Why not? First, because faith-based organizations cannot solve large-scale, ingrained social problems like the lack of decent education and health care available to the poor. In any case, religious communities have priorities other than solving social problems. They tend either to direct their aid primarily to members of their own flock, or to tie it to a mission of spreading their churches' teachings.

Second, many religious groups accomplish good social ends while simultaneously promoting doctrines that are morally unsavory and politically dangerous.

Finally, it is inappropriate for aid to the poor to be given merely out of compassion. The poor deserve not to be poor. The basic means necessary to secure equality of opportunity--universal health care, high quality education and the like--is something the poor are owed by justice rather than charity. They should neither be forced to feel grateful to their helpers nor should their helpers congratulate themselves on their wonderful generosity or compassion. The anonymous procedures of state organizations are the best way to make sure that equality of opportunity is seen as a right, not a mere gift.

The man President Bush has chosen to run his experiment with this faith-based approach, John DiIulio Jr., is a thoughtful and careful political scientist, and he may find a way of making these charities complement other welfare programs. But he has a difficult task. The idea could easily become a baleful distraction, adding little to the struggle against poverty while strengthening intolerant religions and contributing to the decline of the notion that justice, not charity, gives us reason to end poverty.

And that, after all, is not just a secular teaching but a deeply rooted religious one.

Sam Fleischacker is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times

###