Related articles and links |  1 of 2

The economic crisis is fueling a rapid expansion of government control over banks and industries—and soon, perhaps, over health care, which alone amounts to one-sixth of America's gnp. This transfer of responsibilities raises cautionary flags, especially for Christians.

The concept of the balance of powers comes directly from Christian doctrines. The Reformers introduced the idea of sphere sovereignty, which holds that government's role is limited so that other spheres—family, church, and voluntary associations—are free to exercise their authority. Similarly, Catholic social teaching embraced the principle of subsidiarity, arguing that services should be delivered by the agencies closest to recipients.

In both traditions, the state's power is limited by intermediate structures, which act as brakes on all-powerful government. But the expanding reach of government can threaten voluntary associations, what English philosopher Edmund Burke called "the little platoons."

For instance, in establishing the new White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, Obama did not include the Bush-era tacit exemption from federal non-discrimination in hiring requirements for faith-based ministries. Joshua DuBois, who heads the office, said they will handle this issue on a case-by-case basis while deciding whether to change federal rules. Sounds reasonable—but who would risk money and credibility on an outreach program that may later be deemed illegal?

Moreover, many aids shelters and homeless facilities are run by Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army, which depend partly on government funds. But if the Obama administration orders these groups to hire applicants who do not share their religious beliefs, the ministries are likely to renounce the funds rather than comply. America's poor would initially suffer; later, taxpayers would, when they are forced to pay for services.

A second threat to the church is the proposal to eliminate a conscience clause that allows doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to refuse to provide "care" (that is, abortions) or drugs that violate their consciences. Killing the conscience clause would weaken Christians' role in providing health care and compromise health-care providers' First Amendment rights.

The White House also wants to reduce the charitable gift tax deduction for wealthy donors. The Tax Policy Center says this would have the unintended consequence of reducing charitable giving by $9 billion.

Why would anyone want to weaken the little platoons that run our churches, schools, charities, and think tanks, and furnish services to the poor and suffering? Part of the answer: Government bureaucrats—I know, I was one—have a voracious appetite for power. They want to control vast sums of money.

We see the same trend toward government control in education. Congress is letting vouchers for 1,700 poor kids in the District of Columbia expire. These vouchers got kids out of some of America's worst public schools and into safe private ones. Why would Congress do this? Instead of vouchers, Obama and most Democrats favor charter schools, which are government institutions—and thus acceptable to teachers' unions and bureaucrats.

Perhaps the most important intermediate structure—the family—will be irreparably damaged if our courts impose same-sex "marriage" by judicial fiat, as in Iowa, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. In Scandinavian countries that recognized same-sex unions, heterosexual marriages immediately declined. With the exclusivity of marriage eliminated, couples evidently see little point in tying the knot—which means more children born out of wedlock. For 33 years I have witnessed in our prisons the consequences of family breakdown: a flood of dysfunctional and often dangerous kids.

next page... |  1 of 2

share this page

June 2009, Vol. 53, No. 6, Page 64