The issue at hand.

What should humanists do in response to George W. Bush's faith-based initiatives? He put them on the front burner in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address when he said, "Our nation is blessed with recovery programs that do amazing work. One of them is found at the Healing Place Church in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." Tonja Myles, ministry leader of that church's recovery program, was First Lady Laura Bush's special guest for the president's speech.

Looking deeper, the recovery program itself seems to be a textbook example of just what government needs to avoid. Called "Set Free Indeed," the program's mission is "to assist those who are struggling with addiction" to "become free through the Power of God." On the church's website the program's approach is started clearly.

   The Set Free Indeed ministry believes that through prayer,
   counseling and a strong one-on-one accountability system the
   strength can be found to confront and ultimately conquer any
   addiction. We believe that recovery begins at the Cross. We
   rely solely on the foundation of the Word of God to break the
   bands of addiction.

If these words mean what they say, Bush's plan to fund such a ministry can't avoid both government establishment of religion through support of a sectarian healing doctrine and government entanglement with religion through the necessity to sort out what federal funds could and couldn't be used to pay. Furthermore, if the money happened to come with strings attached that essentially require the secularization of the program, this particular church's free exercise rights could effectively be compromised. At the end of the day, the First Amendment would become a dead letter.

There is, however, another reason to be unhappy about Bush's public endorsement of such a program. Humanists are automatically skeptical of the efficacy of any effort that is based on faith in supernatural ideas and is part of a religious proselytizing agenda. Nevertheless, is focusing on this the tack that humanists should take in opposing the administration's plans?

Not really. And there are two reasons: first, not all social service programs run by religious institutions are bad or even particularly sectarian in nature; second, defining the debate as one of reason versus faith would remove most civil liberties activists from the picture. (Indeed, the effort wouldn't have much chance of success if all religious people were aligned against the Jeffersonian wall of separation.)

These latter two points are brought forcefully home in our cover story for this issue of the Humanist. Author Gary Gardner demonstrates the positive role religion could play in saving the planet. This relates both to the environmental programs religions initiate and to the sheer numbers of activists religious institutions can potentially field.

What is true for planetary issues can be true for many others. Efforts by religious institutions can work to the social good, and religious allies can become necessary in any valued cause--independent of any philosophical or scientific unsoundness of their official doctrines. Indeed, on a wide range of non-doctrinal issues, humanists and those of traditional faith can be and are partners. Humanists need to maintain the sophistication to acknowledge this, continuing, as well, to be up front about such alliances as they pertain to the causes that matter most.

This, then, answers the question which begins this editorial. What humanists should do in response to the latest faith-based initiatives is to keep working with religious allies. After all, the maintenance of government neutrality on matters of faith benefits traditional believers as much as it does humanists.