|
| The Global Freedom Institute |
| "Faith Based" funding: A Recipe for Disaster? President Bush recently announced his plan for the federal government to fund non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the U.S.. This plan has received attention due to its clauses to fund �faith based� organizations also. In other words, the plan funds church based charity organizations. While it is true that NGOs and even �faith based� NGOs do good work for Americans, and the intent of the plan has merit, the plan has serious flaws that need to be addressed. First, and foremost, the USSC determined long ago, that the First Amendment does equate to a separation of church and state. There is a valid reason for this. While the ideals of most religions are not bad in their original form, historically, governments or groups have distorted these intents and rules for their own benefit to control people. Europeans used the story of Noah and his sons to justify slavery of Africans as the �marked people.� The Europeans, later to become the Americans, used the concepts of spreading religion as justification for destroying Native Americans and their culture. Either they gave up their own culture to become �civilized� or they were killed as �savages.� Neither of these was the intent of the original religions, but the distortion of individuals of the religion. Machiavelli said in �The Discourses� people will only fear other people for so long before they are willing to revolt. Therefore, a greater being must be established in order to maintain order over the people. Only with a �greater being� would people maintain their fear of revolting against government. The ties between government and �faith based� organizations threatens to cross that line. While the line has been flirted with in other programs, this is a clear crossing of that line. It may lead to a slippery slope of acceptance of religion or faith in our governmental policies that may not be reversed. Second, government funding of churches and other NGOs, traditionally, has altered their agenda to conform to the government�s wishes. For example, President Bush�s recent re-imposing of the �Mexico City� policy that forbids international population control organizations from even talking about abortion as an option if they are to get U.S. money is a clear example of government trying to manipulate the agenda of NGOs to fit their own. This becomes a potential for use to control the NGOs that government has long attempted to control to fit their own agendas. Considering the work necessary for NGOs to get funding, there is little doubt that they would accept government funds. NGOs often struggle to meet their needs. They routinely chase elusive funds in order to keep functioning as an organization. Some find their financial struggles challenged on a monthly basis. This would mean not only a solid boost to their stability, but also control of the NGOs by government due to what will become reliance upon government funding for their existence. Third, government funding will trade off with private funding sources. This has been proven over and over within the United States and in the International community. When donors see the government funding NGOs, they tend to curb their donations to that NGO in favor of another NGO, or keeping their money all together. This is due to one of two perceptions. First, that the government will control the agenda, as discussed above. Second, there is no need for their donations, the government has taken over their role as donators. Individuals used to help each other out in society when help was needed. Once government instituted welfare for people, this behavior stopped to what is seen today. People don�t help others because the figure the government has taken care of it for them. And they resent those on the government program because it is their tax dollars spent. This stigmatizes the individuals and the programs to the general public, which only hurts the cause. Fourth, the current plan of President Bush�s is vague and ambiguous at best. It does not clearly lay out what type of programs can and will be supported. Would an organization that gave out condoms that has helped to limit teen pregnancy and saved the government thousands or even millions of dollars in welfare moms get funded? Or only a program that promotes abstinence? How about a program that hands out needles to drug addicts and saves the government thousands or millions in terms of AIDS and other blood transmissible diseases? Or would it only be a �just say no� program? Would it fund only conventional methods of treating society�s problems, or would it allow funding for radical approaches? It appears that conventional wisdom hasn�t been so wise in many areas. However, how radical would those approaches be that could be allowed? Would it allow any �faith based� program? Would it be available for all faiths? Those are many of the ambiguities in this �plan� of President Bush�s. This could be a method of social control, �either you do what we want, or no money�, and people would notice the funding for predominantly convention programs. These are but a few unanswered questions in the bill President Bush is proposing. While NGOs are the best solution, government funding of them is an error. If the government wants more funding to those programs, maybe it ought to look into alternative methods of supporting them. One method might be to raise the charitable contribution limits for deducting from their taxes. This would give incentive to donate higher amounts of money to the most effective methods of dealing with societal problems. It also allows maintenance of local problems by people who are working locally and can be more responsive to the needs of individuals without government interference. Both democrats and republicans admit that NGOs do a good job of dealing with local problems, and get more done with the same money than government could achieve in its dreams. 1 2 |
|
|