EDITORIAL
'Compassion Capital' should be for that alone

Perhaps the greatest immediate worry about a "faith-based" social help initiative that has emerged here in the Islands is whether it is sustainable.

This is a pilot program, launched by President Bush, who has had difficulty getting his faith-based programs through Congress. Once the money runs out, will those who applied for the grants be able to sustain their programs? And if so, how?

The work that the churches are doing is fundamental social service: feeding and caring for the hungry, the homeless and unemployed.

It is work that — in the best of all possible worlds — our government (in other words, society as a whole) would be handling directly. But realistically, that is not possible. That's where volunteer organizations step in.

Bush is targeting $30 million nationally, primarily to one particularly active form of volunteer organization: churches and religious groups. Some $300,000 has made it to Hawai'i, matched by the Hawai'i Community Foundation.

Thus far, all 13 faith-based groups that have received money have been Christian, although there is no prohibition against other faiths applying as well.

In fact, the application process is supposed to be blind to the particular faith of the organization.

But that cuts both ways. It means those awarding the grant cannot ask anything about the religious nature of the activities being offered.

All this meets an obvious pressing need. But there is a problem if it is not managed well.

The strongest objections to programs of this sort have been over fears that they use federal tax dollars (our money) to support religious worship and proselytizing of those who receive service.

The rules of the "Compassion Capital" program specifically forbid such activities. But the lines can get blurry. Some church groups, for instance, invite recipients to pray on a voluntary basis.

What is needed is a clear, bright line between the worthy work of feeding and caring for the needy and the religious work of these organizations. There must be rules against "transference" in which the federal money is substituted for money already being spent, thus freeing up cash for additional religious work.

We need transparency, accountability and a promise that that bright line will not be crossed. If it is, the losers will be those who are now being served.

If every citizen were not in need, there would be no need for any faith-based initiative. The churches would go their way and government would go its way.

But that's not the case. If there are religious groups with big hearts and a willingness to help their fellow citizens, they deserve support. The key is accountability.

Feeding the poor is one thing. Using our tax dollars to further the religious goals of any organization is another. It's unacceptable.