In an otherwise correct piece about the disappointing speech Obama gave about "faith-based" initiatives, PZ concludes by writing:

End the faith-based initiatives. The government should only be supporting programs that work — at least, in my dreams of an efficient administration, anyway.

I see no reason why Obama couldn't do all of this within the framework laid out by Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State: eliminate the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives and let religious groups apply for funds the same way everyone else does. Make it clear that programs receiving federal funds (quoting the Obama plan):Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction, Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve, Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs, and Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.

Those rules are just good policy, and apply equally to a church group providing shelter for the homeless as it would to a city agency or secular nonprofit doing the same work. The requirement that grantees show their programs are effective is sensible, and if it isn't already part of standard procedure for such grants, it should be.

Churches do a lot of good things for communities, and there's no reason that such secular outreach shouldn't be able to get federal funds (assuming it isn't used for proselytizing and that it doesn't discriminate). A few weekends back I went to a gospel church in San Francisco which, along with a soup kitchen and homeless shelter, has raised funds to construct low-income housing, which will be administered in a way that will help homeless people get off the streets, establish an address and get their lives back together. More secular groups should do the same work, but there's no point in withholding federal support to such projects. Getting folks off the street like that will save lives and measurably improve a lot of people's standard of living.

Furthermore, having those federal funds available, but with clear anti-discrimination/anti-proselytization strings attached, will ensure that the benefits of such programs cannot be skewed along awkward lines. Churches which want to impose their beliefs on others, or restrict their outreach only to people willing to accept their beliefs, will get no federal assistance, and will, on average, not be as effective as those programs run by churches that know it's better to show than to tell. Many groups talk a big talk about generosity and the importance of following the often radically redistributionist ideas of the New Testament, but are more interested in putting tracts in hands than food in hungry mouths. Obama's program will be as good a way as any to separate the wheat from the chaff.