• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
SueInCa On November - 30 - 2011

Yes, that is what I said and all Evangelicals/RightWing/Christian Nationalists/Dominionist climbed aboard the faith based gravy train.  Oh a few Jewish, Muslim, Mainline Christian organizations received small amounts, but the majority of a 5 billion windfall went to conservative religious groups.  And the best thing of all was the Bush administration was not interested in any feedback as to how those funds were used.  That’s right, as you would expect from the Bush administration they were not worried about the details and boy did these groups take advantage of that bonanza.

OFBCI was established by Bush through executive order on January 29, 2001, representing one of the key domestic policies of Bush’s campaign promise of “compassionate conservatism”. The initiative sought to strengthen faith-based community organizations and expand their capacity to provide federally-funded social services, with the idea having been that these groups were well-situated to meet the needs of local individuals. As Texas governor, Bush had used the “Charitable Choice” provisions of the 1996 welfare reform(which allowed “faith-based” entities to compete for government contracts to deliver social services) to support the work of faith-based groups in Texas.  To me that implies that the Right has been using this as a proving ground for their ideas of getting rid of social services the government has to offer and putting it onto the backs of religious and community organizations to help the poor and disabled among us.

The diversion of billions of taxpayer money from secular social services to sectarian religious outfits was probably the most under reported story of the Bush administration.  Bush’s faith based initiative became a spoils system for evangelicals.  Technically they were not supposed to prostelyze with those funds but tell that to Set Free Indeed, a faith-based recovery program for addicts in Baton Rouge LA.  Set Free is publicly funded but the recovery process is faith based and attendees must have a true conversion to attend.  In the faith-based regime of Bush replacing the New Deal with conversion is key to recovery.  These evangelical ministries are involved in everything from prison programs and job training to teen pregnancy prevention, supplanting the safety net that was supposed to catch all Americans.

Tracking the exact sum of federal grant money distributed through Bush’s faith-based program was notoriously difficult as this money was divided up between various federal departments and agencies, as well as with each state being provided a lump sum for its own dispersant. In March of 2005, however, “Bush proudly told a conference of religious leaders that the federal government gave $2 billion in grants to faith-based groups the year before (Kingdom Coming Michelle Goldberg 2006, pg. 108).  We do, however, know that by 2004, some $300 million dollars had yet to promote healthy marriages and another $75 million for responsible fatherhood has produced no real results, two issues which disproportionately affect the black community.

So Bush and Rove came up with a new way to “use” public funds to win another four years in the White House with Bush’s Executive Order that created the OFBCI. Although government grants to religious charities are by no means new, President Bush took this practice to an unparalleled height. As the self-avowed evangelical Amy Sullivan noted in a 2004 Washington Monthly article, “‘[t]he policy of funding the work of faith-based organization has, in the face of slashed social service budgets, devolved into a small pork-barrel program that offers token grants to the religious constituencies in Karl Rove’s electoral plan for 2004 while making almost no effort to monitor their effectiveness (as quoted by Goldberg 2006, pg. 109).’” John DiIulio, the first head of Bush’s faith-based programs agrees as well, noting, “There is no precedent in any modern White House for what went on in the Bush White House: a complete lack of a policy apparatus…What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis (as quoted by Goldberg 2006, pg. 121).’” From a governing perspective, what took place in the White House’s faith-based program is abhorrent, yet from a political perspective, one would have to say Bush’s faith-based program was a resounding success, particularly as it may well have been the difference between victory and defeat in 2004.

In courting black voters, Bush knew he would never win the demographic outright, but in tight elections you don’t need to win every demographic, you just need to improve upon your previous showing. Through his faith-based grants Bush succeeded in wooing “black leaders, many of them evangelical clergy who lead large congregations.  When on election night it became evident that Kerry’s bid for the White House hinged on his ability to carry the state of Ohio (where the election itself was decided by the slimmest of margins), Bush’s improved showing among black voters, a jump of 7 percentage points, proved too steep a hill for Kerry to climb. Ultimately, it appears Bush’s gamble on winning over just enough black voters paid off, as in Ohio, this group proved to be a determining factor between a second Bush presidency and a Kerry victory (Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies 2004).  And as we all know, the right will stop at nothing to win any office in the government.

It should not be a surprise that this Faith based program would also help the Evangelicals in the area of employment.  That is because the Bush administration decreed faith-based groups exempt from a 1965 executive order that bars religious discrimination in federally funded hiring.  As a result, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, gay people, secularists and others were not able to compete for a growing number of social services jobs.  Religious organizations were already exempt from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, barring hiring discrimination.  In the past, though, the federal government held that such exemptions don’t apply to publicly funded positions-if the salary is paid for by tax dollars, the job had to be open to all.  Bush decreed that now an exemption for faith-based organizations and groups such as The Salvation Army took advantage, they took it a step further by requesting all staff complete a questionnaire detailing their church/religious history.  So this should not surprise people but I can tell you, I was dumbfounded.  Give them access to funds others cannot receive, give them the right to discriminate in hiring and sure you will get their support.  In reality, it was just another devious scheme of “Bush’s Brain”, Karl Rove, to secure voting blocks in the 2004 election.

When President Barack Obama entered office, he changed the name of the office to “Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, centralized the office and put in place a new head, Joshua Dubois (a minister from Massachussetts) and an Advisory Counsel that includes people from all faiths, secular leaders and scholars from all backgrounds. According to ABC News, the office would seek “to expand the role of this office as it relates to policy issues where religious and local leaders can be effective. DuBois will coordinate with faith-based and community organizations on social service outreach and will work to utilize these organizations’ efforts to advance the administration’s policies, with a primary focus on poverty.”

Under this President, faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

  • They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.
  • Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.
  • FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services.

So, while the office is still in business, it has been centralized, re-staffed and under new rules, which I am sure the religious right is fuming silently about.  Their personal gravy train is over and they now have to share with other groups whether they like it or not.  While I would prefer that President Obama disband the Office entirely, I think we can all be relieved that he has changed the fundamentals of the Office to include outreach and administration by a wide range of Americans.  I wonder, if he had stayed the course, would the religious right looked at him differently?  Somehow I think I know the answer to that question.

Below are some websites that are good resources on this subject.  You will find some well known names involved in this process.  I will also be covering a different subject per month and I am going to try to carry it through to the election in November 2012.

Charles Colson and his prison based ministries

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html?pagewanted=print

President Bush attends Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-20.html

President Obama’s Amendment to the original Executive Order

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/AmendmentstoExecutiveOrder13199andEstablishmentofthePresidentsAdvisoryCouncilforFaith-BasedandNeighborhoodPartnerships/

Written by SueInCa

I am a soon to be 59 Nana to Anthony who is 11. I live in Benicia CA with my husband and Shih Tsu. I worked in Banking and the Financial Industry for 24 years in Fraud, Risk Management, Account Management, Program Management, Project Management and Customer Service. I was a Fraud Investigator for Credit Card and Merchant Business and investigated internal fraud and responded to Bank robberies. I was also management in most of these positions. Now I am content to find a part time job where I am just a worker bee, no more corporate BS for this gal. I also make jewelry. I can spend hours in a bead shop just touching all the fine baubles. Only another beader would understand that one.

34 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. jjgravitas says:

    Church and state could stand to be a whole lot more seperate. Now if we could just do something to get money out of the election process (it corrupts everything) and convince the Supreme Court that corporations are not people.

  2. escribacat says:

    Excellent post, Sue. I deeply resent my tax dollars being funneled into any organization whose basic reason for existing is to propagate its own belief system and grow its organization — whether under the guise of “social services” or not. I don’t know how such an organization was able to come into existence in the first place. I agree the whole thing should be shut down. Even worse is the idea that my tax dollars went into a program whose end goal was to create more Bush voters. Ugh and grrrr….

    • SueInCa says:

      I hear you Cat, I am with you. Obama made it better but there is still funds going to religious groups and that I disagree with wholeheartedly. I can imagine if he had discontinued the program, though, he would be satan reincarnated from their perspective. More than he is already, that is lol

  3. Kalima says:

    Sue, thank you so much for this, I really enjoyed the first series too.

    Until I started blogging in 07′, I had no idea at all about these people, and had fortunately never met any. Learning about them a little on other sites, and then reading about them here in your posts, I felt somewhat angry that they dare to call themselves “Christians” because in the eyes and minds of most Christians who use their faith to do good, and keep their personal beliefs private, these people are religious parasites, who use a God I have never heard of to condemn, control, and destroy people who don’t think like them.

    Your posts have helped me to understand the hate, bigotry and greed that motivates them, and now more than ever, I’m glad that I never had to deal with them.

    Keep on doing what you are doing, and keep on exposing them for what they are. I wish I could feel sorry for them, or do the Christian thing and forgive them, but they harm too many people around them, so I can’t.

    Thanks again, it was as always, enlightening.

    • SueInCa says:

      Thanks Kalima.
      I sometimes think people get tired of my warnings about these people but I know what they want and what they will do to get it. So I will continue to expose them

  4. kesmarn says:

    Sue, thanks so much for this valuable piece of research. I’m glad to hear of the changes PBO has made to Bush’s program. All for the better.

    I’ll never forget when a friend of mine and her brother fell upon some really hard times during the second Bush administration. They went to a RW fundie church to see about getting food assistance. She was in her fifties and he was in his early sixties. Both were on disability — he because of a bad heart attack and she because of a hereditary blood disorder. But they must not have “looked disabled enough.”

    Before they were each given a small box of cheap canned goods, they had to sit through a long scolding by one the the church “elders.” He told them that they were poor because they had made poor life choices. (Had they chosen to be born to Hispanic migrant worker parents?) “You have been and are choosing poverty for yourselves. You’re refusing to work for what you get. If you had made wiser choices the way I did, you’d be going to Hawaii for a nice vacation. That’s what I’ll be doing in three weeks. But you’d rather beg for handouts.”

    I think I would rather wait at an impersonal government office for assistance than to go to “faith-based” places like that. I know that’s how she and her brother felt.

    • kes, was this the pastor that said these deplorable things? Don’t pastor’s make their living from the donations of others? Absolutely deplorable.

      • kesmarn says:

        KT, she was under the impression that it was an “elder” or “deacon” who was assigned to distribute the church’s charity with the understanding that the deadbeats would be properly shamed in the process. The thing was, this woman and her brother were/are very hard-working people. But the time came when their bodies said “no more,” and that was beyond their control. I’ve often wondered if exposure to farm chemicals had something to do with their illnesses.

        In which case maybe it is the capitalist system that ought to be shamed in the process…?

        • I wonder if Jesus ever used the term deadbeats or even thought in such terms. Again, no matter if it was the chaplain or elders or whoever, that sort of behavior by “so-called Christians,” is simply deplorable.

          • SallyT says:

            KT, I think Jesus did use deadbeats. On the mound he said, “Damn, here’s a bunch of deadbeats. I’ve got to water down the wine and slice the fish really thin.” Of course that is a joke. But, that is how they think, not the way Jesus would.

          • kesmarn says:

            KT, I’m no New Testament scholar, but I do believe the people who really ticked Jesus off where the group referred to as “hypocrites.”

    • SueInCa says:

      Kes
      Sounds like your rightwing friend

      • kesmarn says:

        Right, Sue! There seems to be no end to holier-than-thou types who feel the need to kick people when they’re down.

        They never consider how many advantages they’ve had that others might not have enjoyed. They’re all 100% “self-made.”

        They think.

  5. ADONAI says:

    I don’t really care who we give money to as long as they play by the rules.

    I think Obama’s changes are good but I wonder how sharply they will be enforced so they’re actually relevant.

    I hope someone in the White House pays attention to that. They’re slippery characters.

  6. KQuark says:

    Obama leveled the playing field and is making faith based charities play by the same rules as secular charities. Big big difference. While I still don’t like the name like you I see no problem with the government using tax payer money to help real charities. Sure I would prefer the government to expand the safety net but we all know how difficult that is in this political environment.

    • SueInCa says:

      KQ
      I agree, my only worry is if a religious right/any of the republican candidates get hold of it again. It will once again only be available to evangelicals with a small portion for appearances going to other religious groups.

  7. AdLib says:

    Sue, thank you for this fantastic piece!

    You’ve reminded me of the feeling of helplessness and frustration I had under the Bush years. Along with the Bush Tax Cuts, going to war in Iraq and many other policies which seemed forced upon an unrepresented public, was this exercise in corruption of social safety nets for reasons of bribery and greed.

    I was stunned when what amounts to raiding the Treasury to pay off the Christian Right was done so blatantly. I don’t oppose religious groups from participating in social programs but to give the tax money of Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc. to RW groups and authorize them to exercise religious prejudice towards those same people when hiring or providing public services was outrageous.

    Time and again, precedents set through our history were knocked down like bowling pins by Bush and his cronies and the concept of there not being a state-sponsored religion in America was readily discarded in favor of securing political power.

    Even today, on a national and local basis, we see the Dominionists and RW Christians trying to force their extreme religious views into laws that people of all faiths must follow. They wail about “Sharia Law!” and at the same time try to pass religious laws that would prevent women from using birth control or having abortions.

    It is a relief and another unacknowledged accomplishment by Obama that religious prejudice is no longer the law of the land. It’s also another reminder of where we could return and to even more extremes, if any of these Repubs running for President, all beholden to the extremists in their party, were to win.

    This is why I have little patience for the Firebaggers/EmoProgs/Purists who de facto are working for a return to such dark days.

    • SueInCa says:

      Adlib
      I got it, it is a great looking mug, thanks

    • KQuark says:

      X2 phenomenal piece.

    • SueInCa says:

      Adlib
      I do not understand their motives (firebaggers et al). My only conclusion is they have to be just as ignorant as the rightwing they claim possess those traits. Or perhaps they just don’t understand that a president is for all the people, not certain interest groups. Perhaps they really are closet republicans?

      Personally I do not agree with this government office because it can very easily be returned to it’s previous status with the stroke of a pen from another president who may even take it further. It also gives republicans and blue dogs fodder for their constant attacks on social safety nets. In a way, Obama may have played into their hands by requiring accountability, resulting in statistics that do not really represent the country as a whole. Feel free to talk me down, sometimes I get to hyped up by these religious freaks.

      • KQuark says:

        Lest us not forget too not only under bush did they use money to proselytize they also used it to promote GOP candidates. Purist progressives don’t want to give anything to religious charities which I think wrong given the economic injustices out there. I mean I really don’t see the difference between a secular cause feeding the poor or a religious charity. They are still feeding the poor.

        • SueInCa says:

          KQ
          The problem is they are not feeding the poor, they were funding Abstinance programs, Pregnancy Centers, Christian drug treatment programs. If it was all about food and sustenance for the poor, I would not be against it in the least.

        • I agree, as long as the religious charity groups don’t require those in need to share their religious views, like The Salvation Army does. You have to “sing for your supper.”

          • SueInCa says:

            KT
            That is the problem, why should I, a practicing anything, have to sit through prostelyzing when the Salvation Army advertises it helps those in need? They don’t say Those in need willing to listen to our prostelyzing. If they did, many people would look elsewhere I think.

          • KQuark says:

            KT that’s the group I always think of because they are not as intrusive as most.

            • SueInCa says:

              KQ
              If it had not happened, the NYCLU would not have had to “look for anything” the SA would have been left alone. My point is no one should require religion as a basis of employment or obtaining a helping hand. Kes has a great example of a couple going to a religious charity and the scolding they received. Jesus they are down enough already, why make them feel worse?

            • KQuark says:

              Sue with all due respect this is pretty old starting in 2003 and a response to the Bush policy and they ended up coming to an agreement even after the original suit. I’m not saying the Salvation Army is pure but face it the NYCLU was going to look for any angle here. That’s their job.

            • Actually, they really aren’t that intrusive. They will still help someone if they don’t share the same religious views, but you do have to sit through their proslytizing.

            • SueInCa says:

              KQ

              Google Lown in NYC, you will see just how intrusive the Salvation Army has become…..

              http://www.nyclu.org/case/lown-et-al-v-salvation-army-et-al-challenging-government-funded-faith-based-practices-of-salvat

        • SueInCa says:

          KQ
          My only problem is when and if the right gets hold of it again. I trust Obama to manage it properly, no one on the religious right do I trust lol

          • KQuark says:

            Sure but if the right gets power again that’s probably one of the least things I would worry about considering they would try to end the ACA, SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Ironically you would need more money going to charities of all kinds. It’s a self fulfilling entity that way.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories
Features