer discussion on matters of faith, you should set up a time to speak with that person later.” I think that’s a fairly good balance between the right of a volunteer to free speech and the necessity to distinguish between church and state.

OK. So that’s the good. Now, the bad.

Critics who say that this could erode the separation between church and state are correct — they’re only wrong if they claim such erosion is inevitable. The biggest danger is that Bush will find his administration in the position of determining which religions are acceptable. It is utterly essential that Bush makes sure that the grants aren’t slanted towards any one brand of religion. It would be unfortunate (that’s dry sarcasm, there) if we looked up a year into this and discovered that no Islamic organization had gotten any grants. For that matter, the Church of Satan better be able to get a grant if it wants one. (It doesn’t; Satanists of that stripe are devout individualists. But you get the idea.)

Mind you, in one sense, this problem is no different than the question of which non-faith-based groups get grants; favoritism is favoritism. However, we ought to acknowledge that religious groups do occupy a special place in their ability to sway minds. That means we need to take more care with them. Fact of life; not an insult to religion by any means, but a recognition of the special role it plays in our society.

Withholding federal grants from religions isn’t a way to discriminate against religions; it’s a way to avoid favoring one over another. Characterizing it as the former (and Bush did that) is a disservice to the real danger.

Virginia Postrel commented on Bob Jones University last year. Good stuff, and an interesting postulate which makes a lot of sense. I found the link in a recent post of hers regarding the nature of the Southern Christian right. No perma-link, alas. She says there that “the South-based Christian right is not a racist movement. Billy Graham won that debate. Bob Jones lost it.” I tend to agree with that, but I would add the caveat that if Bob Jones University is the sort of place that’s producing Southern Republican political candidates (which is her assertion in the earlier piece), then the nature of the Southern Christian right is not entirely relevant to the nature of Christian right-wing politicians.

Some further thoughts on assumptions; I continue to blame Mike. And of course Trent Lott, who has provoked a furor of discussion which could be useful but will no doubt turn to partisan bickering — oh wait, it already has.

Trent Lott is, in my eyes, most likely a racist. While his most recent statement could be construed as flattery to an old man and nothing more, we have other evidence. We have similar statements he’s made in the past, one of them off the record (if it’s confirmed) and thus unlikely to have been scripted to win over the crowd. We have his appearance at rallies to raise funds for all-white private schools. We have his voting record. We have a preponderance of evidence.

On the other hand, we have George Bush. Bush spoke at Bob Jones University. There’s no doubt that Bob Jones University has a racist administration; they forbid interracial dating. Does that make Bush racist? Nope. It means, at the worst, that he’s willing to seek the support of racists in order to get elected. You can decide for yourself how bad that is. I think it’s pretty bad, but it’s not as bad as /being/ a racist. There are, in this world, shades of grey.

Now, you can get two kinds of bad spin out of this, interestingly. One way to misrepresent this is to accuse Bush of being a racist. That’s unfair, I think. Another way to misrepresent this is to claim that I’m calling Bush a racist when I’m just saying he’s willing to associate with racist individuals to get votes. That’s also unfair.

Both pretty effective debate tactics, though.