2 of 4

The state of Charitable Choice
The New York Times questioned whether Charitable Choice could survive without DiIulio who gave it "credibility and bipartisan sheen." The bill, more controversial than many predicted, has drawn much heat for a House-approved provision to make faith-based service providers exempt from state and local employment discrimination laws. The September 1 editorial called for Joe Lieberman (D., Conn.) to "either rid the bill of its most dangerous provisions or shelve it." The article said:

Workers who had been hired to deliver charitable services could be discriminated against on account of private conduct as well as religious beliefs. Groups running federally funded programs might be able to refuse to hire an applicant because he had been divorced, or fire a worker who has a child out of wedlock. Mr. Lieberman, the most influential Democratic champion of the bill in the Senate, needs to correct that.

Rich Cizik, vice president of government affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), told Christianity Today that the removal of the hiring exemption provision "would probably make it a bill not worth signing."

Keith Pavlischek of The Center for Public Justice said, "The argument that [the opposition to the hiring exemption] is making is that if you receive one penny from federal grants, it destroys the protection for faith-based organizations to hire those with like beliefs. Protection is not overrideen by the reciept of public funds for secular service."

He, too, feels the outcome lies with Lieberman. In a recent Capital Commentary, Pavlischek argued:

Those who opposed H.R. 7 did so precisely because the legislation protected the "religious character" of FBOs (as Gore said it should), particularly in their employment decisions. The legislation now faces similar objections in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and Sen. Joe Lieberman seems to be aligning himself with the separationists.

Yet perhaps it is not too late for Sen. Lieberman to recover his earlier political courage and lead the Democrats to higher ground. We will soon find out, because he will likely play a major role in drafting Senate legislation to expand charitable choice. If Sen. Lieberman caves in on the issue of protecting the integrity of FBOs, we will have reason to doubt his viability as a responsible leader among Senate Democrats and as a potential presidential candidate.

David P. Gushee, associate professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, argued that concessions already made in the bill have it staggering toward oblivion. The loss of protection in hiring would be the final step. He wrote in a Religion News Service column:

One thing is completely clear—if the bill ends up requiring religious organizations to hire people whose beliefs or practices violate their cherished beliefs, most remaining religious support for the bill will turn into heated opposition. Not to mention that the concessions already made raise serious questions as to whether the outcome of this initiative will finally do more good than harm.

As one who initially supported this proposal, I hereby register my disdain for the hash that is being made out of it in Washington. I am not at all sure I will be able to support what survives of it.

next page... |  2 of 4

share this page

September (Web-only) 2001, Vol. 45