Bush's "faith-based
initiative" threatens a revolution in church-state relations
Commentary by Gene TeSelle
[2-9-01]
Today I received a summary of the President's
"faith-based policy agenda," and it is scary indeed, a
revolution in church-state relations with far-reaching consequences. The
material came from Harold Dean Trulear, an African-American champion of
faith-based initiatives in Philadelphia.
Much of it is based on a speech on July 22 in Indianapolis, where he
praised the way faith-based programs change people's lives (chiefly
through what he calls "demanding love," such as the rule that
"If you don't work, you don't eat"). On the basis of successes
which he lists, he announces several basic principles.
"Resources should be devolved, not just to states, but to charities
and neighborhood healers." In later statements there is a
declaration that charitable choice should be extended to all
applicable federal programs, so that faith-based charities can compete
with public agencies for federal funds while they retain their religious
distinctiveness.
"We will never ask an organization to compromise
its core values and spiritual mission to get the help it needs," he
says.
There are also promises that participation in
faith-based programs should be truly voluntary, and "secular
alternatives" should exist. "We will keep a commitment to
pluralism--not discriminating for or against Methodists or Mormons or
Muslims, or good people of no faith at all."
In order to achieve this, he promises in his first
year of office to dedicate "about $8 billion--an amount equal to 10
percent of the non-Social Security surplus--to provide new tax
incentives for giving, and [this "and" is important, though
unexplicated] to support charities and other private institutions that
save and change lives." A later press release says that "these
efforts will prove, in word and deed, that prosperity has a
purpose."
He sets his jaw firmly, saying, "we will change
the laws and regulations that hamper the cooperation of government and
private institutions . . . federal workers in every department of my
administration will know that we value effectiveness above red tape and
regulation."
He goes on, "We will allow private and religious
groups to compete to provide services in every federal state and local
social program. We will promote alternative licensing procedures, so
effective efforts won't be buried by regulation. And we will create an
advocate position--reporting directly to the president--to ensure that
charities are not secularized or slighted." [This is the role
that later statements assign to what is now being called
the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House to "identify and remove all ...
barriers" to faith-based action; similar offices in all the states
will be encouraged.]
Part of the package is a proposal to give all
taxpayers, including the 70 percent who do not itemize, the opportunity
to deduct charitable contributions. Bush also promises to promote a state
tax credit against state taxes to encourage charitable giving by
individuals and corporations. And he wants to raise the cap on corporate
charitable donations from 10 to 15 percent of taxable income, so that
they can strengthen the charities of their choice. Finally, he wants to
protect all corporate in-kind donations to charities from civil
liability suits.
Let's consider some of the consequences. First of all,
note the budget figures and try to figure out how they would fit into
his proposed tax cuts. He would devote 10 percent of the non-Social
Security surplus to this program; so far he's talking surplus, not cuts.
But then every public program would be opened up to competition from
faith-based agencies, with all the uncertainties this would involve from
year to year; and the Office of Faith-Based
and Community Initiatives would run
interference for them against government bureaucrats. Corporations would
be given further encouragement to subsidize charities that fit their
corporate purposes. Finally, the tax deduction for all taxpayers--on top
of the standard deduction?--would involve a huge and perhaps
unpredictable drop in tax revenues. This should make even the Pentagon
nervous.
What would happen, for example, if the $17 billion
Elementary and Secondary School Act were opened up to faith-based
organizations, channeling huge amounts of money away from public
schools? This would be the political equivalent of vouchers, which the
President has said he may not fight for; the only difference is that
vouchers go through the individual students, while these funds would go
directly to the schools.
There are significant Constitutional issues. This
proposal would supersede the longstanding practice of encouraging
religious groups to administer federally-funded programs by setting up
tax-exempt organizations that have clearly public purposes and
non-discriminatory policies; overtly sectarian organizations would be
the direct recipients of federal dollars.
What is more disturbing is that these institutions
would be allowed to engage in religious discrimination in their
employment practices, even when they are using taxpayer dollars and
administering public services. Representative Robert C.
("Bobby") Scott (D-VA-3) has said that charitable choice
"in practice represents a fundamental assault on our civil rights
laws."
His concern seems warranted in view of the fact that
the original legislation for charitable choice, which became part of the
1996 welfare reform law, was drafted by the conservative Center for
Public Justice and was introduced by then-Senator John Ashcroft, the
controversial new Attorney General. Some of those who drafted the
legislation are now arguing that the religious discrimination provision
should be so broadly construed as to "trump" all other
federal, state, and local laws prohibiting discrimination in employment
on grounds other than religion!
Note that the argument begins with an appeal to
fairness--equal ability to compete for federal funds, or perhaps even
equal allocation of educational materials like books or computers; it
continues with permission to engage in religious discrimination in
employment; and it ends with a directive that government is not to
interfere with the purposes of these institutions or restrict religious
observances and practices. All of this, furthermore, is to be enforced
by the Office of Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives.
Unfortunately Presidential candidate Al Gore and
Senator Joe Lieberman have come out in support of many features of this
plan. There is little sober consideration of the wide range of issues,
including constitutionality, the actual effectiveness of faith-based
organizations, the delivery of services, and the consequences for
clients, the organizations themselves, and the general public.
For that reason it is important that hearings be held
by both houses of Congress before these proposals are voted on in
committee or on the floor--and that the public enter fully and
thoroughly into the discussion.
Check out earlier stories
and comments on the "charitable choice" issue.
