|
Returning to the White House: A Frank Talk With John DiIulio
By Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
Minaret of Freedom Institute
01/08/2001
Although the White House still hasn't explained the mysterious ejection of Congressional intern Abdullah al-Arian from a briefing on faith-based initiatives three weeks ago, they have apologized, and on July 25th a contingent of Muslim community leaders returned to the White House (well, actually, the Old Executive Office Building) and were warmly greeted. Not only was no one ejected, but I was admitted with a minimum of delay despite the fact that Muslim organizers neglected to submit my name in advance.
The most impressive thing about the meeting was the frankness and candor of the discussion. The Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, University of Pennsylvania Professor John J. DiIulio, Jr., has none of the baggage of political appointees. A Democrat appointed to a Republican cabinet, he seemed more interested in the mission of his office than in the political atmosphere around him. He knows he doesn't know much about the Muslim community and wants to learn.
First, DiIulio summarized his reasons for getting involved in the faith-based initiative. Ninety percent of mosques, synagogues, and churches, etc., provide social services, almost always on a shoestring budget. DiIulio said, that in the past, he had "became a beggar for these organizations." He emphasized that even though the law says nothing against allowing religious organizations to participate in government-funded social service programs, regulations and informal policies formed barriers.
Former U.S. president Bill Clinton's "charitable choice" reforms established the policy that religious organizations should be treated no differently than secular organizations. Both major party candidates in last year's election advocated encouragement of model programs, being especially supportive of technical assistance that would help religious groups obtain assistance to overcome hurdles (like obtaining tax-exemption) that stand in the way of parity with secular groups already receiving federal assistance. President George W. Bush, for his part, has spoken of "leveraging support" and "welcoming the godly back to the public square."
Legislation passed the House of Representatives in July, mainly on party lines, containing both charitable choice and tax provisions, but according to DiIulio, "no new civil rights law" emerged. No new funds were provided for social service, with only $50 million for technical assistance.
DiIulio made it clear that this is the president's signature initiative, it is not a political issue for him and that he will not back down from it. Then the Muslims spoke.
Salam al-Marayati, of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), emphasized that divine religion is revealed to establish justice, but that there is a perception that this is a Christian Evangelical initiative for their own benefit. He quoted one of the founding fathers of the United States, James Madison: "religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with, the aid of government." In addition, like all other Muslim participants present, he emphasized that a Muslim should be part of the staff of the new office. DiIulio replied by noting the critical reception the initiative received from certain Evangelicals, and asserted that this initiative was not for the benefit of any one religious group.
Nihad Awad, of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), noted that Bush's most important promise to U.S. Muslims was that they become inclusive, and W. Mahdi Bray, also of MPAC, echoed the call for Muslim participation by noting that, "God is an equal opportunity employer." DiIulio explained that the Office has only been in existence for six months, and promised that over the next six months the absence of a Muslim on staff would be addressed, reciting the motto, "Methodist, Muslim, Mormon and people of no faith at all."
I was there representing the Minaret of Freedom Institute and insisted that any Muslim appointment should be to a significant position with input on policy, not just a "for show" appointment. Khalid Turaani, of American Muslims for Jerusalem (AMJ), restated the point by asserting that when Muslims come into the White House they are not interested in hearing the history of the room they're visiting, rather Muslims are interested in serious policy issues. DiIulio assured those present that the appointment would be significant.
Apart from the concern that Muslims be included at the policy-making level, and in any programs that may result from or be affected by, the faith-based legislation, two very important other issues were raised. One is the fact that the House passed legislation giving churches the opportunity to be grantors of government funds, as well as recipients. This new wrinkle is extremely threatening to Muslim organizations that are too small and too new to expect to become grantors, and thus whose share of the funds allocated under the initiative would be in the hands of Christian and Jewish groups who might be in the drivers seat. There is also a racial dimension in that it threatens the independence of many small black churches that would have to depend on larger white Christian churches for their share of funds.
Finally, contrary to DiIulio's claim that the initiative contains "no new civil rights law," there is a great controversy over the extension of the "Title VII" anti-discrimination law exemption to faith-based social work. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in hiring on the basis of religious grounds. An exemption was made for faith-based organizations for obvious reasons. Why should a Catholic Church be forced to hire a Buddhist priest or a give a position as a nun to a Hindu?
Many Americans, however, oppose extending this exemption to the hiring of people dishing out soup or counseling battered women where the religious affiliation of the employee is of no direct significance to the job. While most people would agree that a church (or mosque) should be able to discriminate according to religion when it is using its own money (which is the case under the existing Title VII exemptions), a national poll by the Pew Charitable Trust in the U.S. has shown that an overwhelming majority of Americans object to such a exemption where "government money" pays the bill.
But, as Abdulwahab Alkebsi of the Islamic Institute (II) explained in objecting to the reference to public money as government money since the government's money comes from taxpayers: "It's not the government's money, it's my money."
|
