Gore Gets Religion.

Hillary Clinton's all-but-announced candidacy for the U.S. Senate in New York threatens to deprive Al Gore of a portion of the national political limelight as well as keep the Clinton scandals, from which the vice- president must distance himself, before the cameras and on the front pages of the tabloids. Not an enviable position for a presidential hopeful who is attempting the rare political feat of getting himself elected to the oval office after eight years as America's Prince of Wales. But whatever Gore's political problems-high on the list are a comical lack of charisma, allegations of campaign-finance shenanigans, and Texas Republican Governor George W. Bush-he is widely respected as a decent and thoughtful man. Both those traits were evident in a speech he gave last month at Atlanta's Salvation Army's Adult Rehabilitation Center. Gore, who spent a year in divinity school, is known as someone who takes his Baptist faith seriously. In Atlanta, he enunciated a convincing rationale for greater public funding of faith-based efforts to combat unemployment, drug addiction, homelessness, and other social problems.

Gore's so-called "New Partnership" between government and religious groups seems designed to give Americans United for the Separation of Church and State heart palpitations, but it is hardly a radical proposal. Republicans have been championing such initiatives, if soft-pedaling the idea of public funding, for years. It might even be said that Gore, taking a page from his White House mentor, is trying to co-opt yet another populist Republican issue. Governor Bush, it is readily pointed out, has already instituted a program in Texas that uses faith-based organizations to help welfare recipients. Nearly all the serious presidential candidates in both parties have endorsed the idea of such cooperation-none dare call it "entanglement"-and have given rhetorical support to the role religion and religious groups can play in the reinvigoration of civil society.

Yes, there is a danger that government funding will compromise the integrity of religious practice. There is also the danger that the bureaucratic regulation accompanying government funding will overwhelm some grassroots religious organizations. And as Gore carefully pointed out in his Atlanta speech, when religious groups accept public monies there must be strict safeguards against proselytizing or religious coercion. Government must not be seen to be endorsing any particular religion.

At the same time, it is undeniable that faith-based groups are often a school for citizenship and a stimulant of democratic participation. They have also demonstrated marked success in dealing with drug addiction and youth crime. In short, while government must guarantee freedom of religion, it is under no obligation to guarantee freedom from religion. It would be useful to push Gore a little harder on how he draws that line. If he believes, for instance, that public funding for faith-based programs in drug treatment does not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, why is he opposed to vouchers that allow poor parents to choose faith-based schools for their children? If he thinks religious groups are essential to the health of democracy, why is he tone deaf to the concerns many religiously motivated people have about current abortion law? "A politics of community can be strengthened when we are not afraid to make connections between spirituality and politics," Gore said in Atlanta. Amen to that. But in both politics and theology, the devil is in the details.