As we approach the one-week anniversary of the Obama administration, it is a bit early to judge the level of true change brought by the 44th president. However, it is becoming increasingly clear what is not going to change (at least for the better) in the Obama administration. With all of the euphoria of the inauguration, many supporters fought back a strange and long-lingering sensation: doubt. There was little room for doubt in the collective celebration of our first African-American president and a new course after a ruinous eight years under George W. Bush.
Yet, given his tendency to avoid fights on issues like war crimes and unlawful surveillance, Obama seems to view “change” in terms of social programs rather than legal principles. On the principle of the separation of church and state, these doubts are particularly pronounced and personified by the man who delivered the invocation at Obama’s inauguration: evangelical preacher Rick Warren.
Warren is viewed by many as an anti-gay and intolerant voice of the religious right. Obama has insisted that Warren’s much-discussed role simply reflects his desire to be inclusive and show that all views are welcomed in his administration. However, Warren represents more than a preacher with controversial religious views, but one who actively seeks to shape society along those same biblical lines.
From the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the Rev. Warren, Obama’s choices raise a concern that he (like his predecessor) seems to gravitate toward ministers who see little dividing the pulpit from politics.
The fact is that Obama has never hidden his agreement with President Bush on the role of religion in American politics. During the primaries, he proclaimed his intention to be “an instrument of God” and to create “a kingdom right here on Earth.” To be sure, past Democratic presidents also have sought religious advisers and incorporated religious organizations into federal programs as a political necessity in a largely Christian nation.
Expanding the Bush program
Yet, the intermingling of faith and politics was one of the more controversial aspects of Bush’s tenure. The centerpiece of that effort was the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives through which Bush gave billions of dollars to religious organizations to carry out a variety of public projects.
Despite the good work done in areas ranging from drug rehabilitation to disaster relief, it came at the cost of the government’s direct subsidization of religious groups. The faith-based office has been denounced by critics as an attack on the doctrine of the separation of church and state and a reward to the administration’s base of religious activists.
Many people assumed that any Democrat would restore the secular work of government and strive to remove religion from politics. But Obama has indicated that he intends to expand, not eliminate, the faith-based programs. Indeed, he has stated that Bush’s faith-based office “never fulfilled its promise” due to a lack of funding. This “lack of funding” cost this country $2.2 billion in 2007 alone.
Obama reportedly plans to change the name from the “Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” into his own “White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.” The old office would become 12 offices to carry out the expanded program. Not exactly the change that many secularists and liberals were hoping for.
Obama has assembled an informal faith-based advisory group to assist him in plans to expand the incorporation of religious organizations into government at the cost of billions of dollars each year. Warren will likely be one of those advisers.
Warren leads a fundamentalist congregation of 20,000 in Orange Country, Calif. He was a central supporter of Proposition 8, which stripped gay couples in California of the right to marry, calling such unions an affront to “every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.” He was criticized for a statement that many viewed as equating the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legalization of incest, child abuse and polygamy. In the ensuing firestorm, he seemed to backtrack a bit and has even indicated that he’d be willing to consider civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, but the sentiment was already out there. He also has insisted that religious people must vote against anyone who opposes abortion, calling politicians who do so, such as the new president, “Holocaust denier[s].”
This brand of activist evangelism seems to appeal to Obama the Community Activist. Despite Warren’s rigid religiosity, Obama reportedly likes him because, among other reasons, he supports anti-poverty programs. Obama’s aides have dismissed same-sex marriage as a “single issue,” and Obama has said the choice shows that he is incorporating all viewpoints into his administration. Yet, this treats all viewpoints as inherently equal and worthy of incorporation. Warren’s narrow definition of marriage echoes the objections made by ministers a few decades ago to the marriage of mixed-race couples like Obama’s parents. Would those ministers be worthy of incorporation in the administration? In the name of inclusion, Obama added a voice of exclusion.
It is a simple matter of priorities: Obama just seems to be more interested in programs than principles. He views change in more concrete terms: helping families, creating jobs and expanding the social safety net. Worthy objectives to be sure, but what about restoring the core principles that define our government?
Program-centric governing
In a program-centric rather than a principle-centric administration, Warren is a perfect fit. While infuriating for liberals, the picture with Warren — as well as the reverend’s lengthy opening prayer — played well with religious conservatives and may lay a foundation for a mutually beneficial alliance with Obama. Religious organizations can help politically and practically with the New Deal-type programs that Obama wants to implement. The entanglement of church and state is dismissed as an abstraction and distraction.
Obama’s preference for practicalities over principles is reflected in some of the people he picked for his Cabinet (Hillary Clinton at State, for one), as well as by his voting record. Obama voted to grant immunity to the telecommunication companies and extinguished dozens of lawsuits aimed at the warrantless surveillance program. Obama previously indicated that he would vote against such legislation, but again the practicalities appeared to triumph over principle. It was treated as little more than a fight over abstract privacy.
When civil libertarians denounced Obama’s vote, he simply encouraged them not to get hung up on one issue. That issue, however, was constitutionally protected privacy. The concern is that if Obama does not fight for the separation of church and state, equal protection (his most recent “one issue” flare-up) and privacy, his administration would seem strikingly like the last one, in which principles were dismissed as nave abstractions.
Obama’s approach to religion differs from Bush in one respect. The latter appeared intent on lowering the wall of separation between church and state. For Obama, this is not about principle; it’s business. Warren is a good choice because he supports these programs, and churches like his can deliver needed political and practical support for their implementation. The end, not the means, drives the policy.
Obviously, important things are to be done in a host of other areas by Obama, but it is a dangerous precedent to have another president who treats constitutional principles as something of a distraction. Just as Bush dismissed abstract principles in his war on terror, Obama seems poised to do the same in his economic war. Again, it will simply be an inconvenient time for principle.
I joined millions around the world relishing the moment Obama took the oath and gave such eloquence and hope to a besieged nation. But there is a danger of a cult of personality developing around Obama, that supporters could, in all this adoration, confuse the man with his mandate. So, when Obama put his hand on the Lincoln Inaugural Bible, I silently prayed not for a president but for principle, and that Obama will be able to tell the difference.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
For the USA Today opinion page, click here.
USA Today — January 26, 2009
“My mother inlaw used to work for Mantech at the Department of Energy and the stories she used to tell were counter to your proposition.”
Bron,
Your Mother-In-Law working for a private firm, hired by the government, is your proof to counter my points? Bron I worked for the Government for 32 years, 20 at a high level and then 6 years at non-profits also fairly high level. Civil servants on the whole worked harder and more effectively than non-profit workers. Part of the reason was the non-profit structure paid great salaries to its’ top people and crap to everyone else. They didn’t get workers who were as qualified and they didn’t care about turnover.
For 3 of those 32 years I was a Director of Contracts, I was also a Budget Director for 4 years and had Contracts and Budget Reporting to me for another 3 years. In my last 3 years with my agency I was the guy called in to repair broken sub-agen cies and make them efficient again. In ALL instances whenever we’d hire an outside entity, like Mantech it was the result of a political payoff and the company performed worse than the workers they replaced. I could cite chapter and verse ad infinitum, but it would take a long book to do it.
Let me then give you a briefer explanation. The head commissioner of my City Agency made $142,000 yearly. This was to run an agency of 18,000 employees, with a budget of many billion$. Higher level people, such as myself worked long hours, with no paid overtime since we were managers. If the big guy made $142,000 consider then what the underlings made. Also people were at their offices, or in meetings, not on the golf course or long lunches/dinners.
In private industry the CEO’s, COO’s CFO’s etc. of large firms earn in the multi-million$. As you go down the hierarchy the pay is in proportion. Therefore private industry has an extremely high cost of doing business, or overhead. Since Reagan and the dismantling of the Union Movement regular worker’s salary’s have fallen, the better workers laid off in favor of the cheaper less experienced workers (see the collapse of Circuit City). Turnover was high and commitment to company was lost in light of the company’s lack of commitment to its workers. Despite this the average worker works hard at their jobs and productivity has increased. Unfortunately, this does not make up for the enormous overhead created by the greed and desire for luxury of most big company’s management. The average HMO (google this) has an overhead of about 20%. Medicaid’s overhead is 2%. Social Security’s overhead is much, much lower than your average insurance company.
Despite right wing propaganda to the contrary, much private industry is extremely inefficient due to the above named factors, whereas civil service works fairly well. Where problems existed it was usually because of Red Tape generated by right wing politicians who didn’t care for, or trust the workers, or the clients.
Jill, what I mean is that arguments against faith-based initiatives must be framed in a manner precluding their characterization as attacks upon religion in general, or upon particular denominations. Of course, people who reject the notion of church-state separation will not recognize the difference, but no arguments will be persuasive to that segment of society in any event. The people who need to be convinced of the dangers are those who have either a neutral or positive attitude toward religion, but who also understand that strict lines have to be drawn in a pluralistic society. Of course, despite having offered this high-minded explanation, I will confess that I have my own theory as to how faith-based initiatives fit into the history of this country over the past fifty years. But that’s for another post.
Buddha and Mike,
I never argue theology to try and persuade someone politically. I used to have a room-mate that played D&D type games, and I was struck by the similarity between their arguments about the rules, and theological\political debates I had witnessed.
Mike A.
“Thus I believe it is important that the expression of our objections to faith-based initiatives be properly focused and non-judgmental.” What do you mean by non-judgmental in this context?
Mike S.
Thank you for the thoughtfull reply I expected you’d write. Obama will not, nor can he “remake the US into a land of its’ purported ideals,…”. That job is ours as a society. Obama has real flaws. They are showing up in his appointments and policies. On the other hand, I’m not giving up. He’s vunerable to pressure and I have faith that people will put pressure on him to act well. I don’t have faith in him, but I do have faith in the people of this nation. (I’m writing this too fast, it’s not very clear, sorry.) I do appreciate the time you took to write and I’ll try to write better when I have more time to think!
Best,
Jill
Mike S,
As usual there is much we agree upon. No grammar mea culpa required.
Any body want to send me a grammar primer after my errors in the last post? I’m already starting to rewrite it by hand a hundred times as punishment for my mistakes.
Buddha,
Some of my best friend are Wiccans, but although I wouldn’t want one to marry my daughter, watch it.
You’ve got my points right and as usual I have no argument with your furthering of the discussion. I am not above attacking someone’s religious pomposity in the name of the greater good. I personally prefer though to try to take them on, on their own turf.
To many fundamentalists of all religious stripes have no real understanding of the basic tenets of their own beliefs. They substitute ritual and form, from substance and philosophy. This is of course akin to your “internal inconsistency” formulation. Then to, as you might implicitly imply, there are some whose religious beliefs are flat out evil and inconsistent with the workings of society. In our history we could look at the racist beliefs of the southern Baptists and the racist beliefs (now conveniently denied through prophesy)of the LDS. Stuff like that has to be directly confronted and one cannot tiptoe around it.
As a Deist Jew I don’t disrespect those who believe in a creator/God, or those who don’t believe at all. That is why I am at times loath to attack either position by trying to demolish the foundation of belief, or non-belief. However, if I correctly understand your point there are times where I acknowledge when it has to be done.
“As to issues like faith-based programs receiving aid I am against it. As a former worker and manager in the social welfare field, both public and non-profit, I truly believe that civil servants out perform all others in delivering meaningful services and at a much cheaper cost. See Social Security and Medicaid for instance.”
Mike Spindel
Mike:
where are your facts to support this? That is a pretty bold statement. My mother inlaw used to work for Mantech at the Department of Energy and the stories she used to tell were counter to your proposition. I came to the conclusion that Mantech personnel were needed not to supplement government workers but to do the jobs for them. Granted this is an extremely limited observation. But why does the private sector deliver more efficiently in just about every instance you can name except defense? the myth of the over worked and underpaid government worker struggling against gteat odds for the common good is just that a myth.
I am willing to wager that a private sector worker is more productive not because they are better but because the system in which the operate is more efficient and has to be because of competition.
But none of that applies to Wiccans. Everyone knows the only good witch is one you build a bridge out of. This is the age of scientific reason after all.
I kid, I kid! So no curses, eh?
Mike’s A & S.,
S’s summation, is the most basic framework and wholly correct. The question then becomes the best method to combat active intrusion/entanglement/endorsement. If your opponent’s argument is belief based but those very teachings the beliefs are based upon are contrary to their stance, is exploiting that weakness considered denigration? Or is it considered logic? If the line between the two is personal offense, that’s subjective. Personally, I think that the simplicity of Mike S’s “simple argument to [him] is that strict separation of church and state is necessary, in a multi-cultural/multi-religious society because its alternative would of necessity threaten the foundations of both. The second part of this argument is that throughout history, wherever this stricture hasn’t been followed war, chaos and genocide have come to pass” stands on it’s own and needs no defense as the logic and evidence for the statement is both sound and irrefutable. But the argument based in belief has no use for verification nor external logics. This is proven by the twisted forms and content often resorted to. Everyone knows someone who is “logic proof”. So again, the best adversarial tactic is to attack internal inconsistency, because even if you cannot prevail you can create doubt and question, a potential future weakness that could be used to bring them around. But then again one is subject to the whim of subjective personal offense. And no matter how cordially, how carefully, how artfully written or spoken, you WILL offend someone. The question then becomes which is more important? Systemic integrity or feelings about belief? Defending the Separation of Church is far more important than hurt feelings. So where do you suggest the line is drawn? Insulting Islam? Christianity? Buddhism? Sikhism? Jainist? Or do you say that the pragmatic approach is not to discuss religion and politics, especially in combination, if you have no sense of humor or proportion about your own beliefs? It’s the difference between a Mike S., one who has a distinct religious tradition that informs his analysis yet does not bind it – his logic flows freely and he reconciles his beliefs with his reasoning quite well, and a troll locked in a “because it says so in my Book” loop.
Thus I believe it is important that the expression of our objections to faith-based initiatives be properly focused and non-judgmental.”
Mike A.,
Couldn’t agree with you more. One need not denigrate religion to argue against government funding. The simple argument to me is that strict separation of church and state is necessary, in a multi-cultural/multi-religious society because its alternative would of necessity threaten the foundations of both. The second part of this argument is that throughout history, wherever this stricture hasn’t been followed war, chaos and genocide have come to pass.
At the risk of redirecting attention to the subject of this post, I have some observations I’d like to offer.
I attended grades 4 through 6 in a tiny school in an equally tiny village called La Luz, New Mexico. We actually lived about 10 miles outside of town and I rode a school bus each day. After dropping off students at my school, the bus continued into Alamogordo, New Mexico, a few miles further down the road, to drop off students at Alamogordo High School. My sisters at the time attended a Catholic parochial school quite close to the high school in Alamogordo. My mother’s request to permit my sisters to ride the school bus to their parochial school was rejected by the Otero County School Board, a decision which she blamed on latent anti-Catholicism. My father, who had been born and raised in New York, was less upset than my mother. I remember him joking that had Cardinal Spellman, long a proponent of federal funds for parochial schools, simply shut down the parochial school system in the archdiocese, the New York public school system would have collapsed.
At the time I felt that Otero County was being somehow unfair, but at the age of 10 I couldn’t articulate any particularly good reasons for my feelings. It is now fifty years later, and I believe that the Otero County School Board made the right decision.
The theory behind the faith-based initiatives movement is that providing financial assistance to religious groups engaged in valuable social programs provides benefits to the community at large and reduces the financial burden on the government. That is the oft-stated justification, of course. I remain convinced that the idea was originally conceived for the purely cynical purpose of purchasing evangelical votes. But if the idea otherwise makes sense, so what? The problem is that the idea is fraught with constitutional peril.
First, on a practical level, Iraq has taught us (among other things) that the outsourcing of governmental functions to private groups makes it nearly impossible to properly monitor the expenditure of taxpayer monies. Second, we have already had numerous instances of conflicts between government and faith-based organizations over issues relating to such things as religious tests for employees. Indeed, Prof. Turley has had a number of posts on the subject. Third, federal financial assistance to religious groups permits such groups to redirect their own funds to proselytizing and other purely religious functions. Most importantly, however, our common understanding of human nature tells us that taxpayer funds to religious organizations assist those organizations in advocating particular religious viewpoints through the promotion of the programs receiving the funding. I suggest that this is inevitable and that the end result is the use of tax dollars to subsidize religious indoctrination.
I strongly disagree with Pres. Obama’s position on this issue, but I believe that the voices of dissent have been drowned out amidst charges that opponents are simply narrow-minded and harbor unspoken antagonism toward religion in general. Thus I believe it is important that the expression of our objections to faith-based initiatives be properly focused and non-judgmental. If anyone knows how to do that effectively, I could use some lessons.
Jill,
You need to understand that I’m always of two minds when it comes to politics and when it comes to history. One part of me is an iconoclastic cynic, with strong humanist tendencies, who sees all politics and history as the haves screwing the have nots. I always am on the side of the underdog and so I don’t fully trust anyone who is seen as gaining power and suspect that there is a cabal in back of her/him.
The other side is that is as someone who spent years in therapy and years as a trained psychotherapist, I realize that the cynical part of me eventually would leave me in existential despair as to the state of humanity. That despair does neither myself, my family, my friends, nor the world any good. So I repress my cynicism and choose to believe that humanity is on the right path towards a humane world and that my small part of the fight has some meaning beyond my life. What goes along with that is to try to believe in and support our political system. In that respect I have found Obama’s intellect and strategy to be breathtaking. I believe he is a good man who cognizant of the long odds he faces to remake the US into a land of its’ purported ideals, is walking a tightrope. In this respect he truly is like Muhammad Ali, who I referenced in a previous post,
feinting in, out and around his enemies, sowing their confusion and impotence. He seems a true disciple of Saul Alinsky and that I respect.
As to issues like faith-based programs receiving aid I am against it. As a former worker and manager in the social welfare field, both public and non-profit, I truly believe that civil servants out perform all others in delivering meaningful services and at a much cheaper cost. See Social Security and Medicaid for instance. So I disagree with Obama’s stand on this and have already begun sending E mails out.
The problem with politics in general is that people develop conceptions of issues based on their political bent. To my mind to succeed politically one must be a pragmatist, guided by a set of ideals, who is willing to negotiate all but the most basic issues. Those basic issues to me are human rights, dignity and fairness to all. The rest is just policy issues whose validity is really determined via trial and error. I was thinking last night about the Law of Unintended Consequences. not every position we might support will turn out as we expect. That’s why the effective political leader must separate principle from policy.
I apologize for the length of this but when I’m in my idealistic frame of mind I sometimes get carried away. That’s why dyed in the wool Liberals talk so much. In my cynical mind I would just say: All of these politicians are crap and leave it at that.
Mike,
I do really love you (that was hilarioius)! Because of that I’d like to ask you a question. How do you feel about Obama at this time, on the above issue, and on other things that he is doing? I know you are a strong supporter of him and I know you are a thoughtfull person. Do you feel any doubt such as JT mentioned? Are you uneasy about the faith based initatives and waffling on war crimes prosecution, for example?
Bronnie,
You think that you “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” but only Ali could do that and he was the most intelligent fighter ever. Attack/withdraw/counter punch/humility/attack etc.
this is the pattern in your comments. Buddha and I have sliced and diced you from different angles and you somehow still don’t get what’s going on. Yes this is a community, the qualifications though aren’t to be like minded, but to present information clothed
in an interesting fashion. If you notice, even in disagreement we don’t take each other “to school,” but try to present cogent points that rebut what we disagree with in a civil fashion. That IS fun and does get juices flowing because it forces us to use our brains, re-examine our own premises and even at times change our points of view. With you it’s all about strategy and I think with us it is all about content, with a lot of good humor thrown in to boot. This is like a Law School class, with JT as our professor. You can disagree as much as you like as long as the disagreement argument is made logically, cogently and hopefully humorously.
Dennis,
You anti-abortion guys are such hypocrites. You pretend to be pro-life but in all respects other than abortion you are pro killing, pro death and anti-sex. If you are a Christian go back to your bible and you might learn that the most heinous sins are not sex and abortion, but the violation of “The Golden Rule” and the “Ten Commandments.” Neither mentions abortions. However, not taking my name in vain does strongly imply that your phony preachers, pretending to know the Creator’s thoughts on secular matters, are committing blasphemy by imagining that they can understand God’s thinking. If you follow these phonies then you too are a blasphemer and would be by your own beliefs condemned to Hell for eternity.
To Buddha, et. al. You really think I’m one of the “nicest guys on the Internet?” You all love me…you really love me. Sorry, but I’ve always wanted to find a situation where I could use Sally Field’s Oscar line. I’ll accept the comment as my own personal Academy Award.
Dennis,
This is a legal blog. Unless the topic is separation of church and state, the use of God or Heaven as a basis for argument is not only inappropriate but counterproductive. Jesus didn’t write the Constitution. God isn’t American. Those aren’t Saints in the Supreme Court. There is nothing holy about Congress. No one is special or is favorite in His eyes. Believe what you like, but you should learn better when to express it. Why? Belief is not fact and ruling is a job that requires reliance on fact . . . unless you just want to die. You may believe mercury is good for you. The fact is if you eat enough of it you’ll be mad as a hatter. Time and again theocratic reasoning has been soundly trounced in this forum. Why? Because history shows theocracy ends in disaster – there is no RATIONAL defense for it. We have facts and history on the side of reason. Empirical proof. You have that “you believe” in one flavor over the other. That’s a recipe to lose, Dennis. Keep banging your head against the wall if you like – you illustrate perfectly what happens when Christians get it wrong. You don’t believe in abortion? Fine. Don’t have one. But keep your God and your belief off other people’s bodies and lives. Unless you want to feed, clothe and care for all the unwanted/accidental/rape induced/abandoned children of the world. No? Didn’t think so. That Christian charity only goes so far, doesn’t it? Bottom line is it’s not any of your damn business what someone chooses to do with their body and it’s not a human until it can survive UNASSISTED outside the womb – it’s been that way much longer than humans had the science to identify the mechanisms of pregnancy and, duh, it’s still that way today. Why do you think we developed words like “miscarriage” or “stillborn”? Sorry if you don’t like it. Facts don’t provide the warm fuzzy that belief does. But belief does provide nice a fuzzy blanket to hide under.
There is little room in Heaven for a President who doesn’t protect the unborn.
Obama knows that but also knows he needs the pro-abortion vote so he is trying to negotiate his way into Heaven.
I don’t get off the porch to play with children. Get some higher level of skill than you are currently assessed at and then I’ll be glad to savage you on ANY topic. But not until you’ve proven you can act like an adult . . . a feat which I’ll stipulate I don’t think you are capable of. I’ll give you a chance if you prove yourself worthy.
So let’s be clear about this.
Your arguments need to become 1) cogent and on topic, 2) no more “who’s your daddy” juvenile bullshit when you can’t counter a logic or a fact, 3) arguments should show creative thought in both analysis and application – no lazy arguments – any monkey can copy and paste, related to this you need to learn the difference between citing and plagiarizing – show your reasoning, the basis for it and defend it factually and logically when attacked – if your premises are faulty that’s just your bad luck, 4) no more appeals to the divine – that’s amateur night – stay grounded in fact, not belief – if you are compelled to talk good vs. evil use an ethical framework, 5) you must best any other two regulars within the given parameters above in arguments of any length but the argument must be completed in a single thread – off topic and otherwise non-conforming arguments will not count – Neocon talking points are right out (no propaganda, so for your sake avoid political arguments), 6) there will be no deviation from the rules – zero tolerance – act like a troll once TO ANYONE and it’s off, 8) you must complete your task by midnight, Friday, January 30, 2009, 9) I am the final arbiter of what constitutes a win subject to appeals from regulars in good standing (you know who you are). Then you’ll have the MINIMUM skill required. Otherwise it would be like a gorilla beating on a child. Should by some crazy chance you prevail, mespo can assign a topic and sides.
This is JT’s playground, but you want to play on my jungle gym, you play by my rules – you don’t like it? Tough. If you think you get to start shit AND dictate the rules you should lay off the crack pipe.
Those are the terms.
This is not a negotiation.
You wanted in the deep end, sport.
Sink or swim, but sharks patrol these waters. Good luck. You’re going to need it. But I predict I am done with you, chum. You lack both the willpower and the skill. Your very nature will be your undoing. My evidence? Every post you’ve made to this point.
It may be that we need to turn to Congress to rein in our President on this particular front. With the gains by the Democrats in the last election cycle, perhaps the budget of this office can be “zeroed out.”
Queen,
In my opinion it is a way of keeping/gaining voters, nothing more. The money given to faith based charities would be better spent on hiring decently paid govt. workers who must follow the law both in hiring practices and in distribution of benefits.
Many of these churches are quite wealthy and most certainly could afford their own programs. They should get cracking. Sure the spiritual leader might have to give up a house or two, but what the hell!