Both Sides with Jesse Jackson

Can Religious Programs Solve America's Social Ills?

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JESSE JACKSON, HOST: Welcome to BOTH SIDES.

President-elect George W. Bush wants religious programs to play a substantially bigger role in solving America's social ills.

This past week, he met with a multiracial, multireligious group of ministers from around the country to talk about his administration's plans for faith-based programs. Will an emphasis on those programs really do the job of helping those in need? Does the president-elect stand to gain politically from this approach -- voters who did not vote for him.

We're going to talk about both issues today with my guests. Joining me from Jackson, Mississippi, is the Reverend Dr. Welton Gaddy, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization of religious leaders. And here in Washington is professor Ronald Walters. He is a professor of political science, University of Maryland.

Welcome both of you to the program.

We'll begin our discussion in a moment, but first some background from John Bisney.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN BISNEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): President-elect George W. Bush revisited the compassionate conservative message of his campaign this past week by hosting a gathering of ministers from around the country. The subject of the meeting was the role religious organizations might play in providing social services now largely funded by the federal government.

Bush has said he wants his government to have an office of faith- based action to in part remove regulations that prevent religious groups from taking part in federal social programs.

But some political observers say Bush's meeting with the ministers could have another purpose: to try to win over African- American voters who voted against him by a ration of nine to one.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT-ELECT OF THE UNITED STATES: My hope is that the people who may not have supported me get to know me, they realize that I am just as intent upon being a good president for them as for those folks who supported me.

BISNEY: But one minister who attended the meeting said it's African-American leaders who now must extend an olive branch to Bush.

REV. EUGENE RIVERS, TEN POINTS COALITION: The civil rights industry leadership now has to confront the fact that they led their electorate into putting 97 percent of their eggs in one basket, the basket got knocked on the floor, and so now there must be a new conversation.

BISNEY: Some political observers say Bush's focus on faith-based programs could help him find common ground with African-American voters. That theory along with proposals to give religious programs more responsibility to solve America's social problems will be tested in the coming months.

For BOTH SIDES, I'm John Bisney.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JACKSON: Reverend Gaddy, this week President-Elect Bush...

REV. WELTON GADDY, INTERFAITH ALLIANCE: Yes.

KING: ... met with faith-based ministers. What do you expect will come out of such a meeting?

GADDY: Reverend Jackson, I don't know what will come pout of it. My suspicion is this is the beginning of a discussion of the president-elect's emphasis on a partnership between faith-based organizations and government. I certainly favor, welcome enthusiastically the idea of a lively dialogue between religion and government, partnership between faith-based organizations and government.

I must say, however, that I do have some grave concerns about abiding by constitutional principles in that dialogue and being certain that the partnership remains a dynamic partnership, not an institutional union of religion and government that I think causes all kinds of problems.

JACKSON: So are you sensitive to the government funneling money to churches to carry out social programs? Is that what you're saying?

GADDY: I am sensitive to that. And though I have not heard the president-elect speak on this matter recently, I have read the materials on compassionate conservatism, primarily produced by Marvin Aleske (ph), the materials that Mr. Bush has endorsed.

And I must say that I think there is a risk in the full adoption of the agenda laid out by Mr. Aleske because of grave constitutional issues that could be major problems for our government and society.

JACKSON: Dr. Ron Waters, what does charitable choice churches mean? PROF. RON WATERS, POLITICAL ANALYST: Well first, I think, Reverend Jackson, the whole attempt to meet with faith-based organizations, going around legitimate African-American leaders, really ought to be called into question. Because that's sort of like going in the side door of the black community and not going in the front door.

So right up front I think we ought to say that was wrong. That was a tactical error on the part of George Bush to do that.

KING: You mean when he met with congressional leaders in Washington but didn't include the congressional black and Hispanic caucus, congressional leaders, met with religious leaders first, that is suggested to you?

WATERS: That's right, because that's -- that's kind of like winning an election, coming to Washington and meeting with the cardinal or meeting with the head of the Washington Cathedral before you meet with the president or the Congress. No one would do that. They would meet with the political leaders. And our community, our community has a leadership structure with some integrity.

(through translator): So what does charitable choice programs mean? define that for us.

WATERS: Charitable choice programs are a way of trying to get faith-based institutions involved in social programming with tax dollars. Now this is the continuation of an attempt really sponsored by the right being as part of the 1994 emergence of the conservative movement, Contract with America, trying to steer social programming away from the government and toward faith-based institutions.

The other interesting thing is that they have said that they cannot shoulder this load, even if they're funded by the government., by themselves.

KING: Dr. Gaddy, did not the people like...

GADDY: Yes.

JACKSON: ... begin to suggest a few years ago that they had gotten too close to the government and they ruin the risk of their prophetic independence?

GADDY: Well that was several years ago, Reverend Jackson. It was at a place when they felt outside the process. I don't think you've heard that kind of complaint coming from the religious right in recent years. As a matter of fact, you hear the impetus from Pat Robertson, from Jerry Falwell, to become closer and closer to government institutionally in an effort to advance their agenda. Because government can be a tool of that.

But let me add to what Dr. Waters said about the meaning of charitable choice. In some interpretations of that, it becomes particularly disturbing. Charitable choice as it's on the books right now means that faith-based organizations can apply for government funds to deliver social services right alongside secular organizations and other agencies and that they will be treated equally in consideration of whether or not they get the money.

One interpretation of that which is law in the state of Wisconsin goes a step further, and this step further has been quoted on the floor of the United States Congress from time to time. The Wisconsin law says when there is a proposal by a faith-based organization and a secular organization, that preferential treatment ought to be given to the faith-based organization.

I think there is a great fallacy in the assumption that faith- based organizations automatically, inherently deliver services better than other organizations. Drug rehabilitation is an example. Sure, the faith-based organization has something to say about the importance of spiritual discipline, pastoral counsel in drug rehabilitation. However, a faith-based organization is not automatically able to address the chemical issues and other psychiatric issues. I think it's a very dangerous assumption.

JACKSON: We're going to come right back and talk more about the role of faith-based organizations and the George W. Bush administration.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: Dr. Waters, George W. Bush lost the African-American community nine to one. Did the black community miss something?

WATERS: Well they didn't miss anything. I think what they understood very clearly was the message that was coming across in the battleground states and other [places that you cannot go down to Bob Jones and talk in an atmosphere there where people are talking about racism and expect the black vote, that you cannot go for vouchers and expect the black vote, you cannot be insensitive to the James Byrd family and expect it.

So there were a number of things that came out of the primary in the election year which said the black voters clearly, I think, once everything came down, understood who George Bush was. And they didn't like what they saw, and, therefore, they voted 90 percent against him.

JACKSON: Dr. Gaddy, do you think there's some attempt to use faith-based organizations as a substitute for public policy?

GADDY: Reverend Jackson, I think one of the things that we've seen rising in American politics in recent years is an effort to use either the language of faith or the institutions of faith to accomplish political goals. That certainly is the methodology of the religious right.

I think it's probably too early. We did have the incidents tat Dr. Walters just talked about in the primaries. I think it's too early to make a judgment for me on the way this administrations is going to go. But I think even to hold out this particular option early on raises questions about whether or not there is a serious understanding of the meaning of religion in the nation, of the diversity of religion in the nation.

I think the president-elect, and particularly if he pursues this path, has got to be aware of the multiplicity of faith traditions in this nation, some of which are doing great work on the delivery of social services but would not identify themselves as/or identify with the terminology of faith based, because that's not terminology in their tradition.

JACKSON: Dr. Waters, you know, we live in our faith. We live under the law. That's really what Dr. King brought to the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We had lots of faith going back to the bus. The law had to change. We had faith but didn't have the right to vote. People have faith fault to change the public policy. Is there any effort here by Mr. Bush to address the public policy issues that drove blacks against his -- voting for him nine to one?

WATERS: Well not by doing, as Reverend Gaddy says, and that is bringing this issue out first, out front. And one wonders why one would lead with this particular issue. Because when you look at that version of charitable choice that's in the community renewal act which was just passed as a part of the budget reconciliation, what it says in effect is that you can use tax dollars to promote the religious symbols of an organization because you can accept those tax dollars. And you don't have to change the religious symbols of the organization that's using them.

So in effect, you're using tax dollars to promote a particular brand of religion.

Now there's been a court case on that in Cleveland, the 6th District there, that found this unconstitutional. The bridge -- bridging the separation of church and state.

The other flip side of that, of course, is that there are a lot of churches who would want to use tax dollars who perhaps will find themselves in terms of the linkage between government and their books exposed. Because government, they're going to have a right to come in and audit their books and do other kinds of thins.

So that bridge between separation of church and state was established there for a reason, and many Americans simply object to opening up religious institutions like that and to promoting religion through the use of tax dollars.

JACKSON: Dr. Gaddy, for six weeks we've been torn apart now by issues of voting irregularities, voting illegalities, need for hate crime legislation, election law reform, campaign finance reform. Do you ever bring up these kind of public policy issues to a group of ministers, per se?

GADDY: Do I ever bring them up? Absolutely...

JACKSON: No, do you think Mr. Bush -- would Mr. Bush bring up these issues... GADDY: Oh, would Mr. Bush bring them up.

JACKSON: ... in the meetings such as this. Is it designed to address these very real issues?

GADDY: Reverend Jackson, I think whether it happened in the initial meeting or not, it has to happen. There is a lot of talk now about how to handle the division in the nation. And there's an awful lot of conversation going about healing and facilitating unity. All of our scriptural traditions and oral traditions tell us in all of the religions that in order to accomplish healing you have to deal with wounds. And not only do you have to deal with wounds you have to deal with what caused the wounds.

You can accomplish a superficial kind of unity and talk enthusiastically about healing. But until we deal with the wounds that are gaping open as a result of what happened in the election and as a part of the ongoing injustice in the land and then address what's causing the wounds, nobody's going to listen or take very seriously what's been said about healing. I'm for healing, but I'm for it being a comprehensive process.

JACKSON: So you're point really is that you need to have healing but you have to take the glass at the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

We'll be right back...

GADDY: Absolutely, and you have -- go ahead.

JACKSON: We'll be right back and talk more about the role of faith-based organizations in the new administration.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: Dr. Waters, early on President-elect Bush appointed General Colin Powell the secretary of state, a general to be our chief negotiator, our chief diplomat; Dr. Condoleezza Rice National Security Council chief. What does this mean to African-Americans?

WATERS: Well I think if we tie it into the discussion we're having about charitable choice, I have a theory about that. And that is that this might not be about charitable choice at all. This may be a way of skimming off a certain group of leaders in the African- American community. Some of them, of course, have the kind of social programs that make them amenable to this, but it's a way of the Bush administration positioning itself with a certain group of leaders in our community.

Now Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice may fall into that. I think that Colin Powell, because of his position on affirmative action, he is for affirmative action...

JACKSON: But the administration has a different position. President-elect Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott all are anti- affirmative action and Colin Powell is for affirmative action. Do you think there will be a clash?

WATERS: I think that there will be because -- and it takes a lot of courage to stand on the stage of the Republican convention like he did twice and say, I'm a Republican -- oh, by the way I also agree with affirmative action. So I don't think he's going to lose that necessarily as secretary of state. The capacity to have a Colin Powell who thinks that way I think is going to be very good because I think we saw even in the conservative Congress they were unable to eliminate affirmative action.

JACKSON: Dr. Gaddy, is it clear to ministers who take this step of relating to part of the political order in that you judge the biblical leaders by their budget priorities and by their [public policy and not by forms of symbolism?

GADDY: Absolutely, and it's much like healing. I think the success of this administration is not going to be in the rhetoric or in the symbols of unity. It's going to be in the hard policy decisions that have to be made, whether or not the White House can facilitate a working relationship with Congress and whether or not the new president can bring along his own party in addressing issues of economic justice, of hate crimes, of all the issues that were talked about during the campaign.

What I don't want to see, as a person of faith myself, in charitable choice or in the proposed faith-based office in the White House, I don't want the government taking the role in telling religious leaders what they ought to be doing and what they should do.

And I never have known of a single instance in which government funding was not followed by government regulations. You're going to have politicians deciding who gets the money to do faith-based social services. I think something's terribly out of whack with that.

JACKSON: We'll be right back with a few on a very critical issue" Shall we in fact have the prophet making claims to the politician, the politicians dictating to the prophetic tradition?

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: Dr. Gaddy, with all the talk about race, most poor people in America are whiter, female and young. Whether white, black or brown, all people matter. And there are 40 million Americans who have no health insurance, 1,500 a day who die from cancer. So Mr. Bush makes it his priority a $1-point trillion tax break. What does that leave for you to address the issues that matter to you?

GADDY: Reverend Jackson, I think all faith-based people, all religious people have to think seriously about the place of money in our lives and the place of money in our nation.

The difficulty of that, as you well know, is that there's a tinge of selfishness that gets into the conversation. But I think it's imperative that faith-based leaders help people understand that there is something better to be done in this nation than to simply put a few dollars in our pockets as a result of a massive tax cut, when the kinds of problems that you've just described scream for attention.

One of the issues that I want to reiterate here -- we've talked about the constitutional problems, we've talked about racial problems with what's going on in the new president's proposals -- the integrity of religion itself is at stake here. And we don't want a partnership with government that silences the prophetic voice of religion and keeps us from pushing the core values of the prophetic tradition in all faith traditions, because those are the values that can rally this nation and cause us not only to experience healing but address the wounds that are screaming for healing among the people you've described.

JACKSON: Thank you, Dr. Gaddy.

Ron, just in a nutshell, explain what Dr, Gaddy just said. How does that ring with you as a layman?

WATERS: Well I think that what we ought to keep in mind is that this rather cynical attempt to continue to shove from the government its basic responsibility to poor people should be stopped.

Public opinion polls without question have all said that the American people support the responsibility of the government of the United States to program for poor people. And this has been an attempt on the part of conservatives to remove that responsibility. And I think that we should recognize it for what it is.

JACKSON: Dr. Waters, thank you. And thank you, Dr. Gaddy.

At the end of the day, we must defend the poor and deliver the needy and make room for all Americans.

That's all for this week's program. Be back next week with another important program at 5:30 p.m. Eastern.

Thanks for watching, have a happy holiday season and keep hope alive.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com