That seems to be the question underneath the Pew Forum's new study showing that President Obama's re-introduction of the Faith-Based Office has received far less press coverage than President Bush's original program 8 years ago, when significant questions were asked about the propriety of faith-based funding and the creation of a White House Office designed to facilitate it.
So, does the lack of coverage – hence the lack of questioning – mean that detractors concede the point? Faith-based funding is now a-ok?
No. And here are four reasons why that should not be the conclusion drawn from this study:
1. As the Pew analysis aptly points out, the news and political landscape in the first half of 2001 was dramatically different than the first half of this year. Recession and troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan (and, dare I say, smaller newspapers) leave little space for coverage of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighbordhood Partnerships. In fact, given those things it's surprising the 2009 line in the Pew graph even crossed the 10% barrier in February and March.
2. The jury is still out. Some of the controversies are not brewing because President Obama's implementation of the program may not have reached its final form. One task force of the new Faith Advisory Council is undertaking a review of the structure and policies of the office. Until their recommendations take shape, and the President's reaction to them is gauged, advocates – whose noise level drive the coverage anyway – seem willing to wait on the sidelines somewhat to see what comes. As for the one contentious issue the task force will not address – that of discrimination in hiring – we are either waiting on the President to announce a new policy, or have been successfully side-stepped by a rule of individual review, depending on who you ask.
3. The White House has obviously tried to remove the priority of funding from its primary faith-based rhetoric, with Josh Dubois claiming the Office will be pushing "issues over dollars." This has helped re-focus the coverage of the Office accordingly (and is a welcome re-emphasis), but has not resolved the problem of funding.
4. Courts have not helped push the issue as a constitutional concern. After the Hein decision, even bringing a challenge to the tax funding of religious organizations has become far more difficult. And those that have made it – I'm thinking of the suit against the city of Detroit for funding the renovation of church buildings as part of a beautification plan – have been rejected by judges in recent years.
To be clear, governent funding of religious organizations without requirements to: a) establish a separate entity to maintain a distinction between religious and secular functions and b) refrain from using tax money to pay for jobs that discriminate in hiring remain a problem and from where I sit pose a significant legal, religious and civic controversy. Once the Administration further develops its stance on these issues, and/or the right constitutional challenge raises the issue squarely in court, the issue will return to the forefront of debate, and news coverage will follow.
