A D D R E S S B Y

Dr. John J. DiIulio, Jr.

Director, Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

W I T H C O M M E N T S B Y

Reverend Dr. Floyd H. Flake

APRIL 4, 2001

Funding for this lecture was generously provided by

The John Templeton Foundation

C E N T E R F O R C I V I C I N N O V A T I O NAAAAA T T H E M A N H AT T H E M A N H AT T H E M A N H AT T H E M A N H AT T H E M A N H A T TT TT TT TT T A N I N S T I T U T EA N I N S T I T U T EA N I N S T I T U T EA N I N S T I T U T EA N I N S T I T U T E

C C i

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The State of Religion and Public Life

2001 FIRST ANNUAL LECTURE

The Manhattan Institute is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization.Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

EIN #13-2912529

TH E JE R E M I AH PRO J E C T

The Manhattan Institute’s Jeremiah Project is an effort to study, promote and replicate the work inner-city ministers are doing in reducing youth violence and restoring civil society to urban communitiesacross America.

Dr. John DiIulio founded the project while he was a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Throughthis effort, the Institute conducts research, hosts conferences and shares information on these faith-based organizations in order to highlight and replicate the most successful efforts around the country.We methodically research their efficacy in the areas of youth violence, drug addiction, teenage preg-nancy, illiteracy, joblessness and other social ills that remain so heavily concentrated in predominantlyminority, inner-city neighborhoods.

Our 1998 conference, Can Churches Save the Inner City?, highlighted scientific evidence showingthat religious belief and involvement reduces juvenile criminality. In 1999, we featured five success-ful Washington, D.C.–based ministries at Faith-Based Approaches to Saving Our Capital’s Youth, anevent we co-sponsored with Empower America. And in 2000, we joined Reverend Herbert H. Lusk,II of the Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia to host a roundtable entitled ReligiousLeaders in the Public Square.

The Project has also released five studies analyzing the positive impact faith-based organizations arehaving in urban America and the effects of religious belief on juvenile crime and drug use. Thesestudies are available online at www.manhattan-institute.org.

Dr. DiIulio was required to leave the Project when he entered government to head the new WhiteHouse Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He has designated his colleague, Dr. ByronJohnson of the University of Pennsylvania, to succeed him as Director of The Jeremiah Project.

The Project also funds successful and promising faith-based efforts through its Jeremiah Fund. Formore information on the Manhattan Institute, please visit our website at www.manhattan-institute.org.

LEADERSHIP SUPPORT FOR THE JEREMIAH PROJECT AND FUND WAS PROVIDED BY:

Achelis and Bodman FoundationsMs. Katherine J. Adams

The Honorable William J. BennettMrs. Aimee Simon Bloom

Lynde and Harry Bradley FoundationMr. Robert Buford

Mrs. Ann J. ChartersMr. Charles Colson

Courtney and Chris CombeMichael and Joyce Critelli

William H. Donner FoundationMichael and Marilyn Fedak

Mr. Foster FriessMr. and Mrs. Neal Gilliatt

Mr. and Mrs. Robert GoergenMr. Timothy Hulquist

Elizabeth E. Kennedy FundMr. Joe Klein

Mr. Leo MandrakosMrs. Virginia Manheimer

Mr. Philip MatthewsJ. M. Foundation

Mr. Francis J. Menton, Jr.John M. Olin Foundation

William E. Simon FoundationTheodore and Vada Stanley Foundation

The John Templeton Foundation

MR. MONE: Welcome and thank you allfor coming. My name is Larry Mone, Presidentof the Manhattan Institute.

Four years ago, John DiIulio came to me withthe idea for the Jeremiah Project, a program toboth study and nurture faith-based initiatives inAmerica’s inner cities. John soon convinced methat anyone who is serious about dealing withthe problems of the underclass could not affordto ignore the heroicefforts of the store-front ministries whoare on the frontlineof America’s urbanbattleground.

We’ve had aneducational andproductive fouryears with John atthe Institute. So wewere very pleased—but not surprised—when PresidentBush appointedJohn as Director of the White House Office ofFaith-Based and Community Initiatives. No onein the country has done more—in terms of bothhis professional and personal commitment—toheighten our awareness of the positive role thatfaith can play in healing our social wounds. Thisis an idea whose time has come, and in JohnDiIulio, the President has found an effective andcourageous messenger.

Several months before his appointment,John agreed that it would be useful for the In-stitute to host an annual lecture in New York to

inform the opinion and policy-making commu-nity of the latest social-science research on faith-based initiatives. Good intentions are fine, butthey are not enough. We must measure what wedo, if we are not to repeat the mistakes of thepast. Through the generosity of the JohnTempleton Foundation, we are here today to be-gin that process of education and exploration.I would like to acknowledge Charles Harper

of the TempletonFoundation forhelping us launchthis lecture.

We are alsopleased to note that,even with John’stemporary departurefrom our program,the work of theInstitute’s JeremiahProject will con-tinue. Among hismany accomplish-ments, John has

established a Center for Research on Religionand Urban Civil Society at the University ofPennsylvania under the direction of ProfessorByron Johnson. Byron is an Adjunct Fellow atthe Manhattan Institute. Over the course of thisyear, he will be releasing a series of reports forus on faith-based efforts around the country.This spring, Byron will present his most recentstudy, The Role of African American Churchesin Reducing Crime Among Black Youth. This isan exciting effort and one with which we’reproud to be associated.

1

FIRST ANNUAL LECTURE ON

THE STATE OF RELIGION AND PUBLIC LIFE

Institute President Lawrence Mone, Dr. John J. DiIulio, Jr.and Rev. Dr. Floyd H. Flake.

The State of Religion and Public Life

We applaud John on all that he has accom-plished to bring us to this point, and we lookforward to continue working with him and mak-ing sure that we leave no one behind in our pur-suit of a better life for all Americans. Please joinme in welcoming John DiIulio.

MR. DiIULIO: Thank you very much,Larry. I am deeply honored and grateful to bewith all of you here today. It’s a special honor andprivilege, and I praise God for this day and forthis wonderful gathering.

After 20 years at Harvard, Princeton andPenn, my standard joke was to say that I havediscovered the true definition of an Ivy Leagueprofessor: one who could speak for either fiveminutes or two hourson any subject—with-out any essential changein content.

Now, however, aftertwo months at work inWashington, D.C., I be-lieve I know the truedefinition of a seniorgovernment official: onewho could speak for fiveminutes or two hourson any subject withoutsaying anything at all.While I’m both a card-carrying professor and aduly authorized government flack-catcher, thereis much that I want to say before you today andrelatively little time to say it.

The first thing I want to say to Larry Mone,Roger Hertog, Myron Magnet, Henry Olsen andthe rest of the Manhattan Institute’s board mem-bers, staff and colleagues—to all of them, familiamia, I want to say “thanks.”

Several years ago, when I began my spiri-tual, intellectual and civic journey on religion’srole in public life, I had relatively few fellow trav-elers. In fact, friends and colleagues—who hadhitherto supported and encouraged me during my15 years as an academic who challenged the lefton certain issues and the right on other issues—advised me not to tackle religion and public life.

They suggested that I stifle public God talk andthey predicted—rightly, as it has turned out—that I would draw heavy flack from both flanks—left and right.

But Roger, Larry, Myron, Henry and othersat the Manhattan Institute, joined by Gary Walkerat Public Private Ventures and a few other loyaland farseeing friends, said “go for it.” They ad-vised me to keep the focus on facts, not just faith;to conduct and promote research, not just reli-gion; to speak my mind and heart, but to do it inboth a civic and spiritual way, and to push theenvelope and try to speak the truth to power.

Were it not for the Manhattan Institute, Idoubt that I would have been able to both keep

the faith and keep upwith the faith-factor re-search. And that is whathas brought me to mypresent misery.

My present job canbe compared with drink-ing water from an openfireplug for 20 hours aday. There are moments,Larry, when I wish I hadjust written a book.

But I am alwaysdeeply grateful for the

Manhattan Institute family’s support, and ex-tremely proud of my association with them andtheir brand of thinking—on issues from broken-windows policing and probation to school choice,from government over-regulation to tort reform.The Institute has led our civic discourse withgrace, with goodness, and with an empirically, ifnot always politically, correct taste for the truth.

The state of religion and public life—or if Imay rephrase, the state of religion and its relationto public life—is better today than at any pointover the last 50 years of American history, per-haps better in some respects than at any point inthe last 100 years. In the just-released Spring 2001edition of The Public Interest, Professor GertrudeHimmelfarb summarizes much of the latest andbest data, from surveys and other sources, which

2

Dr. DiIulio delivers his lecture.

The State of Religion and Public Life

shows how vibrant religion remains in America.Much of it is produced by our country’s preemi-nent pollster, and my good friend, George Gallup.

Most Americans—of practically every race,region, socio-economic status and demographicdescription—want religion to have a greater in-fluence in American society. Seven in 10 Ameri-cans believe that “more religion is the best way tostrengthen family values and moral behavior.” Thelatest issue of The Journal of Policy History, a pub-lication of Penn State University Press—fre-quently you find people reading it on beachesaround the country—is dedicated to religion andpublic life. The volume’s opening essay, by myformer Harvard colleague and now George Ma-son University Professor, Hugh Heclo, describesthe secularization of the American public square,and is worth quoting:

“In contempo-rary discussions of re-ligion and publicaffairs, until quite re-cently, the master con-cept has been the ideaof secularization. Justas secular political or-ganizations replaced welfare, educational andother social functions of religious institutions, itwas thought that science and enlightened humani-tarianism would provide the new and only creed,that many expected to displace supernaturalist re-ligion. As society modernized, religion would beincreasingly confined to the private zones of per-sonal belief, while policymaking would deal withworldly affairs in a scientific manner, neutral andindifferent to religious faith.”

This describes what became known—in verycrude terms—as “the secularization thesis.” Butsomething happened on the way to privatizingGod. For the first two-thirds of this century, secu-larization predominated. In the last third, the pic-ture has changed considerably. Religion refusedto stay in the private ghetto to which modernityhad assigned it. Professor Heclo gets it almost ex-actly right. While I’m not positive that we are inthe midst of what the great Nobel economist Rob-

ert Fogel has described as a Fourth Great Awak-ening in this country’s history, there can be nodoubt that, over the past decade, foundations, phi-lanthropies, even universities—and now even gov-ernments—have been either welcoming godlypeople back into the public square, welcomingreligious programs back into civic life, or at leastnot wantonly waving them off. Those institutionsonce led secularization, and insisted, with theforce of public law to back them up, that reli-gion remain gagged and bound in the civiccloset, if occasionally trotted out for suitablysecular expressions of religious sensibility. We’vewitnessed a sea change.

Let me stand for a moment or two on theshoulders of one of my favorite and ever faithfulgiants, who is with us here today—he’s far enough

away that I think I cansay this safely. FatherRichard John Neuhauswrote a book with Pro-fessor Peter Berger afew decades ago thatcaused open-mindedpublic intellectuals toconsider that families,

churches, voluntary associations and all the othermediating institutions really do have a vital rolein the public square—the role that Tocquevilleand other great thinkers had borne witness to—in weaving together our social fabric and fortify-ing our public life.

As Father Neuhaus has phrased it in the April2001 edition of First Things, it is important to letthese institutions “do their thing” without exces-sive government interference. If I may quote himat some length: “the minimalist proposition is thatgovernment should get out of the way, and let themediating institutions—families, churches, volun-tary associations, etc.—do their thing. Getting outof the way requires many changes, includingchanges in tax policy, professional certifications,and the freedom to hire in accord with aninstitution’s constituting vision. The maximalistproposition goes beyond getting out of the wayand suggests that the government should use the

3

Seven in 10 Americans believethat “more religion is the best way

to strengthen family values andmoral behavior.”

The State of Religion and Public Life

mediating institutions in achieving public pur-poses. It is here that we need the most carefulthought and experimentation, lest the mediatinginstitutions be co-opted and fatally compromisedby well-intentioned government policy.”

To that statement, I think one can only offi-cially say, “Amen.” Both God and the devil willbe in the details of the Bush administration’s faith-based and community initiatives, and my officeis now working out these details.

It’s important to remember where we begin:government has already decided to spend hun-dreds of billions of dollars a year through non-profit organizations to carryout the purposes of socialpolicy. The U.S. govern-ment does little in the areasof welfare and social policythat is not done with andthrough nonprofit organi-zations and providers. It isvery much “government byproxy,” as Don Kettl of theUniversity of Wisconsin,Madison, has called it.

There is only one fed-eral employee for every sixpeople who carry out govern-ment-funded domestic socialprograms. The vast majorityof people who work for thefederal government—13 million of them, comparedwith 2 million federal civil servants—are employedby the nonprofit sector, the for-profit sector, or bystate and local government agencies. The work ofour office will be to open up these government-by-proxy networks to community-based organiza-tions—whether sacred or secular—that providesocial services. Our work is not about providing re-ligious organizations with direct funding for reli-gious purposes. It’s not about religious set-asides.It’s really about administering the public’s businessthrough new government-by-proxy networks, withand through organizations that have—for somegood reasons, but mostly for bad reasons—been leftstanding at the gates.

President Bush has been steadfast in com-municating both the minimalist and maximalistpropositions. From his remarkable speech in In-dianapolis in July of 1999, “The Duty of Hope,”through his budget address this past February,right down to his most recent radio address, thePresident has wisely and steadfastly maintainedthat—I’m going to quote him here (every time Ithink of him I reach for my cell phone and makesure it’s on, but for now it’s off )—“governmentcannot be replaced by charities, but it can andshould welcome charities and volunteers as part-ners, and not resent them as rivals.” Were the

state of religion in publiclife the same as it was 15 or20 years ago, more peoplewould take exception tothat statement than take ex-ception to it now.

The President has con-sistently called attention tothe fact that community-based groups—both sacredand secular—are workingin every neighborhood inAmerica to fight home-lessness, addiction and do-mestic violence, and toprovide hot meals, mentorsand safe havens for our chil-dren. Government, he has

plainly, persistently and persuasively argued,should welcome these groups into poverty-fight-ing and other problem-solving partnerships thatit funds—not discriminate against them, but levelthe playing field.

The President has forthrightly acknowledgedthat many local “armies of compassion” are out-flanked and outgunned. We should not praisetheir good works in one breath, then discrimi-nate against them in the next, or ask them to makebricks without straw. Rather we should rally ad-ditional human and financial, public and private,volunteer-hour and charitable-dollar resources be-hind them all, in the common public interest andfor the sake of the general public good.

4

Dr. Charles Harper questions Dr. DiIulio.

The State of Religion and Public Life

The President has also spotlighted and cel-ebrated the enormous social contributions of secu-lar independent organizations such as BigBrothers Big Sisters of America, and the Boys &Girls Clubs of America. It so happens he visited aBoys & Girls Club in Wilmington, Delaware, justthe other day.

Likewise, the President has recognized theenormous social contributions of local churchcongregations, synagogues, mosques and otherfaith-based organizations. He has warmly wel-comed godly people back into the public square—people who perform good social works, who offerhelp and love, oneperson at a time,whom Bob Woodsonof the National Cen-ter for Neighbor-hood Enterprise callsAmerica’s “grassrootsJosephs”—but whomI, for the sake of po-litical correctness, willcall grassroots Josephsand Josephines.

Every majorsurvey shows thatthe American peopleagree with the Presi-dent in wanting tosupport the goodworks of community helpers and healers, whetherreligious or secular. In a Gallup survey releasedjust yesterday, we learned that 69 percent of peoplebelieve that faith-based organizations do the bestjob of reaching out to youth in poor communi-ties. Only 25 percent felt that the federal govern-ment did the kids much good. Maybe if weconnected the federal government to thosegroups, it would do a little bit better.

Likewise, in a Pew Commission survey re-leased the week in which the President signed myoffice into being, churches, synagogues andmosques were ranked as the top nonprofit prob-lem-solving organizations in their communities.National independent-sector organizations like

Goodwill Industries came in a close second. Thefederal government again brought up the rear.Maybe if we connected the federal governmentmore closely and intelligently, but still well withinconstitutional bounds, to these community-serv-ing, grassroots-anchored organizations, peoplewould think better of it, because it would be do-ing a better job.

A national study released in March by theHartford Institute found that 85 percent of reli-gious congregations offer community-serving pro-grams, including cash, food, clothing, daycare,shelter, addiction counseling, and healthcare. You

don’t think of faith-based organizationswhen you think ofcervical and breastcancer screening,but I assure you it’sthe case, especially inurban areas through-out the country. InPhiladelphia alone,we have 300 congre-gations providinghealth counselingand healthcare ofvarious kinds. Smallarmies of religiousvolunteers are nowmobilized and deliv-

ering healthcare services to both children and thelarge and growing population of infirm elderly.They’re out there doing that work.

A national study released in January by theumbrella non-profit organization called Inde-pendent Sector, led by my good friend Sarah E.Melendez, found virtually the same thing. Thefindings are being replicated over and over.They’re becoming harder to dismiss the waysome did a few years ago.

The massive social-service contributions oflocal faith-based organizations are also meticu-lously documented in an ongoing series of stud-ies by my Penn colleague, Professor Ram A.Cnaan. Based on three-hour site visits and 20-

5

Dr. DiIulio answers questions from the audience.

The State of Religion and Public Life

page questionnaires administered at over 1,000congregations in Philadelphia and hundreds ofcongregations in other U.S. cities, we know thaturban congregations make enormous commu-nity-service contributions in over 200 differenttypes of social services. In Philadelphia alone—putting an annual dollar value on what they do,at sub-Motel 6 rates for the space and sub-mini-mum wage pay for the volunteer hours—thesegroups contribute a most conservatively esti-mated quarter billion dollars of hidden socialsafety net every year.

That’s a lot of money, a lot of value—andwe underestimate that value, because we onlycount the top five services they provide. Manyof these groups pro-vide seven or ten dif-ferent services. Theyrun a health clinic.They run a school.They run the after-school program. Theyprovide what exists inthe way of mentoring.They run the seniorcenter. They providerecreation.

We also knowthat the primary beneficiaries of these faith-basedgood works are local children and youth whoare not members and whose families are notmembers of the congregations or faith-based or-ganizations that serve them. This to me contin-ues to be the single most remarkable andinspiring fact.

Remarkable also is the fact that, as everyserious study shows, only a handful of the myriadcommunity-serving congregations—even thosewho define themselves as highly motivated toevangelize—make a current or eventual expres-sion of religious faith a condition of enteringtheir buildings, receiving their services, partici-pating in their programs and getting their help.I still find it remarkable, even after six years. Thisfinding is consistent, both in the systematic sur-vey data and in the anecdotal data.

I had lunch a day or two ago with one of myfavorite fellow-professors of political science,former New York Senator Daniel PatrickMoynihan. As we agreed, a significant—perhapsthe most significant—but little understood factabout the federal government is the extent towhich government-funded social services are con-tracted out, and that so little of this governmentby proxy funds organizations that actually are inthe communities they serve—that share the zipcode, the neighborhood, the problems, the tastesand smells with the people who receive the ser-vices. It’s remarkable.

One of the things that President Bush hasasked me to do, and that I’m going to do—I guess

I can say, after sevenweeks, that “I’m fixin’to do”—is a perfor-mance audit of fivecabinet agencies: Jus-tice, Education, Labor,Health & Human Ser-vices, and Housing &Urban Development.We’re going to take ahard look at why it isthat, while CharitableChoice legislation was

passed in 1996—supposedly opening the way forreligious organizations to compete for social-wel-fare grants and contracts on the same basis as anyother non-governmental providers—almost fiveyears later, 31 states have had zero—zero—Chari-table Choice action. In the city of Philadelphia,where we’ve got one of the country’s richest andmost well documented community-serving min-istry sectors—25 percent of the housing rehabwork being done in many neighborhoods is bycommunity-based faith-based organizations, anda third of all day care—why is it that only onecongregation, Cookman Methodist, has receivedany help under Charitable Choice? Why is it thatonly four or five states have gotten any real trac-tion at all? Charitable Choice was passed fourtimes—the original law in 1996, the commu-nity service block grant, welfare-to-work, and

6

The primary beneficiaries of thesefaith-based good works are localchildren and youth who are not

members and whose families are notmembers of the congregations or faith-based organizations that serve them.

The State of Religion and Public Life

last year the mental health bill—and yet no ac-tion? Isn’t that interesting? We’re going to try tofind out why that is.

We’re also going to take a hard look at theextent to which these federal agencies have beencomplying with the 1993 Government Perfor-mance and Results Act—better known in Wash-ington, the land of the acronym, as the GPRA.The GPRA requires every federal agency tojustify how it chooses grant recipients. (To un-derline again the important reality SenatorMoynihan and I again were discussing the otherday: the federal government is a grant-making andcompliance machine. That’s how it runs its do-mestic policy. Outsideof air traffic controland federal prison war-dens, there is no directadministration.) Howis it that certain non-profit organizationshave been in the fund-ing loop year after yearwithout any indepen-dent performanceevaluation? For ex-ample, hundreds ofmillions of dollarsspent on 135 programsby five cabinet agenciesto serve at-risk youth,with no evidence that children who came in read-ing two grades below reading level entered thegovernment-funded program and exited readingat or near their grade level. Or housing rehab pro-grams that spend millions of government dollarsin neighborhoods where a fifth of all the build-ings are still abandoned and falling down.

The answer can’t be, “we’re doing a great job,we just need more money.” The answer is that thereis something wrong with the existing government-by-proxy network—not all the organizations in it,some of which do fantastic jobs. But it can’t hurtto open up these networks to any qualified organi-zation—religious or secular—that wants to stepforward and partner with government agencies.

We believe the government-by-proxy systemwould work better and cost less if it were perfor-mance-managed, performance-measured, andopened up to tens of thousands of community-based organizations—including, but by no meanslimited to, faith-based organizations—rather thanfunding the same organizations from whom youget the same tepid results year in and year out,decade in and decade out.

If community-based organizations, both sa-cred and secular, are out there with small staffsand a host of volunteers providing vital social ser-vices at the grassroots level—from day care tohealthcare, from preschool to prison ministry—

then why should gov-ernment get in theirway with bovine rules,bogus regulations, orperverse licensing re-quirements? Whyshouldn’t the samecommunity-helping,community-healing or-ganizations receive pri-vate, corporate andphilanthropic supportvaguely commensuratewith the size of theirrole in helping theleast, the last and thelost of our society?

Why shouldn’t these Josephs and Josephines,if their leaders so choose, be eligible? In Philadel-phia, we know that 40 percent of the urban con-gregations don’t care what Charitable Choice says,or what protections it provides—they don’t wantto do it. God bless them. That’s their benevolenttradition. That’s the call of their leadership andtheir members. God bless them. But 60 percentsay they would at least think about it. I wouldestimate that 20 or 25 percent would step up.

If they decide to seek public support for thesocial services they provide—which is not gov-ernment funding religion, but government fund-ing people who provide social services undergiven performance and procurement protocols—

7

Rev. Eugene Rivers talks with Father John RichardNeuhaus.

The State of Religion and Public Life

why shouldn’t they be as eligible for support asany of the other non-governmental providers ofthose services—even if they’re small, even if theydo it one person at a time? Why shouldn’t theybe able to receive support for the services theyprovide without having to divest themselves oftheir religious character, or their non-secularsymbols or speech?

These are rhetorical questions, of course. Ibelieve that they should be able to hum hymns asthey hammer nails. I believe they should be ableto say “God bless you” in a health clinic even whenno one has sneezed. It is vital that we ask peopleto come as they arerather than assomeone they haveto pretend to be.

We have builtour successful so-cial programminglargely aroundthese institutionsfor 35 years—andwe have the resultsto prove it. I don’tsay they hold all theanswers. One mea-sure of the real stateof religion in pub-lic life will be howopen we are, aspeople of good faith—not necessarily religiousfaith, as the President says, not just Methodists,Muslims, and Mormons, but also good people ofno religious faith at all—to come together in areasonable way to say how we can together im-prove the lives of needy children, youth and fami-lies who live in poverty and have broken lives.Can we come together to do that? I believe it canbe done. Certainly the President has empoweredus to try and do just this.

Let me just conclude by suggesting to youthat there are many details to be hammered outwith respect to both the minimalist and themaximalist propositions I described earlier. Weknow from previous research that there are myriad

perverse rules and regulations on the books thatdiscriminate against community-based social ser-vice providers, both religious and secular—espe-cially the smaller ones. We know that even inplaces where community-based organizations andfaith-based groups do most of the local servicework, they receive little if any private support andalmost no government support.

We know and accept as a settled matter ofconstitutional law that no public funds can beused for proselytization or sectarian worship. Butwithin these boundaries, is it not possible for usto come together in a new spirit, and welcome

godly people backinto the publicsquare, and wel-come religious pro-grams back to thebar of consider-ation? Our presi-dent has an espe-cially big heart, andhe wants to do thisto best reach out topeople in need, sothat we can revital-ize and resurrectneedy neighbor-hoods, so that wecan make sure thatour material pros-

perity has some worthwhile purpose.I thank you kindly for your time and con-

sideration. And thanks again to the ManhattanInstitute.

MR. MONE: Thank you John. Now, it’s mypleasure to introduce the Reverend Dr. FloydFlake, who is the living incarnation of many ofthe things that John has discussed here today. Aformer U.S. Congressman, President of theEdison Schools and a Manhattan Institute Fel-low, the role closest to Floyd’s heart is being Pas-tor of the Allen African Methodist EpiscopalChurch in Queens, where he has launched nu-merous education, housing, and economic-devel-opment initiatives that have become models for

8

Prof. Fred Siegel discusses Dr. DiIulio’s address.

The State of Religion and Public Life

the country. An extraordinary individual and agreat New Yorker, please welcome Floyd Flake.

REV. DR. FLAKE: Thank you very muchLarry, and I am indeed grateful for this opportu-nity. During my three-year association with theManhattan Institute, I’ve had many opportuni-ties to be on panels and programs with John, andI don’t think the President could have done anybetter in his choice of someone to head his faith-based initiative.

When the press called and asked why Ithought John was a good choice, I said that no-body in America combines theology and academ-ics, theory and practice, as well as John DiIuliodoes. Under these various hats he wears, he is ableto articulate our message both to those who al-ready understand faith-based services and to thosewho don’t yet have afull understanding—and you’ve all had ademonstration of thatthis afternoon.

So, John, let meagain congratulate youfor doing what I didnot have the strengthto do again—and thatis to go back into government. God bless you,my brother. You need all the help you can get.

I would have been divorced, you see, becausemy wife made it very clear: “I don’t care whocalled. If it wasn’t the Lord, then I have first callon your life. And I’m tired of living in politics.You have to make your own decision, Floyd, ofcourse. And whatever you choose to do is all rightwith me, as it always has been during these 25years of our marriage. But understand: this is nota decision that I will be happy with.”

So that’s the reason I’m here today to sup-port my brother who is in government.

Let me just say a few things. I generally pre-fer being on a panel with John. I don’t under-stand this respondent role because you’re not onlytrying to capture the essence of the speech, buttrying to take it to a level where people can havea full understanding of what it all means.

9

Religious institutions do not seethemselves as competitors to

government. They see themselves ascompleting the task of government.

I don’t think there’s anything in America thatmakes people more irrational and emotional thandiscussions about religion. We talk about religiouspeople as if we’re talking about a people so differ-ent that they are not taxpayers, that they don’tunderstand basic civic teachings. But considerJesus’ saying, “Render unto Caesar what isCaesar’s, and unto the Lord what is the Lord’s.”Religious people know that there are times for adistinct separation, but that there are also timesfor a synergy; there are times when there is a ty-ing-together of our commitments and our rolesas both religious people and as citizens who feel aresponsibility for trying to meet the needs of thepeople who share this nation and this planet withus. And John is saying that religion ought not bea barrier to meeting these responsibilities.

More people needto understand that re-gardless of a person’schoice of religion,there are three basic de-fining components offaith—its teachings onrespect, its teachingson responsibility, andits teachings on re-

demption. These three principles of respect, re-sponsibility, and redemption guide the religiousperson’s efforts at trying to provide for people whofind themselves in situations and circumstanceswhere their needs are not being met, in spite ofthe fact that in many instances they are taxpay-ing citizens. They are people who understand theirresponsibility to government and expect govern-ment to reciprocate at the point of their need ortheir neighbor’s need, and in many instances findthat government cannot do it.

So why a faith-based alternative? Faith-basedfor four reasons. One, because in most instances,there has already been established a level of trustbetween the person in need and the church—orthe temple, or the mosque—as the place wherethat need can be met. Where that trust relation-ship is, people will come much more easily thanthey will go to where government is. And it does

The State of Religion and Public Life

10

not matter to them what the symbols are. It doesnot matter to them what the denomination is.What matters to them is: this is a place where Ican be served with respect. So how do we em-power those institutions, so that they have theresources to do more of what the majority of themare already doing?

The second reason is location. The church isa place with which those in need have some mea-sure of familiarity. It is not just a place: thechurches have not defined themselves as theirbuildings but as a community, and a communitywithin a broader environment of which the per-son in need is a part.

The third reason, with trust and location, isa sense of commitment—and it is real commit-ment, because inmost instancesthere is not enoughcoming in the col-lection plate tomeet the needs ofall those who come.(And they comewith all the catego-ries of needs forwhich governmentprovides funding,but in most in-stances, govern-ment funding doesnot go directly tothe places where people have the greatest needs.)People of faith serve out of commitment. The ma-jority of these people are volunteers. They do itbecause they believe that they have been called todo it. They don’t do this because they’re expect-ing something in return. It is their calling, andthey respond accordingly.

Lastly—with trust, location, commitment—is a measure of compassion. Faith-based servicesare human being–to–human being. We don’t viewthese people as the rejected of society, and helpbecause it’s a job, without consideration of thefact that maybe they can be redeemed. The faith-ful person’s sense is that they may be in this con-

dition because they put themselves there. In manyinstances, they are trying with all of their mightto come out of that condition. And it is only thereligious institution that gives them some hope.

Religious institutions do not see themselvesas competitors to government. They see them-selves as completing the task of government—completing it without in any way abrogating theirresponsibility and commitment as religious in-stitutions. In my testimony two weeks ago beforethe Senate Finance Committee—people are rais-ing such firestorms about whether or not religiousinstitutions can succeed where government hasnot—I offered the following three things, John.

First, we honor the tradition of creatingfirewalls, so that the church does not have to worry

about the problemof the commin-gling of funds.Those firewallsare generally cre-ated by the tradi-tional 501C3c o r p o r a t i o n s .These should bepart of the processso that everyoneclearly under-stands what theinstitutions areexpected to do.They need to un-

derstand that this vertical model allows them todo their work without risking the damage thatcan come about if they are left to their own de-vices without being required to make the neces-sary reports.

Second, I said that there must be account-ability. Let’s not replay the Model Cities Program.We spent billions of dollars, and have no modelcities to show for it. So government has a respon-sibility to build in an accountability component.I know from experience that there will be manywho will react vehemently against it. And thosewho so react, who do not want to be account-able, need not be in this business, because they

Rev. Dr. Flake offers his comments.

The State of Religion and Public Life

11

will ultimately destroy the possibility of successfor those who want to be accountable.

Lastly, faith-based organizations need thekind of technical assistance that helps them tobetter define how to do what they propose to dowith reasonable, measurable objectives, so that,at the end of the day, they will be able to point tosuccesses—successes that correspond with thegoals that polls seem to indicate religious institu-tions can achieve.

If government can help with those things,we will succeed.

In closing, I’d like to respond to a concernthat John mentioned and that you hear con-stantly. Most religious institutions, including myown, do not provide their services exclusively totheir own members, nor do they proselytize thosethey serve. They provide services simply becauseit is in the best interest of the community ofwhich they are a part. Proselytization is not nec-essarily a part of their programs—though wewould be foolish to believe that some would nottry to use it that way.

As I was considering this assignment, I calledthe various agencies—eleven of them—under thecorporations of our church, to find out exactlyhow many of the people served by these variousinstitutions are actually members of my congre-gation. Only fifteen percent of the 500 studentsat our school are Allen AME Church members.Of the 166 brand new homes that we built, onlyone of them went to an Allen family—assignmentwas by a lottery process. Our home-care agencyserves 500 units, and only 34 of those units houseAllen AME Church members.

The list goes on and on, with every servicethat we provide. The majority of our services arenot for the majority of our members. The major-ity of our services are for the majority of our com-munity. By providing the services we make thecommunity more stable, we create an environ-ment where people understand that these servicesare available for the masses, and not merely forthe classes. And that’s what this faith-based ini-tiative is all about.

Thank you all very much.

The State of Religion and Public Life

12

ABOVE : John DiIulio; Lawrence Mone; Reverend Floyd Flake, President, EdisonSchools and Pastor, Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church; CCI DirectorHenry Olsen. LEFT: Candace deRussy, SUNY Trustee; Peggy Noonan, Man-hattan Institute Trustee. BOTTOM LEFT : Alair Townsend, Publisher, Crain’s NewYork Business; William Hazen, J. W. Seligman & Co. BELOW : Walter Wriston,Manhattan Institute Trustee; Kathryn Wriston, Shearman and Sterling; JerryRogers, Manhattan Institute.

The State of Religion and Public Life

13

TOP LEFT: Larry Mone and Herman Badillo, former CUNY Trustee. TOP RIGHT: William Tell, Manhattan Institute Trustee; DanMahony. BELOW LEFT : Mabel Weil, Manhattan Institute; Irina Pabst, and Inger Witter. BELOW RIGHT: David Blankenhorn, Presi-dent, Institute for American Values; Arthur Rasmussen. BOTTOM LEFT: Peter Flanigan, Manhattan Institute Trustee; ReverendFloyd Flake. BOTTOM RIGHT: Byron Johnson, Acting Director, The Manhattan Institute’s Jeremiah Project; Father Richard JohnNeuhaus, The Institute on Religion and Public Life.

The Manhattan Institute is a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization.Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.

EIN #13-2912529

M A N H A T T A N I N S T I T U T E F O R P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H

M

52 Vanderbilt Avenue • New York, NY 10017www.manhattan-institute.org

I

The Jeremiah Project is an initiative of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Civic Innovation (CCI).CCI’s purpose is to improve the quality of life in cities by shaping public policy and enriching publicdiscourse on urban issues.

CCI sponsors the publication of books like The Entrepreneurial City: A How-To Handbook for UrbanInnovators, which contains brief essays from America’s leading mayors explaining how they improvedtheir cities’ quality of life; Stephen Goldsmith’s The Twenty-First Century City, which provides a blueprintfor getting America’s cities back in shape; and George Kelling’s and Catherine Coles’ Fixing Broken Win-dows, which explores the theory widely created with reducing the rate of crime in New York and othercities. CCI also hosts conferences, publishes studies, and holds luncheon forums where prominent localand national leaders are given opportunities to present their views on critical urban issues. Cities on a Hill,CCI’s newsletter, highlights the ongoing work of innovative mayors across the country.

C E N T E R F O R C I V I C I N N O V A T I O N