As the President and Congress desultorily consider how to deal with the huge current deficit and accumulated federal debt, much attention is being given to federal tax deductions, such as the deduction for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable contributions. One argument is fairness: these deductions go disproportionately to better-off taxpayers. But the main reason for all the attention is revenue:  how to bring more dollars into the federal treasury?

But of course the various federal deductions are not equivalent. The deduction for charitable contributions is in a class by itself: yes, it benefits the taxpayers who claim it, but those taxpayers can only claim it because they have chosen to give away money to causes that benefit other people! And by stimulating more such giving, the loss to the federal Treasury is more than offset by the flourishing of a wide range of community-enriching initiatives to combat poverty, heal the sick, educate the young, and uplift art and music lovers. These are important alternatives to the programs designed by government. They ought not be undermined in the effort to shore of the foundations of government operations.

For a recent "Room for Debate" discussion, the New York Times asked four experts, "Are Charities More Effective Than Government?" The various perspectives are well worth reading.

But it is a crazy question, anyway. Obviously some charities are more effective than others and some government programs are run well but others dreadfully. And clearly the government can do some things that charities just cannot: a charity might do a great job helping a woman who has been abandoned by her husband find work that can sustain her and her child, but even the best charity will not be able to compel her unfaithful husband to pay child support.

But a least this was a public policy discussion that included charities--that is, civil society! That's a big improvement over the just-past and unlamented presidential election campaign, where one side pretended that only the economy and individuals are important (remember: jobs, jobs, jobs) and the other side pretended that only the government and individuals are important (remember that "Julia" clip). Even combining those two partial perspectives gets us only to the thin and inaccurate trio: individuals, the market, and government.

But we all count on much more than that, including families, faith-based and secular poverty-fighting groups, cultural institutions, houses of worship, rescue missions, food banks, broadcast stations and magazines, schools, think tanks and advocacy organizations.

Both the Catholic ("subsidiarity") and Dutch Calvinist ("sphere sovereignty") social-teaching traditions have a lot to say about that variety of non-government, non-market institutions, and how they should be related to each other, to individuals, to the market, and to government. One great resource is Christianity and Civil Society: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Perspectives, ed. Jeanne Heffernan Schindler (Lexington Books, 2008).

The city of Calgary, the large oil-boom city in Alberta province in western Canada, a few years ago adopted a "Centre City Plan" to guide the development of its core urban area to ensure that it will be livable and thriving and a magnet for the arts, recreation, business, dwellers, and tourism. All to the good, but something is missing: attention to the faith dimension and religious institutions.

That was the observation of Cardus, the Canadian Christian think tank that pays special attention to "social architecture" (full disclosure: your editor is a Cardus senior fellow). So Cardus conducted a research project to probe the extent and roles of houses of worship and faith-based service organizations in central Calgary. According to that research, both the churches and the parachurches play a vital role in urban life: spaces to meet, spiritual nurture, a wide range of social services, providing volunteers and cultivating volunteerism, promoting civic engagement and an attitude of care for neighbors, and more.

But without careful attention to this vital dimension of Calgary's urban life, the new developments contemplated by the city's planning document--the new residents, new arts and entertainment venues, new shopping and office facilities, etc.--might well squeeze out and undermine this faith infrastructure.

Calgary city planners and officials have been receptive to the research and the message and have taken a series of actions to give new attention to the roles and importance of current religious institutions and to ensure that the planned development of the core of the city gives adequate space to worship institutions and faith-based community-serving initiatives.

Canada increasingly fancies itself a post-Christian, even post-religious, nation. In truth, religion is far from merely a memory in the lives of individuals and in the bustle and development of urban places.