Franklin Graham concerned about Obama’s faith-based initiative
The Rev. Franklin Graham
The Rev. Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told reporters in St. Louis Friday that he was afraid that elements of President Barack Obama’s version of the Faith-Based Initiative, announced by the White House Thursday, would “weaken the entire initiative.”
Graham was speaking specifically about one of the thorniest issues facing Obama’s new faith-based office, renamed the White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships: whether the new administration will restrict religious groups that receive government funding from hiring only those who share their faith. During the presidential campaign, Obama said religious groups that receive federal money could not “discriminate…against the people you hire on the basis of their religion.”
At a lunch in downtown St. Louis Friday to announce a Christian rock and hip-hop festival to take place under the Arch this summer, the Post-Dispatch asked Graham about Obama’s version of the faith-based initiative, a major program launched by former President George W. Bush at the beginning of his presidency.
Graham responded:
There are some things about the new initiative that concern me. What has made the Faith Based Initiative so strong is the like-mindedness of those who’ve been allowed to work together.
If faith-based communities are going to be required by the government to accept people with different thinking, that’s going to weaken the entire initiative. If Baptists work well with other Baptists and Presbyterians work well with other Presbyterians, why should the Baptists be forced to work with Presbyterians, or the Presbyterians forced to work with Baptists?
I don’t agree with everything George Bush did over the last eight years, though he did keep our country safe. But some good did come of his administration and the Faith Based Initiative was a huge help to our country.
I’ve met Joshua DuBois [the director of Obama's faith-based office] and I hope he and the president will let religious groups be what they are, and they don’t mingle everyone together. It doesn’t work well that way. I hope we have the opportunity to work with them and that they’re open to us. I’m hopeful.
Graham gave Bush’s inaugural invocation in 2001, and on Friday the Post-Dispatch also asked him about the performance of the Rev. Rick Warren, who gave Obama’s inaugural invocation last month.
“Pastor Warren did a great job,” he said.
Tim Townsend has been the religion reporter at the Post-Dispatch since June 2004. He previously covered personal finance and consumer news for The Wall Street Journal. He holds master's degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Yale Divinity School. In 2005 he won the Templeton Religion Reporter of the Year Award, given by the Religion Newswriters Association. 
No suprise here. Force is what government does. What might have started out as a way for the government to more effectively and efficiently help those in need is becoming a way for people of faith to do the bidding of government. It is time to sever such ties.
Dave, I find myself agreeing with you. The real reason for the 1st amendment establishment clause is exactly this: With taxpayer money comes accountability to the taxpayers. I’m actually really surprised that as many organizations accepted the money over the pas several years that did.
What we forget is that the first amendment is there to PROTECT the church from the government, not the other way around. With money comes control. And, government control of religion is a really, really bad idea.
By the way, as a citizen, I have absolutely no problem with any group that accepts tax dollars having to account for how it’s spent. As a Christian, I’d have a real problem opening the church’s books to the government.
If the church as a whole is going about God’s business then they have to respect God’s laws to work His way. If the church is forced to hire employees that do not share the same beliefs and values and have the same biblical focus that the Bible puts forth then they will no longer be doing God’s work. I know that God can use any circumstance to bring unbelivers to the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ, but to put forth the gospel with His power the church must line up with God’s word with everything it does or there will not be eternal results.
I have a real problem with the “faith-based” programs being run with my tax money being allowed to be bigoted in ways that are illegal for the government. Do we really want “Jews and Catholics need not apply” to be in employment ads for jobs being paid for with tax money? I know, I know, what is “really” intended is the normal “undesirables” (gays, atheists, single mothers) being the targeted. How do you manage that in such a way that, for example, would still keep white “separatist” groups from applying the money in racially bigoted ways (presumably the majority of the US would find this to be unacceptable)?
I have served as a volunteer in a USAID project in the past. Presumably under a faith-based plan, I could be completely unable to volunteer (serving for free) for a technical problem that I have a great background for. Why? Because I don’t believe in their version of their invisible friend.
If the groups are bigoted in their hiring practices, how can we expect them to be anything but bigoted in their “help” to people? Is that acceptable?
If the “faith-based” groups want to get government money, let them obey the laws of this secular nation. If they want to practice their religious bigotry, let them do it with their own darned money, not my tax dollars. If they want to get my tax money, do the job, not the bigotry and proselytizing. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services did fine while obeying the laws of this great nation before the “faith-based initiatives” pork.
“Do unto others”: How would Christians react if federal dollars were used in programs that would hire only “rational” people - the non-superstitious and non-religious? Presumably they would want the jobs to be awarded on the basis of qualifications for the jobs.
Simian
This is why “faith based” programs are wrong from the beginning.
From the government side, they should not be putting any monies into religious organizations. It’s too close to violating the establishment clause.
From the church’s point of view, they should be weary of any government funds that would be subject to how the current political wind would blow. Only a fool wouldn’t have known this would eventually come with strings attached. I know I don’t want my church to run it’s works and missions based on what the government might mandate.
……………I feel that churches should not ask for, nor be offered any funds from government.
I also have great reservations about “tax-exempt” status for churches, and it has nothing to do with perceived right of left leaning political activity.
Some congregations own vast tracts of tax-exempt real estate (much more than is needed for church buildings and parking), and this practice is wrong. It does not seperate religion from government, if fact it makes religion more like a government.
Another thought: at what point will “faith group A” object to “faith group B” getting money because group A doesn’t agree with group B on doctrine, theology or practice?
How happy are folks down in the Bible Belt about the idea that Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam might qualify for faith based initiative money?
To see what effect public funding has on religious groups, I need look no further than this town I live in. Because the public school district, under Illinois Law, provides school transportation services to the parochial schools, whenever there is a snow day or even just a change in the school calendar, the parochial schools are forced to follow suit, or have a lot of kids not in school.
…………….The more I read Franklin Graham’s response, the more I think that he is just another money grubbing sh*t, no different than the Wall Street pr*cks. I wonder if Mr. Graham flew in on a private jet to meet with Mr DuBois.
I do not understand Rev. Graham’s complaint. Being so much “closer” to “God” than the rest of us, don’t his prayers get priority? Hasn’t Rev. Graham prayed? Hasn’t “God” “answered”? Is complaining about “the strings” the best solution they could devise? Truly, Rev. Graham, is THIS “God’s Plan”? Why not just hire non-believers and convert them by showing how much “good” you do with the money? Look at it as an opportunity, not a problem. Stay grounded in your faith… be real.
I am surprised to read the couple of church supporters unhappy about government associations in the first place. Is it really 1st Amendment conflict that triggers this reaction? Or is it the government conditions. “hs” would express (see parg#3, post#2, page#1 at 9:16 pm Feb 6) a fear of “opening the church’s books” to government watchdogs. I know the Catholics have plenty to hide; other denominations, too?
Stirring, you misunderstand me. It is my position as a citizen, that any “private” entity that receives public money to carry out their activities should be subject to oversight by government (us) to see where the money is going. It’s my further position that any private entity that refuses to open their books to public scrutiny if they receive public money is violating their trust. I’d love, personally, to see the books opened on every institution of higher learning in the country, since they all receive public money. It’ll never happen.
It’s not that the churches have something to hide…it’s that they need to be able to control their own fate as it were, and receiving public money makes that internal control impossible.
I do see it as a First Amendment issue, under both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. If government money = government control, then the churches have a problem. If there is no control over where the money is going, then we as citizens have a problem. It’s a lose-lose proposition.