May 23, 2007 | Read Time: 1 minute
The 2008 Presidential campaign will probably produce some interesting debates about how far government should go in its support of religious charities.
Albert Ruesga dives into the debate head first on White Courtesy Telephone, as he writes about the two sides of the faith-based debate.
Mr. Ruesga, vice president at the Eugene and Agnes E. Meyer Foundation, in Washington, freely describes himself as a secular grant maker.
But he also sees great value in the work done by organizations that have clear ties to religion. These groups — both large and small — are doing important work in their neighborhoods.
At the same time, though, Mr. Ruesga worries about the dangers of government aligning too closely with charities that have a religious agenda.
“There’s always been a fuzzy line between the religious and public domains in this country,” Mr. Ruesga writes. “Although many public figures are clearly animated by their religious beliefs, when do their actions as elected or appointed officials begin to encroach on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution?”
Where should that line be drawn? Mr. Ruesga says that question is open for debate.
“Despite my strong opposition to proselytizing, I worry that some marginalized populations would never be served were it not for the outreach of faith-based groups,” he writes. “Unfortunately, calling for stronger publicly-funded and publicly-administered social services sounds like an anachronism in these nefarious, government-hating times.”
Where do you stand on this issue? Should the government be taking stronger steps to finance religious groups — or does such support run counter to the Constitution? Click on the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.
