Rick Santorum didn't just run against Harris Wofford for the U.S. Senate seat from Pennsylvania--he mocked him. Santorum ridiculed Wofford's interest in national service (a bunch of people singing "Kumbaya") and implied that his opponent was an out-of-touch, free-spending liberal.
I was personally offended, as I considered Wofford to be one of the greatest public servants of our time. (He was an aide to Martin Luther King, President Kennedy, a longtime advocate of service and civil rights). Who was this mean-spirited, smirky guy to denigrate someone who'd given so much?
So I was more than a bit surprised to see that Wofford and Santorum had teamed up for a project to find common ground on the issue of faith-based and community service. When I asked Wofford, "How could you?" he gave me a knowing smile that seem to say, "Someday you'll be old enough to understand that you can accomplish more in life seeking agreement than nursing grudges."
When Wofford, with whom I worked for a while when he was CEO of the Corporation for National Service, asked me to serve on this commission in my capacity as co-founder of the multifaith media business, Beliefnet, I was too curious to say no.
On one level, this common-ground group on faith-based service-which today releases its recommendations--was a failure. They did not, in fact, come up with breakthrough agreements on the most contentious issues-whether religiously oriented charities should be forced to hire gays if that contradicted their religious views, and whether programs that proselytize should get federal funding.
But as I sat through these meetings listening to utterly civil discussions among people who regularly sue each other--people from the ACLU seated side by side with religious conservatives--I realized that the "hot button" issues and what's important are often two different things.
When it comes to helping religiously oriented charities, this dynamic is also true. The question of whether government should help "faith-saturated" programs--e.g. programs for which preaching the gospel is an important part of the charity's approach--is symbolically of huge importance. It relates to the Constitution and religious freedom. As a practical matter, though, a tiny percentage of programs would be affected by such a provision. Same with the issue of employment discrimination. Forcing religions to hire people if it goes against their religious beliefs is symbolically monumental. But very few groups ever even confront such a dilemma.
Politicians tend to focus on these sorts of contentious issues because they're politically more likely to energize their constituencies; interest groups tend to focus on these because they're trained to be vigilant against worst-case scenarios (and want to help their direct-mail fund-raising); and lawyers tend to focus on these because they are intellectually interesting and grist for lawsuits aplenty.
For instance, many foundation and corporate philanthropies have rules against providing grants even to non-controversial charities with a religious connection. If they'd reassess their guidelines, we'd probably see a big increase in the grants going to faith-based charities from private foundations.