While I visited my bubbe (that's Yiddish for grandmother) at a Catholic hospital where she was recovering from laproscopic surgery, the local news was airing on the TV in her room. It announced that Barack Obama promised to up the ante on George Bush's failed faith-based services initiative if he is elected president, pouring millions more dollars into religious organizations. Obama's rationale is that faith-based groups are often the organizations that are already on the ground providing services, thus they are effective. It's a good thing that I was already in a hospital, as I nearly had a heart attack when I heard that.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life explains:

...Obama announced a plan to establish a Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council would expand upon the work of George W. Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, primarily by allocating $500 million per year for summer learning camps that would aim to narrow the achievement gap between poor and wealthy students. Obama said the council would be the "moral center" of his administration.

This makes me livid for a variety of reasons. First, the implication is that non-religious groups are not moral. A good portion of the wars and discrimination that occur around the world are based on religious zealotry (which is not to say that all religions or religious people are evil), it's pretty clear to me that religion and morality are not the same thing. Secular humanists are just as dedicated to bettering the world, and we don't do it with strings attached. We work to improve the world because it is just the right thing to do.

Second, I hate weakening the separation of church and state just to pander to "religious" voters. Slant Eye for the Round Eye isn't crazy about the announcement, either, but diplomatically noted that, "right now if $500 million gets him the vote so be it... In that sense, I'm willing to take one for the team, because you have to do what you have to do to get the big seat."

On the other hand, the fine print makes the Council considerably more tolerable than what is currently in place. As The Amiable Atheist noted:

When I first heard this I was quite upset, but this made it a little better...

"If you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can't discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion," Obama said. "Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs."

While this is a slippery slope, I can live with it if Obama is serious about enforcing these rules. The real problem, however, is the assumption that religious groups are more effective at providing services than other organizations. Jamelle at The United States of Jamerica links to a report by the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at UPenn which found that current research on the efficacy of faith-based services is inconclusive. Thus pledging $500 million bucks seems a bit useless to me, especially at a time when social programs like Head Start (often operated locally by religious organizations) are starving for funds even though they are known to be economically sounds investments.

What do you think? Is this a good plan, or merely a cynical attempt to grab votes?

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants and about feminism & gender at BlogHer. Her first book, "Off the Beaten (Subway) Track, is out this month.