When pre-election anxiety and partisan acrimony are at a relative high, good news is extremely welcome. In this case, the good news would entail bipartisan compromises that involve one thing most of us agree on—giving assistance to the poor and disadvantaged. The biggest irony is that this compromise involves faith, an extremely volatile subject in American public discourse. America’s Christian churches and the Democrats in office could have a historic rapprochement in the coming years if the government gives religious nonprofit organizations a permanent chance to compete for federal grants. Once the religious right learns that charity is a far worthier cause than arguing about God, gays and guns, and a few members of the left wing abandon their opposition to supporting anything involving the messiah, our two-party system will hopefully become less of a tense coexistence and more of a partnership.

There is no excuse for not making use of this avenue for charity. Supreme Court decisions during the past few years have already made it clear that prioritizing faith-based organizations at the same level of secular charities is constitutional. The churches have agreed not to proselytize, removing many of the grounds for complaint on the basis of church-state separation. Religious groups provided thousands of houses, health clinics and other modes of assistance to the homeless residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Organizations such as Catholic Charities and Salvation Army would never have been able to react so well without the federal support they received. With the government’s aid, the number of local congregations providing for the victims has increased from 900 to 1,500, according to The New York Times. However, help is still needed in these regions, and more religious groups should be empowered by the government.

Faith-based initiatives of the past have proven to be successful. During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton and Senator John Ashcroft were willing to find their middle ground when they passed the “charitable choice laws,” which gave religious nonprofit organizations more opportunities to win monetary support from Congress. Seven years ago, President Bush planned on permanently extending these laws, but most of his programs fell through. Bush had intended to grant more federal vouchers to faith-based organizations to provide affordable housing, job training and other services, but the number of such organizations receiving grants rose only about 10 percent, according to a study by Trinity College.

This year’s presidential candidates, even the Democrats, seem to provide hope for furthering aid to religious charities. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both said that faith-based programs are useful in helping Americans in need. One does not have to be religious in order to believe in the benefits of these organizations. Homeless shelters, anti-violence programs and day care have gotten billions of dollars each year from our mosques, synagogues, churches and many other religiously affiliated organizations. Non-religious inner-city schools and low-income families have also received unbiased support from these congregations.

A president who promotes faith-based initiatives could compete for the support of the nearly 120 million Americans who consider themselves to be Christian. There are still, of course, the evangelicals, many of whom focus on their opposition to gay marriage more than on their desire to see the religious charities thrive on government support. However, a new variety of conservative Christians are increasing in number. These “new” evangelicals appear to view government as much as a tool for furthering social justice as for legislating Christian values. According to Pew surveys, two-thirds of professed evangelicals favor churches that are willing to apply for federal grants. Once we prioritize the universal desire to alleviate poverty, churches will have greater resources with which to do good, and more young Americans of faith will take action in social service ministries, thus avoiding being sucked into the quagmire of partisan politics. Religion must not be too separate from the state, when the church is useful in the “secular” sense. At some point, both partisan wings should swallow their hostilities and tend to the crisis of poverty that continues to rage.