Perhaps there was a time when social theorists could legitimately hold the U.S. up as the model secular state in that it maintained a wall of separation between church and state. However, starting with “Charitable Choice” in the Clinton Administration, the federal government has been courting the religious sector as the ideal beneficiary of its decision to outsource social services delivery to society’s downtrodden and marginalized populations. Indeed, from the second Bush Administration right through to the present second Obama term, there has been a White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to encourage the religious sector to bid on federal third-party contracts for social services delivery. It was then-Senator John Ashcroft (during the Clinton Administration) who convinced Congress in connection with welfare reform that the churches had more credibility with the hard-core welfare dependent population than did government social services offices, thus launching Charitable Choice and progeny. A visit to the current Administration’s Faith-Based Initiatives website reveals the thinking:
“The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships within the Domestic Policy Council works to form partnerships between the Federal Government and faith-based and neighborhood organizations to more effectively serve Americans in need.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp.
And, now Europe is jumping on the faith-based initiatives bandwagon. (Sociologists who define Modernity as starting with the Enlightenment are -like Secular theorists - facing theoretical impoverishment.) Next month I will attend a consultative workshop in Sarajevo ("Faith-Based Participation in Civil Societies") in which the CFP started out with, “Contrary to some expectations, on-going secularization in European societies has not led to a disappearance of religion.”
I rely on Secularism Theory with this paper and at least 3 others on my RG homepage. I am beginning to think this may actually be an ethical dilemma that I must confront. Is it unethical to theorize from a foil that has no basis in reality?
Chapter Legislated Isomorphism of Immigrant Religions: Lessons from Sweden
Gwen,
Two questions: I am not understanding how you are using the term "straw man" here. Where is a "straw man" depiction being given of an entity of some sort? Also, what do you mean by your last statement: "Is it unethical to theorize from a foil that has no basis in reality?" ? I don't follow what it is that you are saying here.
Hi Bill,
How appropriate that you are considering answering this question just today when I have spent an all-nighter finishing up my paper for the Sarajevo workshop on faith-based organizations (FBOs). (I fly to Sarajevo tomorrow so it was not a moment too soon to get the paper done.) For you see, I have once again based my entire argument on “protecting the sanctity of the wall between church and state”. This is a foil because there is not now, nor has there ever been a clean separation of church and state in the U.S. even though it is a premise of our Constitution (First Amendment). Here is a paragraph from my paper (with the footnotes) so that you can see what I mean by using “the secular state” as a foil or red herring:
“History of FBOs in the U.S.
“The pattern for what can only be considered an unholy alliance of church and state was ironically established in the U.S., a country originally founded as a secular state with a Constitution (First Amendment) that calls for maintaining a wall of separation between church and state.1/ The progenitor of legislation clearing the way for all subsequent executive-branch courting of the religious sector was “Charitable Choice,” a 1996 initiative that piggybacked massive welfare reform in the U.S. during the Clinton Administration.2/ "
Bill, the title of the workshop is “Faith-Based Participation in Civil Societies”. The newly integrated Europe is hopping on the faith-based initiatives bandwagon and (as the only American invited to the conference), I am presenting an argument against “the unholy alliance of church and state”.
footnote 1: “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Thomas Jefferson, letter dated January 1, 1802 (addressed to leadership of Danbury, CT, Baptists). Copy of letter set forth in article, “A Wall of Separation,” by James Hutson, Chief of Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html
footnote 2: “Charitable Choice,” 1996 Welfare Reform Law, Public Law 104-193. 22 Aug. 1996. 110 Stat. 2105.
Gwen
Gwen,
Perhaps this question is simplistic, but here goes: It seems to me that the sorts of faith-based undertakings initiated by our government with which I am familiar haven't got anything to do with faith itself. They are rather calls for religious organizations to get involved with some of the social relief work which our government seems to be unable to financially underwrite these days. My familiarity with the UK (that is the European country with which I am most familiar) would tend to suggest that the Brits are also hard-pressed to underwrite all their social relief programs.
If this is what is happening in the US, does that violate the prohibition of starting a State religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion? Is it possible that the lack of funds for doing works of social justice or social relief is forcing the government to seek help of this sort from the religious sector? Most faiths do have an emphasis on humanitarian good works. Most soup kitchens seem to get started by faith-based organizations. Is collaborative work to address these sorts of concerns really a violation of the First Amendment?
If I am way off base as to what is motivating this alliance please tell me, but I don't think I would be uncomfortable with the government working in concert with religious groups to address these sorts of needs, as long as there is no government promotion of a particular faith or church. Is there some aspect of this argument/concern which I am still failing to understand? You don't seem to be a reactionary type of a person, so I am guessing that there is a dimension of this matter of which I don't have an accurate perception. I am still unclear on where there is a straw man portrayal going on in all of this.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics