The name of the organization is not important, nor those of the people involved. It happened many years ago.
As a reporter, I was assigned to cover the groundbreaking for a new, privately funded complex that was going to provide charitable services statewide.
As it happened, a public official was invited to step to the microphone at the event and, being a good public official, that's precisely what he did. He was so enthused about the good work that was going to take place on the site that he immediately pledged to have legislation written to provide public money to help out.
I happened to be looking at the executive director of the charity at that moment. A look of panic spread across his face. The public official was hustled off the makeshift stage. Later, I asked the obvious. "Off the record, we could use the dollars," the director answered, "but not the strings attached to them."
This surprised me, a novice. If a person wants to help others, what difference does the source of the cash make? Is it not true that the more money, the more good deeds can be done?
Years later I was in Germany with a group of newspaper writers. We visited several cities, large and small. Tours of local cathedrals were a must. When we bopped into one ancient structure on a Sunday morning, I was worried that we'd interrupt a service. But the church was essentially empty, I asked the obvious. "Germany has the lowest rate of church attendance among all modern nations," our guide said. Why? "Well, the government subsidizes the churches; clergy are actually state employees -- and a lot of people resent it, resent the church tax."
In America, every time a discussion of relations between religion and government arises, there's an unspoken assumption that keeping church and state separate works against the interests of the church.
For instance, many a mayor in Mississippi has been reluctant to put up a manger scene at city hall at Christmas, lest the ACLU come calling. Even though the most recent (and thoroughly nonsensical) edict from the U.S. Supreme Court on the topic says that displaying Jesus and Mary is OK so long as they are balanced out by Frosty and Rudolph, few mayors will run the risk. So, doesn't leaving religious symbols out of such displays boost commercialism? Perhaps. Doesn't it diminish Christianity? No. Not really.
The last thing any denomination in America should want is a dime of money that didn't come to church operations or to the work of the church from a donor's absolutely free will. Ancient history and modern Europe, or at least parts of it, provide proof that the best way to kill religion is to make it a government agency.
President Bush has been hot on the idea of establishing an office of faith-based initiatives in the White House. Some say this is just a ploy to ingratiate himself to those on the religious right who supported his candidacy. Others, who see the new president as a pragmatist, see the approach as practical.
What the president says -- and what is true beyond question -- is that in virtually all areas of "good deeding" there are church-initiated programs and there are government programs. Without exception, the church programs get better results with fewer dollars than the government programs.
A few years ago, the Methodist-operated Good Shepherd Community Center in Vicksburg was turning out GED graduates in its literacy program -- proud and ready to tackle life -- for a few dollars each. At the same time, state auditors were trying to figure out why the same type program at Ole Miss had thousands of tax dollars disappearing and few, if any, students achieving high school equivalency diplomas.
Free health clinics administered by government are often awash in waste and inefficiency while those run by churches get people well.
Want more? If the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's stated mission was to keep poor people poor and miserable, it couldn't have done a better job. On the other hand, Habitat for Humanity lifts people up.
This new president wants to get church efforts and government efforts more closely aligned because, he thinks, government programs need to be more effective, too.
In response, most critics are saying Bush is putting the Constitution in danger.
But somebody needs to think about what this would do to churches.
This is no anti-government diatribe. Mississippi and other states have lots of good programs, health insurance for children for example, that are excellent and not used enough.
But ask yourself this: When Thomas Jefferson first used those words in his letter, speculating about the need for a "wall of separation" between government and religion, was he trying to protect one of them -- or both?
What churches and faith-based groups have in common is that their charitable work is results-oriented. It's not a criticism -- and again it doesn 't mean government programs cannot be effective -- but their orientation is different.
If churches and church programs start getting government money, they will essentially become agencies of government, and despite efforts to avoid it, become dependent on public dollars, and be filing a lot of forms instead of providing services.
It's in the interest of churches to avoid government entanglements at least as much as it is in the interest of government to stay out of matters of faith.
By the way, that statewide charity facility I was talking about? Still going strong. Has served hundreds. Not a dime of public money.