Church issue splits House
By Ryan J. Donmoyer
Bloomberg News
A House bill that would allow religious groups to compete for federal dollars to administer social services programs has moved a step closer to passage but remains a topic of heated debate.
The House Judiciary Committee approved the bill Thursday night on a 20-5 party-line vote.
The bill is a top priority for President Bush and Republicans who argue that church-sponsored soup kitchens, job training programs and other services shouldn't be excluded from federal money because religious organizations sponsor them.
Opponents of the measure say it doesn't prevent such organizations from proselytizing and doesn't bar them from discriminating in their workplace against those of different faiths. The bill also violates the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution, they argued.
"We are talking about direct government funding of religion," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Others said religious groups already are free to seek government financing by creating separate nonprofit corporations.
The House Judiciary Committee is dealing only with policy issues in the bill. Tax issues will be considered by a separate committee after Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess week.
Republicans said the bill only seeks to give access to federal money to groups that do social work and also happen to be affiliated with a religion.
"Nobody supporting this bill wants to take federal money and prop up a religion," said Rep. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
The bill doesn't make any new money available for religion-backed social service providers. Rather, it allows them to compete with secular organizations for existing federal grants that are awarded by city and county governments.
The federal government already finances large religious-affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities and Habitat for Humanity, but those groups don't proselytize or discriminate in hiring based on religion.
The debate stirred up a tempest of issues, ranging from the possibility of fringe religions and cults gaining access to federal money to whether churches would be turned into vendors of government services and become more focused on competing for federal dollars than meeting the spiritual needs of their congregations.
'Servant of the state'
"My fear is that under this bill religion will become the servant of the state, rather than its conscience," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Conyers was alluding to a remark by slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who said the church shouldn't be the master of the state, but its conscience.
Discrimination an issue
Democrats objected to language in the bill that would allow religion-based providers of social services that receive federal money to discriminate against employees that don't share their faith. Current law exempts churches from anti-discrimination civil rights laws, allowing them to hire only members of their own faith to be clergy and staff.
Republicans said the exemption had to be extended in the name of religious autonomy and that religious groups shouldn't have to change their beliefs just to provide social services to people in need.
Lawmakers ultimately agreed on an amendment sponsored by Mel Watt, D-N.C., that said it is the "duty" of a religious organization to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Church opposition
The bill drew opposition from groups such as the United Methodist Church because of the employment discrimination issue and because it allegedly violates the separation of church and state.
"It brings a level of entanglement that we consider unhealthy and inappropriate," said the Rev. Eliezer Valentin-Castanon, program director of the church's General Board of Church and Society.
The Baptist Joint Committee warned that "religion will be harmed, not helped, by funneling government dollars into houses of worship," according to K. Hollyn Hollman, the coalition's general counsel.
Similar criticisms were leveled by the United Church of Christ, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, and the Family Research Council, which said religious-backed social services groups would "compromise their integrity" if forced to separate social services from their religious message.
Secular services available
Democrats also raised concerns about whether those who need social services but object to the religious nature of an organization sponsoring them would have access to a secular alternative.
Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., said the bill clearly states that religious groups that use federal money to sponsor social services must not proselytize and must offer services to everyone who requests them, regardless of religious affiliation.
The bill requires that identical secular services be made available if users of church-sponsored services object to the organization's religion.
"Nobody will be forced to go into a faith-based program," he said.
