The progressive left (an ill-defined coalition of activists and thinkers) has long seemed to me to be derisive of organized religion in any form, except paradoxically when their myopic lenses are focused toward a respect for other cultures far from the borders of middle America.  Accordingly, they have largely responded to President Bush’s policy of increased government support for faith-based social service programs in a hostile manner.   Progressives tend to argue that government support of these religious social programs constitutes a violation of the Constitution’s separation of church and state, and as such represents an overt, albeit cloaked in altruistic language, threat to the freedom of religious practice in America, especially among the poor.

This criticism is not only misguided, but is also inimical to any vision of social justice that these progressives are working toward.  Before President Bush launched his current initiative, most significantly in his executive order rewriting the rules of federal social service grants, faith-based institutions were eligible to receive money for social service spending only when religion played no factor in the programs these institutions were administering.   Thus, churches, temples, and mosques could receive money for capital projects that would directly serve the community as long as religion was off the table and the spending was entirely nondenominational, ie: there could be no religious requirements for individuals participating in these programs and any iconography was banned. Under the new rules that President Bush ordered religious institutions have a greater freedom to apply for grants even if religion is an explicit part of the social programs these organizations are administering, but not directly funded by taxpayer money (thus, purchasing the Bible or the Koran through federal money is still out, but they can be used in conjunction with social services if not compulsory, or St. Joseph’s Church is eligible to run a soup kitchen on federal funds, as long as there is no religious requirement to receiving food.)

Much as been made of the President’s own “born-again” spirituality when at 39 he was moved to quit drinking (and probably more than that) as a self-described revelation of divine providence.  Mr. Bush, and other Republicans, cite the transformative effects of religion as a method of personal salvation, economically, socially, personally, and otherwise.  While many on the left take a supercilious attitude towards this, Mr. Bush is not alone.  Religion fulfills a deep psychological need that we all have, whether we are nonbelievers or consider ourselves among the faithful, and that need can be used to help individuals pull their lives together, become active members of their communities, and serve as an entry point into social engagement in politically meaningful ways.

I had always been deeply skeptical of the claims of religion.  As part of a Catholic family in New Jersey that took four generations before one of us went to college, I always viewed the deep Catholicism of my grandparents as being merely confining and limitless in its ability to undermine possibilities for my own life.  It was not until I worked on the staff of St. Martin de Porres Homeless Shelter in Lewiston, Maine, that I fully appreciated the redemptive aspects of religion, and the near necessity of this grounding in many people’s lives who were struggling on the margins with drug and sexual abuse, poverty, and racism.  Shrouded in an “opiate of the masses” mentality, I formerly afforded religion the role of mysticism and constraint only, and saw political ideology as the only path toward true liberation.  Not surprisingly, like most people who glean their knowledge primarily from books and theory, this reaction turned out to be only an expression of my own arrogance, whether or not it was also ascribed to my personal experience with Catholicism.

The truth is that religion plays many roles in people’s lives, and when used in a non-proselytizing manner aimed at creating a community among people can be more effective at turning lives around than many other approaches toward individual empowerment.  True, political engagement is founded on belief like religion, a hope for greater equity, a striving for economic, social, and political rights for all people, an ultimate vision of heaven where bellies will be full and health restored for all people, but in the context of the poor, the addicted, and the emotionally hurt, the political ideology attendant to terms like progressive lacks the staying power of religion, which has demonstrated its power of shaping people’s actions, beliefs and mores throughout human history.

This concept is not new.  The civil rights movement was closely linked with a Christianity that was active, not anodyne, in its critique of social iniquity.  While the aims of the civil rights movement were laudable there have also been many instances where religion played a less beneficent social role, but that does not justify any aims to throw it out altogether – even if that could be done, which it cannot.  So maybe what we are really talking about here is a progressive discomfort with the role of religion in individual lives as opposed to mass social movements.  We on the left take a slightly haughty attitude towards individuals who claim to have been “shown the light,” while we are much more willing to respond judiciously to and accommodate the social work of these same institutions when religion is not involved, or when a movement is born from a religious reading of social ills.  We cringe at any mention of individual spirituality believing it is a deeply personal matter, but at the same time miss the potentially empowering aspects of this belief.

The fundamental difference between the progressive and conservative outlook on social issues can be summed up as follows.  Progressives are inclined to view social problems like poverty and drug abuse as economic and social factors (like racism, class-ism, and the myriad of isms that crop up with increased self-awareness of ourselves as a society) that the government has an obligation to correct.  In their view government must also temper the more insidious effects of capitalism through a progressive tax structure that funds social service and outreach programs, better education, and corporate regulation that alleviates economic disparity and gives the working poor across the world the tools to achieve on the same level as the entrenched wealthy class.  Conservatives view these problems largely as a question of individual responsibility, and it becomes the failings of the individual to not make it in the world, which is why espousing the more self-redemptive qualities of religion makes sense for conservatives like President Bush.  Religious programs that focus on individual transformation, in conservative’s eyes, conveniently place the blame at the level of the individual, not society, and it becomes the poor’s own failing in not making something of their lives.  Both views have their limitations, progressives in the failure to recognize individual agency, and conservatives in their steadfast refusal to recognize the iniquities of a world that rewards economic and social power with more of it.

Crafting effective social and economic policy that responds to the needs of individuals in real terms is like trying to think Sisyphus off the mountain.  There is a pervasive, learned, and hegemonic social determinism depending on race and class, access to money and education; but to banish individual agency from this equation is largely to give up on our ability to overcome obstacles, to banish the ability to recognize in humans an extraordinary capacity to survive and ultimately to admit that the work we do on the ground is for naught until we settle society-wide economic disparity.  Ten years in the social service sector has taught me that this is fundamentally more dangerous than easily reductive social theory that reduces everything to the level of the individual, for at least that is remedied easier than the sprawling nebulousness of social determinism.

My proposition is simple: support efforts that allow federal and state money to be used for social services administered by religious institutions.  However, there are caveats.  Firstly, social service spending cannot be exclusively determined by religious participation, i.e.: there cannot be any religious requirement attached to a person’s receiving services by these institutions.  If a person wants drug counseling, he or she should also be able to do so without attending religious services, but the option should be there if this individual also chooses to make religion a part of their approach to be free of drugs or alcohol.  Secondly, the money needs to be distributed equally to religious institutions across the spectrum of belief, and, even in an open grantmaking process, a disproportionate amount of money, when matched percentage wise against that of the population as a whole, going to Christian organizations cannot be justified.  An active government program of social service grantmaking needs to remedy any disparity in applicant organizations through outreach to temples, mosques, and other places or worship.  Thirdly, without effective monitoring of these programs there runs a high risk of abuse on proselytizing grounds.  An independent monitoring body made up of community based, nonprofit, and faith-based executives and leaders should exist to enforce the prohibition on compulsory religious requirements and address any disparity in the grantmaking process.  This would ensure that the program’s administration is fair and balanced and free from the constitutional issues that civil liberties advocates rightly fear.    Finally, allowing religious social service providers to dip into the regular federal grantmaking pool should come alongside an increase in other federal spending more generally to ensure that this expanded faith-based presence is not seen as a replacement for any social welfare programs already in existence.

From a progressive point of view there are many benefits for offering support, with the qualifications cited above, for this initiative.  Progressives for too long have largely ignored any personal accountability in the social equation.  Whether this is born of guilt or ignorance I cannot say, but work in any community that is too often characterized as being affected by the “blight of poverty” and you will find a mix of attitudes that incorporate personal responsibility with a critique of the power structure, political and economic, that short changes poor urban and rural communities.   Leaving everything to the federal government, or ascribing all social ills to global capitalism is not only misguided but also naïve.   Changing the lives and lot of individuals is a mixture of work done both inside local communities (with individuals, and through education and training) and on a macro level (through political organizing, voter enrollment drives, etc.)

The transformative aspects of religion, which are very real and tangible, can serve very important ends in the progressive movement.  We can stand to benefit from closer collaboration with faith-based institutions that have at their core an activist stance towards political engagement and that are doing work on the ground.  We can also work through these social programs to create a greater awareness of political and economic trends that can be struggled against through effective community organizing.  Progressives have always toed a very fine line between “educating the masses,” “channeling community action,” and respecting the experiences and opinions of working people.  This was very saliently apparent after 9/11, when many progressives, myself included, recoiled in horror at the outpouring of a blind and aggressive patriotism among Americans, even while these are the individuals who would potentially offer the most support for an economically and politically progressive agenda.  Religion is no different, for it must not serve as a wedge between the common aims we should all be striving for. A greater respect for the beliefs of people and the role of religion in society – especially among the poor – would serve to enlarge our base, for the numbers are on our side.  But our message loses resonance when we ignore these driving factors in people’s lives, and a tax cut benefiting the wealthiest 1% does not always outweigh President Bush’s respect for faith in the voting booth.

If you ask most people working in social services in New York City where the strongest nexus of community power lies the answer will unvaryingly be churches, temples, and mosques.  These institutions offer up the strongest community leaders, the most committed and active base of support for social engagement, and the best programs addressing the needs of urban communities.  But they seem to lie off the radar for community organizing efforts, relegated to the realm of either direct service provision (which community organizing groups generally ignore, religious or otherwise, and in turn, direct service providers also stand aloof or nonpartisan when it comes to political engagement as well) or as a movement separate and apart from our aims as progressives.  The secular left tends to view these communities with a bit of trepidation and skepticism, designating these programs as separate and apart from our own work.  If however, our approach is more holistic, and we integrate our efforts at not only social service provision but also community organizing, we stand more to gain.  Community based organizations providing social services would serve to benefit from coupling their efforts with these religious communities, as would the organizing efforts of political groups.