2 of 3

Among the group's recommendations were allowing deductions for charitable givers who don't itemize their tax returns and making it easier for small faith-based organizations to apply for grants. Private foundations and corporations were encouraged to drop restrictions on giving to faith-based programs. But nothing was said on expanding charitable choice or allowing hiring protections—the issues were too controversial.

"Their report indicates that the pieces of Mr. Bush's proposal most likely to survive are those that stimulate private giving to charities—not direct government financing," said The New York Times. "This may be as far as it can go," agreed Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Jane Eisner.

Liberal groups that participated in the meeting but that don't want the faith-based initiative to go any farther are certainly spinning it that way. "The point we're trying to make is that you can do so much good without ever getting to those issues [of charitable choice and hiring]," People for the American Way Vice President Elliot Mincberg told The Washington Times.

Moderates on the group later argued that even if the legislation could go further, it is worth passing the consensus guidelines separately, lest they be defeated by more controversial issues. "The 'hot button' issues and what's important are often two different things," wrote Beliefnet cofounder Steven Waldman. "If all these recommendations were adopted … it would do a great deal to help religiously oriented charities to help the poor."

Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, made a similar case. "Here's the message to Congress and the White House: Let's act now on what we can agree on—and avoid the bitter fights and lawsuits," he wrote. "There's no question that implementing these 29 recommendations would dramatically advance the efforts of faith-based and community organizations to help those most in need."

Ron Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action (and another member of the group), also praised the recommendations. But he warned against making them the final word. The argument that the recommendations are all that is politically possible "involves a fundamental misconception," he wrote. "Any single person could block any proposal. Therefore our recommendations represent the minimum, not the maximum, that is politically possible. In the Congress, proposals require a majority (60% in the Senate), but certainly not a 100% vote. It is simply nonsense to suggest that the minimal, unanimous recommendations of this exceedingly diverse group represent all that Senators Santorum and Lieberman can persuade a majority of the Senate to pass."

The faith-based initiative faces another battle as well: lawsuits. A U.S. district court ruled earlier this month that a state-funded drug treatment program was unconstitutional because it was too religious. Judge Barbara Crabb made clear that her ruling should not be taken as a judgment on charitable choice as a whole, but both sides of the debate made the connection. "Far from overturning charitable choice, which she does not even challenge, Judge Crabb's decision is a warning that states must carefully adhere to the specific guidelines laid down by Charitable Choice," wrote Stephen Lazarus, senior policy associate for the Center for Public Justice. "However, while this decision does not negatively impact charitable choice, it still jeopardizes the religious liberties of Faith Works [the Wisconsin program] and its clients. Judge Crabb's opinion would require Faith Works staff and clients to divest their program of its distinctive religious character to be eligible for direct funding. Here her reasoning takes a wrong turn. charitable choice, the controlling federal law, does not require this. Nor does the First Amendment."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

January (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46