In San Antonio, Jewish Family Service and the Victory Fellowship of Texas share one feature in common. Both receive government funds. But there is an enormous difference between these two social agencies. One refrains from religious activity, while the other aggressively promotes it.

Jewish Family Service is sponsored by the Jewish community of San Antonio. Yet its staff is largely non-Jewish, as is its clientele. In none of its many programs and workshops, do Jewish Family Service staff members impart specifically Jewish beliefs.

Its Director, Ron Aaron, who is also a Temple member, scrupulously oversees the approximately $1,000,000 that the agency receives annually from the federal government. None is used to advance any religious cause.

Not so with the Victory Fellowship. This is an avowedly fundamentalist Christian drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. It employees only Christian counselors, and not one of them is professionally certified or licensed. None of its programs is monitored by the government.

The belief in Jesus is a central part of the treatment plan of Victory Fellowship. Participants are required to attend church services. Rev. Freddie Garcia, a former drug addict himself, is its director. He insists that the Christ factor is what cures substance abusers.

It is in the allocation of money from my pocket and yours to groups like Victory Fellowship that we can see all the evils of the faith-based initiative programs. First of all, faith-based plans practice discrimination, while receiving our public dollars. Victory Fellowship and other similar agencies employ only Christians. They receive public tax dollars and then feel free to post a sign proclaiming: “Jews and Other Non-Christians Need Not Apply.”

Furthermore, the plan foists religion on those who are in need of help. Victory Fellowship openly proselytizes those who seek its assistance. Clients must surrender their religious freedom to receive treatment at our government's expense.

Of course, President Bush has promised a “secular alternative” to those who don't want to partake of the services of a religious agency. Such is not always possible, however. Suppose someone lives in a remote farming village or in an isolated small town. In these places, the only available service provider may be a religious one. That person, therefore, may be forced to travel for more than 100 miles to find that “secular alternative.”

For example, a Muslim believer, in one of these tiny settings, may need food and shelter. His choices would be to go to a Baptist agency in the community or to drive a huge distance to a non-religious assistance center. The problem is that he doesn't own a car nor can he leave his job to make the trip.

In addition, the operations of the faith-based initiatives may show favoritism to some religious groups over another. What gives government bureaucrats the right to judge which religions are valid and which are fraudulent? The Moonies and the Scientologists both consider themselves to be legitimate believers. On what basis can a federal official label their religions as counterfeit?

In fact, Stephen Goldsmith, who is Jewish, is the government leader responsible for implementing the faith-based plan. He has mentioned that it is possible that the government may not honor grant requests from religious communities like the Wiccans.

And what about Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam? It also views itself as a religious body. It even provides effective support programs for prisoners. The problem is that it also preaches hatred. It teaches contempt for Jews. How will the government justifiably bankroll such a despicable group?

In fact, Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservative Christian leaders, who have never championed strict church-state separation, now express strong reservations about faith-based initiatives. They fear that government will grant money to, what in their view are, “off-beat” religious groups.

Robertson and his cohorts raise another valid objection. Accepting government money for religion-based homeless shelters, job-training programs, and substance rehabilitation centers will invite government meddling in their mission and their message. Federal officials may now tell them what they can teach and what they can't.

A few years ago, an official from the Department of Housing and Urban Development contacted the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles. He was concerned about the federal aid that the Catholic-sponsored St. Vincent de Paul Shelter for the Homeless was receiving. The official asked whether, in order to continue receiving federal money, the agency could be renamed: “Mr. Vincent de Paul Shelter,” thus stripping it of its saintly status.

Phil Strickland, Director of the Baptist-sponsored Christian Life Commission, framed this problem very graphically. He said that you can't have “government shekels without government shackles.”

An ultra-right wing Christian leader posed his objections to faith-based initiatives in even stronger language when he said:

…It is antithetical to Christian philosophy and practice ever to accept handouts from the federal government. Church ministries must always be dependent upon God – not government. However, we are now being asked to sell our birthright for a mess of government pottage. We must defiantly decline!

There is one final problem that I find with the faith-based initiatives. Accepting federal money can hurt, not help, existing religious institutions. Churches and synagogues encourage their members to make generous charitable contributions to worthy humanitarian causes.

In Judaism, we have even elevated this to a status of a mitzvah. We call it tzedakah, which means mandatory giving. Some Christian groups urge their members to tithe, or to give 10% of their annual income. Once church and synagogue members realize that now the beneficiaries they have been supporting are receiving government aid, they may lose their incentive to give as freely from their own pockets.

At the same time, there is no guarantee how generous the government will be with these allocations. The President does not plan to increase the federal social service budget. He does not intend to spend more dollars for the health, education, and housing needs of the poor. The same total number of dollars will be distributed, but each grant may now be less than it was. In other words, the pie will remain the same size, but each slice will be tinier than before. Competition among religious groups grasping for these federal handouts could turn bitter and ugly.

So I ask the question: Is the faith-based initiative program a blessing or a bane? Without any hesitation, I maintain that it is a bane, even a curse. I can see no blessings in this program whatsoever. It breeds the myriad ills of discrimination, proselytizing, favoritism, government interference, reduced income for worthy causes, and interreligious discord and strife.

We, in the Jewish community, have always championed the complete separation of church and state. We have passionately argued that religion must remain a private matter, with no government involvement. For over two hundred years this principle of separation, which is uniquely American, has served not only the Jewish community, but all the American people well. Let us not sacrifice this principle to eat from the government's trough. Amen.

Home