President Clinton

President Clinton’s Welfare Reform and George W. Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives

President Clinton oversaw the passage of the welfare reform bill, which included the charitable option amendment, which permitted different religious organizations to receive federal funds to assist with the distribution of social services. Within the first week of his presidency, George W. Bush launched a movement calling for the government to increase support for private religious organizations in order to assist in delivering social services to the less affluent citizens of society. However, these faith-based initiatives did not progress past the senate floor, so just like the presidents before his tenure, he invoked the executive authority that allowed him to circumvent the actions of the congressional. George Bush had a strong faith in the tradition of helping less fortunate Americans hence his plan was to award federal funds to help benefit the poor with some successful programs that were providing social services. The initiative was primarily focused on establishing and eliminating any challenges that impeded the participation of faith-based and community organizations in the federal grant process. The initiative could further encourage philanthropic and greater corporate support for social service programs through various outreach activities and public education. Besides, the initiatives focused on ensuring that the social services are funded by the federal government and administered by both the state and local government with greater emphasis being placed on equal treatment provisions. The initiative facilitated the pursuing of legislative efforts that were aimed at expanding the charitable choice provisions (Cnaan & Stephanie pg. 224-235)

Concerns and Challenges of Faith-based Initiatives

The main concerns of this study are based on the continuity of the initiatives by the executive orders signed by Obama administration. Firstly both Bush and Obama advocated for the allowing of all religious organizations to compete equally with the secular organization for the equal footing of federal social service funds. This partnership between the government and the church has raised some serious concerns based on constitutional grounds. Bush’s faith-based initiatives challenge the constitutional principle that allows all Americans to have the freedom of choosing whether to support or not support religious ministries (Saperstein pg. 1353-1396 ).

Potential Threat to Religious Freedom

Another challenge of the religiously based initiatives is that since the religious institutions were capable of receiving funding for social service provision could threaten the religious freedom of people since they might force religion on all people who needed assistance. Secular alternatives were provided to avoid forcing religion on people, however, this presented a challenge in less populated and rural areas as the secular alternatives could be far away. Imagine a scenario whereby a Baptist family in need of shelter and food is presented with an option of visiting a temple within close proximities or traveling 100 miles to get secular alternative help. In impossible positions, the policies could place people in the wrong kind of positions of submitting to religious coercion or forgo the help (Black, 2004).

Potential Government Regulation of Religion

The faith-based initiatives open avenues for the federal government to regulate religion. The government must be accountable for the proper spending of taxpayer’s funds, and hence the need for the government to regulate what it finances hence the freedom of religious institutions may be threatened in the name of accountability. Although this might not be clear at first, the effects of funding religious initiatives could hurt faith communities. For a very long time, active religious members have made special contributions, and this practice has served to increase personal piety and strengthen the Christian ties to faith traditions. In the long run, the volunteerism spirit of Christians will wither away hurting the religious institutions if the funding is stopped.

Potential Conflict Between Religious Groups

The law has always held and treated all religious groups as equals. However, the funding initiatives cause competition between the different groups and the pitting of various religious groups against each other is a good recipe for brewing conflicts. George Bush pledged non-discrimination of groups but further announced no funding for Islamic nations that preached hate, and this places the initiatives on shaky grounds by choosing faiths. The people were made to believe that the faith-based initiative could perform better in comparison to the secular service providers. However, empirical studies conducted on this issue don’t find proof of religious groups offering better care in comparison to the secular provider. The religious institutions are exempted from complying with the American Disabilities Act, and hence the religious buildings are not obliged to make provisions for disabled people. This is a limiting factor as disabled people who may be confined to a wheelchair might not be able to access the social services.

Controversies Surrounding Faith-based Initiatives

The controversies that have faced these religiously based initiatives have been raised by both liberals and conservatives. Most of them are opposed to Bush’s plan that mixed charity and government as they claimed that it threatened the foundation upon which charity is based on primarily. For a lot of years, the system of providing services has been performing well, and a lot of people believe that if the system is not broken, then there is no need to try and fix it with strict safeguards that threaten religious freedom (Marshall, pg. 479).

Work Cited

Black, Amy E. Of little faith: The politics of George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Georgetown University Press, 2004.

Cnaan, Ram A., and Stephanie C. Boddie. “Charitable choice and faith-based welfare: A call for social work.” Social Work 47.3 (2002): 224-235.

Marshall, William P. “Remembering the values of separatism and state funding of religious organizations (charitable choice): To aid is not necessarily to protect.” JL & Pol. 18 (2002): 479.

Saperstein, David. “Public accountability and faith-based organizations: A problem best avoided.” Harvard Law Review 116.5 (2003): 1353-1396.