Leaders of both major political parties are touting government partnerships with faith-based organizations to solve the nation’s social ills.
Republican leaders made it a centerpiece of their annual convention July 31-Aug. 3, profiling religious leaders who are ready to bring a religious-based approach to problems such as drug abuse, juvenile crime and others.
Both Vice President Al Gore and GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush have voiced support for “charitable choice” initiatives, which would open a new funding door to thoroughly religious organizations to provide social services without altering the religious character of the programs or changing their hiring policies.
But civil liberties groups and religious leaders across the political spectrum remain split on the merits of the idea and its impact on houses of worship.
Thoroughly religious institutions, such as churches, have long been able to set up separate nonprofit organizations that may receive tax dollars to provide social services as long as they do not engage in religious propagation. Churches themselves, however, have not been eligible to receive taxpayer monies directly because of the separation of church and state.
As a result, houses of worship have remained free of government regulations that typically accompany tax dollars. At both the Republican and Democratic conventions, religious leaders addressed the divisive issue at events separate from official convention activities.
Popular issue
In Los Angeles, Washington Post columnist E. J. Dionne led a panel discussion on religion and politics in the election, and “charitable choice” was a hot topic.
Dionne took a question from the audience about the funding of extreme groups, such as David Koresh’s Branch Davidians, and called it “the heart of the problem” with charitable choice. Dionne said supporters of the charitable choice are “going to end up facing situations where they either violate their principle of fairness in distribution, or they have to give money to certain place that they’re not going to like entirely.”
Melissa Rogers, general counsel of the Washington-based Baptist Joint Committee, instead urged churches to set up separate nonprofit organizations that can live by federal rules when taking tax money.
“Charitable choice create more opportunities to use religion as a political tool,” she told the forum gathered just blocks away from the Democratic national Convention.
“Precisely why religion is so strong here is because it is self-supporting,” Rogers said.
She said a church may be interested in a program that provides a secular service and any religious activity is clearly separate from the secular activity.
“if they can imagine doing that and are willing to live by the government rules, the I would say in that case they can apply for the tax funds but should be a separate (organization) from the mother church body,” Rogers said if the church does not want to establish a separate group. Or if their program is “holistic in nature: and integrates religion throughout, “I don’t think those are good candidates for tax money.”
Jim Wallis, convener of Call to Renewal, supports the charitable-choice proposal but says it is not enough on its own to overcome poverty. Wallis said the country may be “moving from a high wall of separation to a kind of fair pluralism or neutrality.”
He said charitable choice “can be done in a way that satisfies legitimate concerns that critics raise.” While he supports charitable choice, Wallis said he remains concerned about the “prophetic integrity question.” The Bible suggests that it is inevitable that kings and government leaders do bad thing, Wallis said. “That’s why the Prophets are needed. Well, if you’re in too close a relationship with political power- whether you’re being funded or not – can that prophetic vocation remain strong?”
In addition to serving the poor, Wallis said, churches should also work to change social and political structures that contribute to poverty.
At a meeting of disenchanted voters held concurrently with the Republican National Convention, Wallis said the government’s role in overcoming poverty cannot be ignored.
“We can’t keep pulling people out of the river and not send somebody upstream to see what or who is throwing them in,” he said.
Baptist evangelist Tony Campolo is part of Wallis’ Call to Renewal movement but is reluctant to send tax dollars to religious organizations.
Campolo is critical of vouchers that would fund religious schools. But on the issue of merging government and religion to address social services, he said, “We’ve got to find a way without violating church and state, where government funds and religious volunteers can come together to get the job done.”
Just weeks ago, the American Jewish Congress filed the first known constitutional challenge to a charitable-choice contract. The suit seeks to invalidate a contract between the Texas Department of Human Services and the Jobs Partnership of Washington County.
The suit charges that Protestant evangelical Christianity permeates” the Partnership’s job-training and placement program, “all at the expense of the taxpayers” and I violation of the federal and state constitutional bans on state support of religious enterprises.
Supporters of charitable choice, however, also include conservative Christian advocates, who want to see faith-based groups – which have a proven record of success in dealing with issues such as substance abuse – compete for tax funds without changing their religious character.
But even some religious leaders in this camp support safeguards.
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, told ABP in a phone interview that “we certainly ought to be more open to faith-based options than we have been in the past.”
However, Land said there had to be a great deal of care and scrutiny exercised to avoid unconstitutional entanglement. “I like tax credits a lot better than direct aid. (ABP)
Share with others: