Some faith-based programs work miracles for those struggling with addictions, struggling to read, struggling to survive.
The very faith embedded in such programs may provide the key to success. They're often run by wonderful people, and should be supported.
But with tax dollars?
That's the question posed by President Bush's proposal to make it easier for faith-based programs to compete for government grants to provide social services - in after-school programs, or to the homeless, or prisoners.
The president says it's possible to walk a fine line between supporting the social service without supporting the religion that provides it. So far, though, we don't see how.
The most reassuring aspect about the newly established White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is its leadership: Penn professor John DiIulio, a respected social scientist. The office is charged with removing government regulations that prevent taxpayer funding of programs run by religious groups.
This sounds promising if it allows the sort of literacy programs being piloted here in Philadelphia - where the tutors take advantage of trust in the church without proselytizing the students.
It sounds ominous, though, if it means that religious organizations are allowed to discriminate in employment against otherwise qualified people because they don't accept Jesus as their personal savior or they favor sprinkling baptism over immersion.
The former mayor of Indianapolis, Stephen Goldsmith, who will coordinate efforts to remove regulations in various government departments, says the line is clear: Government "can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter, it shouldn't fund the Bibles." But when he was governor of Texas, President Bush enthusiastically supported - with tax dollars - a prison program that actually uses Bible study as part of its treatment. What is the difference? And will government now have to police churches to ensure taxpayer money is being used properly?
What if a Catholic group and a Mormon group apply for the same grant? Can the government decide without actually favoring one religion over another? These issues surely will end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
We foresee another problem: Will prophets who have spoken out when government has failed to do right start to worry about losing government grants and hesitate before they "speak truth to power?"
No longer 'kid stuff'
