Originally appeared March 28, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.
One of the most interesting and controversial government programs currently being developed is one to provide subsidies to religions to operate various treatment, training, and welfare programs.
President George W. Bush made the proposal a major plank of his presidential campaign, perhaps to appeal to evangelical Christian voters. And he recently established an "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives" to promote such efforts.
There is a lot to dislike here starting with the sly language of referring not to "religion" but to "faith." As if "people of faith" meant anything else than "people of religions."
Since religions are characterized by their doctrinal claims a better term would be "people of doctrines." But an "Office of Doctrine-Based Initiatives" does not sound quite so warm and fuzzy.
Further, religious doctrines are by nature unprovable claims without rational support - e.g., people rise from the dead, virgins have babies, there is life after death. After all, if the claims were provable, they would simply be part of science - e.g., the earth is round, the sun is hot, light travels fast.
As one early Christian saint blurted out in an exuberant burst of candor, "I believe it because it is absurd!"
So if everyone were candid, they would refer to "people of irrationality" and an "Office of Irrationality-Based Initiatives."
Be that as it may, the question for us is: Is there a gay angle here? I think there are two.
One is that the major recipients of government (taxpayer) money are likely to be Catholic and evangelical Protestant religious organizations. These range from mildly anti-gay to zealously anti-gay.
So there might be some grounds for questioning government subsidies to anti-gay religious groups even if they sometimes do good works.
The second gay angle is that the largest gay and lesbian organizations in the U.S., and the best organized at the community level, is the Metropolitan Community Church.
It might be very interesting to see a gay-oriented church being paid by the federal government to provide welfare, treatment and training services to gays and lesbians as well as other Americans.
There may be a third gay angle hovering in the background. Many government policies that adversely affect gays and lesbians from sodomy laws to the ban on same-sex marriages are based solely on religious doctrine. They serve no defensible secular purpose.
So gays and lesbians might want to be particularly assertive about the separation of church and state. Rather than see the existing separation weakened, they might want to see it enhanced and enforced more comprehensively.
Let us let the Metropolitan Community Church speak for itself and concentrate on the fact that most recipients of government money will be anti-gay religions.
It is important to remember that the fundamentalist Christian worldview is pervaded by a belief in the struggle between their god and Satan. For instance, 84 percent of evangelical Christians believe that "Satan" himself is behind the fight against religion in public life.
With that worldview, evangelicals are not likely to compromise on moral issues since that would mean compromising with Satan.
In a recent poll by Public Agenda, only 36 percent of evangelicals said that deeply religious (i.e., evangelical) elected officials should be willing to compromise on gay rights issues, compared with 68 percent of non-evangelicals who urged compromise.
So it is worth wondering what kind of social and ideological environment these groups would maintain in their government-subsidized programs.
The concern is less their impact on gays and lesbians who might be in the programs than the possibility that such programs might lure other participants toward an evangelical/fundamentalist worldview and reinforce or create more anti-gay prejudice.
For example, more than half (61 percent) of evangelical Christians believe that "deeply religious people" (such as themselves) should spread their religious views - whenever they can. Fewer than half that proportion (26 percent) of non-evangelicals feel that way.
And critics have already pointed out that some drug treatment programs include "intense Bible study."
It is telling that television evangelist Pat Robertson recently said he was concerned if groups like the neo-Hindu Hare Krishnas, or Rev. Moon's Unification Church or L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction Church of Scientology were to receive subsidies.
It is telling because if Robertson did not expect their programs to influence participants' religious and social views he would presumably have less objection to them.
Robertson is certainly aware that religious welfare programs provide those religions with access to vulnerable and potentially malleable clients.
It is natural for people who feel they are being benefited to be grateful to whoever is helping them. And if they make friends among people running the programs, then they may wish to continue in the same social and religious milieu.
That would certainly be a potential source of new members who would likely adopt the religion's position on gay equality and other social issues as well as its theological perspective.
That may be just fine for the new convert, but it may not be so fine for gays and lesbians.