|
|
May 21, 1999/6 Sivan 5759, Vol. 51, No.34
Governor signs RFRA, Charitable Choice
CHRIS GARIFO
Staff Writer
Arizona Gov. Jane Hull this week signed into law two controversial pieces of legislation of particular interest to religious and charitable organizations and to civil-rights activists.
On Wednesday, May 19, Hull signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which requires a "compelling state interest" for government to interfere in religious expression. On Tuesday, May 18, she signed the so-called Charitable Choice bill, which will allow local governments to contract for goods and services with religious organizations, including those that only hire members of their own faith.
Tami Schultz, director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Phoenix's Jewish Community Relations Council, hailed the RFRA signing, saying the law will protect "free and sincere religious observance from inappropriate government intrusion."
Marc Lieberman, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League's Civil Rights Committee, also was pleased that Hull gave RFRA the nod, but he was disappointed about Charitable Choice.
"We think that this is a back-door way for sectarian institutions to get public funding for their projects," he said.
Arizona Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Eleanor Eisenberg was disappointed about both measures. She called RFRA a "tragedy."
"I think (RFRA) could possibly be used by the religious right to aid their campaigns for prayer in school and other religious practices in public life," she said. She declined to say whether the ACLU would challenge the measure in court. Eisenberg also had reservations about Charitable Choice, but suggested the ACLU would take more of a wait-and-see attitude about that legislation.
Others, however, applauded Hull's decision to sign the Charitable Choice bill.
"We're pleased," said Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy. "It encourages faith-based organizations to enter a partnership with the state in providing needed social services."
Herrod said the law is patterned after a federal model, and noted that faith-based organizations contracting with the state would still have to operate in a secular manner.
"It certainly does not give faith-based organizations license to proselytize or to promote their own type of faith," she said.
|
