Not a month after the Alabama Ten Commandments controversy was decisively ended, the acrimonious debate on the separation of church and state has found its way into the headlines again. Monday morning several government officials met with the president to discuss the progress of faith-based initiatives.

Within days of his inauguration, President Bush signed an executive order establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), which has come under fire from the beginning for toeing the line between church and state. One of the enumerated functions of this office is “to eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems.”

Critics of this Bush policy argue the president is promoting certain religious groups by giving them public funds. They say that government funding of religious charities violates the separation of church and state.

It is ironic that the strongest opponents to faith-based initiatives are the same people who accuse the conservative ideology of neglecting the needs of the poor. Faith-based initiatives are, in fact, all about facilitating better and more effective assistance for the poor, but acknowledging that this assistance is not best administered by a cumbersome, distant bureaucracy.

What these critics choose to ignore is the fact that faith-based groups are generally more effective at what they do than are well-meaning secular groups — especially in dealing with local community issues. Faith-based groups are certainly better at inspiring long-term change in individuals and communities, mainly because they do have that spiritual backbone that other groups lack. As Director of the OFBCI Jim Towey said Monday, “This is not about funding religion but about funding results.”

And results should be the top priority, especially when they are such palpable phenomena as lower crime and poverty rates. This is not to say the end blindly justifies any means, but the means employed by the OFBCI are hardly unethical, much less unconstitutional.

Before the advent of the OFBCI, nonprofit community-building groups faced formidable barriers to government support if they were affiliated with a religion. Take, for example, a small town with two groups that target drug use in teenagers: one founded in the name of some benefactor who lost a cousin to drug use, and one founded by local churchgoers who feel called by their faith to serve their fellow man. Regardless of which group achieves greater success and effectiveness, only the secular one would be eligible for government assistance.

And that’s as it should be, argue critics of the Bush program. Faith-based programs, they contend, always run the risk of coercing people into the practice of that faith, and that is something the separate-from-church U.S. government simply cannot fund. Point taken, but just because a faith-based group is put in a position of power over people doesn’t mean it will necessarily abuse that power and try to recruit new members to the faith. Many groups based, for example, on Christian teachings, champion an altruistic motivation that encourages believers to serve others simply because it’s a good thing to do.

But the aforementioned critics do raise a legitimate concern, which the January 2001 executive order anticipated when it included language that specifically regulates the types of activities that faith-based groups receiving government money can perform. Faith-based groups, it says, should have more access to public funding “so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods and overcoming poverty.” It goes on to require that such groups adhere to the principles of “pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness and neutrality.”

Then there’s the question of effectiveness, which may admittedly have a tougher argument to make when faced with champions of the establishment clause, who would argue, legitimately, that just because it’s effective doesn’t mean it’s constitutional. (However, when the Constitution becomes the only barrier to something that is otherwise legal, honest, ethical and effective, then something should be re-examined.) So, for the sake of intellectual exercise, let’s consider the issue, Constitution aside.

If an organization is willing to give you a hand up — to keep you safe, warm, fed and clothed while helping you pull your life back together — and that organization doesn’t demand any kind of religious obedience in return, isn’t that an appealing alternative to life on the street?