sectarian affiliation does not make an
impediment to receiving government
funds for secular social services."
How Far To Go
For Diament, charitable choice after
1996 merely leveled the playing
field. Religious social service
providers `are no longer discriminat-
ed against solely because they're
faith-based ... Before welfare reform,
separate corporate entities had to be
set up — Catholic Charities, United
Jewish Appeal — legal fictions with
`no religious message'."
Such philanthropies, based on pri-
vate contributions mostly from with-
in specific religious communities,
have received government funds
since the New Deal, says Stephen
Solender, president and chief execu-
tive officer of the United Jewish
Communities. "And we've been able to
maintain this partnership with [con-
tinued] separation of church and state.
I see no reason we can't do so in
regard to charitable choice."
While Solender is "gratified at
President Bush's responsiveness to
non-profit, voluntary systems and our
value in delivering services," he hopes
the new administration will avoid "an
unrealistic reliance on the sector. It
would have a tragic impact on our
most vulnerable citizens" if emphasis
on faith-based provision of welfare
services undercut government-sup-
ported programs.
Nevertheless, noting the "continuum
of care" UJC-supported agencies like
Jewish family services provide — from
pre-schools to nursing homes —
Solender calls the existing government-
private cooperation "remarkable." For
him, using faith-based organizations to
deliver welfare services makes sense,
since their "closer to the ground, more
efficient operation" provides added
value to government spending.
Stern says no hard evidence yet
demonstrates the superiority of faith-
based welfare programs over tradition-
al government projects. He also notes
that secular-sectarian neutrality is not
always apparent in practice.
That's why the AJCongress and
Texas Civil Rights Project are suing
the Job Partnership of Washington
Eric Rozenman is executive editor of
the Bnai B'rith International Jewish
Monthly and the former editor of
Washington Jewish Week. Jewish
Renaissance Media is the owner of
the Detroit Jewish News and the
Atlanta Jewish Times.
SU ARE
Two recent United States Supreme Court decisions have lend momentum
to the drive to expand the "charitable choice route for delivering social
service programs.
In Agostini V. Felton in 1997, the majority ruled, 5-4, that parochial
schools could get the same direct aid as public schools for remedial reading,
special education and similar programs without violating the First
Amendment's establishment clause. In Mitchell v. Helms last year, the jus-
tices, dividing 6 to 3, said all schools could receive direct tax support for
educational equipment, including library.books, computers, and software,
so long as proselytizing and worship were not involved.
The cases set a two-pm test for charitable choice: do the tax funds used by a
faith-based organization support a secular purpose, and is the primary effect of
the program in question to advance religion? If the first answer is yes and the
second no,_the faith-based program is considered neutral and can receive gov-
ernment money, provided the rest of its bid meets other grant specifications. Li
County and various Texas state gov-
ernment officials over a faith-based
effort to reform prison inmates
through Christian education. The case
has been before the state supreme
court for a year, Stern says. Federal
law, and a 1987 Supreme Court case,
Bowen v. Kendrick, affirm that federal
tax dollars cannot be used to support
proselytizing — but Texas officials
argue that government money only
paid the superintendent, not those
doing missionary work.
Related suits are pending in
Wisconsin and Kentucky brought by
Freedom from Religion and Americans
United for Separation of Church and
State. The latter group, with the
American Civil Liberties Union and
People for the American Way, opposed
charitable choice during the 1996 wel-
fare reform debate. But it was a sec-
ondary issue for most opponents, who
objected more strenuously to ending
welfare as an entitlement.
A Question Of Race
Not only does charitable choice tap
general anti-government feelings that
the private sector can do it better, it
might also contain a racial aspect, in
Stern's view. "Black churches are one
of the only functioning institutions in
some urban areas. This is a way of
empowering minorities."
It also might help Republicans crack
African Americans' overwhelmingly
Democratic voting patterns.
Stern said New Jersey Governor
Christine Todd Whitman, now
President Bush's nominee to head the
Environmental Protection Agency,
began a charitable choice program,
with very few rules, shortly after her
state was criticized for "profiling"
minority group members in police
investigations. The new program, he
said, was "a way to get funds directly
to powerful individuals in the black
community."
Lewin notes that under welfare
reform, secular alternatives were to be
available first. In their absence, faith-
based institutions could bid on gov-
ernment contracts to undertake social
services. Church-state entanglements
do not arise "so long as essentially sec-
ular services are provided" and, per-
haps unlike the Texas prison case, peo-
ple are free to leave if they hear an
objectionable religious message.
Lewin says that the time for corn-
plaint comes "if someone crosses the
line" into missionary activity. "Then
there can be complaints, law suits.
That's what the courts are for. But it
doesn't mean you throw the baby out
with the bathwater."
Lieberman disagrees. "It's not
whether these organizations should do
it [provide social services], can do it
well, whether God has the potential to
make a difference in reforming addicts,
or whether government should fund
religious organizations doing that
work. It's over the terms, and the
framework for doing so already exists"
without charitable choice.
"We're concerned," says Reva Price,
Washington representative for the
Jewish Council on Public Affairs, "that
there are no safeguards against prosely-
tizing or hiring discrimination" in
charitable choice as articulated by
both Bush and Gore during the cam-
paign. "But it's not clear what this new
office will do, and we're interested in
working with it." Jewish organizations,
she notes, will hold a number of meet-
ings in the coming weeks "to discuss
how to approach this." ❑
Jews more wary of
religion In public 10..
SHARON SAMBER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency
.
Washington
merican Jews are wary of religions
role in politics and reluctant to
accept any increased influence of reli-
gion in public life, a new study shows.
Following a presidential campaign
that often threw religion into the
spotlight, the study seems to buttress
long-held views that Jews are still con-
cerned about the negative conse-
quences of heightened religiosity in
Americ.an public life.
The findings counter the beliefs of
the general public and even the title
of the study, "For Goodness' Sake:
Wily So Many Want Religion to Play -
a Greater Role in American Life."
The study, conducted by Public
enda, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research
organization, and fimded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts, examined what 1,507
respondents think about religion in poli-
tics, schools and social settings. It includ-
ed a special focus on American Jews, with
200 respondents in that group alone.
Among the findings:
• Only 14 percent ofJews — but
nearly half the general public —
believe elected officials would make
better laws and 'policy decisions if
more of them were deeply religious.
• Sixty percent of Jews disagree with
the idea that the Supreme Court,
which has sought to remove religion
from public institutions, has become
hostile toward religion. Nearly the
same percentage of the general public
consider the court hostile toward reli-
gion. Among one group — evangeli-
cal Christians — 84 percent of
respondents said Satan is behind the
fight against religion in public life.
• Public schools should avoid prayer
or a moment of silence, 60 percent of
Jews said. More than half the general
public -views a MOMelit of silence as a
good compromise.
Another church-state separation issue
that is problematic for Jews is govern-
ment funding of faith-based organiza-
tions, known. as charitable choice. Jews
are wary of charitable choice.
Only 19 percent of Jews think it is
a good idea for government to fund
religious groups that provide social
services; 44 percent think it is a good
idea if the progranis don't promote
religious messages; and 36 percent say
it is a bad idea altogether. i___j
A
•
1/26
2001
23