Stephen Lazarus
Senior Research Associate, Center for Public Justice
from “The Discrimination Olympics,” April 9, 2001, www.cpjustice.org

If advocating discrimination against religious groups were an Olympic sport, some opponents of “charitable choice” would be serious medal contenders. Consider, for example, the arguments made by some Washington lobby groups to deny faith-based organizations the right to provide social services as part of publicly funded welfare programs.

Bronze Medal —American Civil Liberties Union: “Government cannot fund the work of faith-based organizations because, under the Constitution, it can't fund religion.” Nice try, but when government buys job training or transportation services from religious organizations, it is not buying “religion.” It is buying a specific public service, just as it does from “secular” groups. In fact, charitable choice guidelines explicitly state that no public funds can be used for activities such as worship services or discipleship classes.

Silver Medal —People for the American Way: “Government cannot fund the work of faith-based organizations because they might use religion in hiring staff.” It is essential to both the integrity and effectiveness of religious organizations that they hire staff committed to their programs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees this right to faith-based groups. Charitable choice says they do not have to give it up when they use public funds.

Gold Medal —Baptist Joint Committee: “Government shouldn't fund the work of faith-based organizations, because whatever government funds, it controls.” To keep faith-based groups “free” from government, [this argument] denies the right of faith communities to work with government, even if their faith leads them to do so. This is like the overprotective parent who forbids a child from ever going out to play because [his] child might meet the school bully — except that under this scenario, the playground is off limits for all children.

The argument also misses the mark because charitable choice rules now keep government on a pretty tight leash. These new guidelines require government to respect the rights of faith-based organizations to maintain their religious character. The law explicitly states that . . . they no longer have to turn their programs into “religion-free zones” as a condition of receiving public funds.

Instead of giving their blessing to unfair treatment of religious organizations in the public square, these medal winners should adopt a new game plan: Let government welcome all groups as potential teammates in serving the poor, regardless of their religious commitments, and let each group choose for itself whether or not it wants to participate.

Under the First Amendment, American citizens are free to decide on their own whether or not to support religious ministries, and the government must stay out of it. Bush's plan turns that time-tested constitutional principle of church-state separation on its ear.

At its core, Bush's plan throws the massive weight of the federal government behind religious groups and religious conversions to solve social problems. While houses of worship have played an important role in this country since its founding, these institutions have thrived on voluntary contributions.

The president's proposal will allow churches to legally discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving public dollars. A Bob Jones-style religious group, for example, could receive tax aid to pay for a social service job, but still be free to hang up a sign that says “Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply.”

Under Bush's approach, religious institutions would receive taxpayer support to finance social services and would still be free to proselytize people seeking assistance, seriously threatening the religious freedom of beneficiaries.

Government always regulates what it finances, because public officials are obliged to make certain that taxpayer funds are properly spent. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.

Many supporters of Bush's proposal have insisted that faith-based institutions are better, and far more successful, than secular service providers. However, little empirical research supports these claims, and it is unwise to launch a major federal initiative with so little research in the area.

For years, public funds have provided services at religiously affiliated organizations. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, for example, often have received government grants and contracts. However, strict safeguards have been in place to protect the interests of taxpayers and the religious liberties of those receiving assistance. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.

Courts found this approach to be consistent with the First Amendment. Bush's plan radically alters that setup by allowing churches and other houses of worship to preach, proselytize and discriminate while providing public services.