Related articles and links |  1 of 8

The amended legislation, which is also being debated in the House Ways and Means Committee, now requires that any program receiving federal funds must carefully distinguish its social services from its religious components, including religious instruction, prayer, worship, or evangelism. And it must allow anyone who wants to opt out of such religious activities to do so.

That means that Teen Challenge and other organizations that integrate religion throughout their work won't be eligible for federal funds. (Although it seems like they've been excluded from any discussion of direct grants ever since DiIulio's famous speech to the National Association of Evangelicals. But even then, DiIulio and others were at least talking about substituting direct grants in such cases with vouchers, which seems to have dropped off the table completely.) Wasn't allowing such groups to compete for funding one of the basic points of the faith-based initiative? Weren't drug counseling programs permeated with the yeast of biblical teachings touted as more effective than secular alternatives just a few months ago? Didn't Eberly just tell reporters, "These are the groups where we want to say, 'We're not going to change your character; that's what makes you effective'"? Weblog supposes the Feds are still saying they won't change the groups' character—but they can't receive federal funds, either. And we're right back where we started.

The legislation had already required that secular alternatives be available in any community where there was a federally funded faith-based organization. So if First Baptist Church had a soup kitchen that incorporated prayer before the meal, a secular soup kitchen had to be available down the street. So why take the extra step of requiring First Baptist Church to distinguish between feeding the body and feeding the soul? It's one thing to tell an organization it has to spend federal money on bread, not Bibles; it's quite another to tell it how much of the Bible it can quote if it accepts government funds.

House Republicans stanched an amendment requiring federally funded religious organizations to hire workers of all religions. But while belief is protected, the current bill says religious practices can't be weighed in hiring decisions. (Gender and race can't be considered, either.) Even Democrats are wondering what this legislation does that's not currently allowed by law.

In fact, the current bill may actually limit—not expand—the options open to faith-based organizations. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Good News Club v. Milford Central School is only the latest ruling against viewpoint discrimination: if you open the door to some private organizations, you have to open it up to religious ones as well. The Good News Club wasn't told to distinguish between teaching about religion and actively evangelizing for it. Like after-school clubs, charitable choice is about fairness.

next page... |  1 of 8

June (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45