Ashton Ellis
Staff Writer
Do you know David Kuo? Up until 2003, Kuo was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (“the Office”). He was charged with making good on President Bush’s campaign promise to tap $8 billion in new taxpayer funding for religious charities. After two years and $7.94 billion left untapped, Kuo became disillusioned about the White House’s commitment to “compassionate conservatism.” Now he is speaking out about his frustrations and asking Christians to go on a “fast” from politics.
Kuo’s “fast” includes a book deal and television appearances. His cast of characters features a president whose conviction about compassion does not match his legislative priorities and senior advisors who call people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “nuts.” Ever the good soldier, Kuo kept the peace by keeping quiet. That is, until the day he looked Bush in the eye and told him the Office’s much publicized success was nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Bush was stunned. Kuo explained his position that removing restrictions against religious groups and educating their members how to apply for funds did not equal “new” money for their charities. According to Kuo, Bush disagreed. Realizing that other domestic policies and the war in Iraq were higher up the legislative food chain, Kuo resigned his post in 2003, collected his thoughts, and wrote “Tempting Faith.” The book is being lauded as a testament to why religion and politics do not mix. Like Kuo’s definition of “new” though, this reading is a temptation worth resisting.
Religion does have a place in politics. Every person confronted with power needs a moral foundation to ensure humility. For most people, moral consistency springs from religious principle. The problems for Christians occur when they try to impute the Church’s responsibilities into government mandates. They forget that taking taxpayer money entails government oversight. Issues like poverty relief, rape counseling, and substance abuse give way to restrictions on speech, expenditure, and hiring that are untenable to a religious organization. Imagine requiring a Baptist church to hire a gay pastor, or impeding a Catholic nun’s ability to share Christ and a meal with homeless in a shelter. With taxpayer money come politically correct strings. In the end, government mandates become Church responsibilities.
To be fair, Kuo and the Office never got this far. Perhaps that is a blessing. In an era where the judicial system seems bent on restricting public displays of religious holiday cheer, why would religious charities already functioning outside the government sphere opt into increased oversight? The answer reflects the uneasy double-think of a paradigm that insists religion should be set apart, while at the same time demanding religion’s “fair share” of the taxpayer’s pie. In effect, religious charities are asking for the same money as secular charities, but without the same requirements on who to hire, how to spend, or what to say. Just like in other areas of life, however, separate but equal is no longer valid. If religious groups want its “fair share” of taxpayer money, the members need to accept the burdens of such benevolence.
And therein is the rub. The means overshadow the ends. Politicians need votes to stay in office. When it comes to support, there is no better base than those who depend on government for financial solvency and regulatory relief. Religious charities should not become one of these industries. Instead of lobbying politicians for assistance, religious charities need to focus on their primary endeavor: helping those in need. As anyone who tithes knows, there are better sources for financing charities. Hopefully now, it is a lesson Kuo knows well.
11-09-2006