|
|
June 11, 1999/27 Sivan 5759, Vol. 51, No.37
Gore's 'charitable choice' proposal draws local fire
CHRIS GARIFO
Staff Writer
Valley civil rights advocates are casting a wary eye on Vice President Al Gore's proposal to expand "charitable choice," a controversial law that already allows the federal government to contract with faith-based charitable organization to provide welfare services without having to alter their religious character.
Gore wants to expand the concept to a wider variety of government contracts for social programs.
The Arizona Legislature this year passed a state charitable choice bill applying to local government contracts for goods and services for health and welfare programs. It was signed into law by Gov. Jane Hull last month.
"Obviously, (Gore) is trying to move more to the center, if not more to the right," commented Marc Lieberman, chairman of the Anti-Defamation League's Civil Rights Committee. "On this particular issue, we're not pleased."
In a May 24 campaign speech in Atlanta, Gore proposed what he calls the "New Partnership" program, under which faith-based institutions could receive federal funds to provide drug treatment programs, services to the homeless, and programs to curb youth violence.
"As long as there is always a secular alternative for anyone who wants one, and as long as no one is required to participate in religious observances as a condition for receiving services, faith-based organizations can provide jobs and job training, counseling and mentoring, food and basic medical care," Gore said. "I believe we should extend this carefully tailored approach to other vital services where faith-based organizations can play a role."
Lieberman countered that: "The more government gets involved supporting particular religions with money, the more violated the First Amendment gets."
Lieberman said Gore's plan, if it goes into effect, might result in federal-government support of religious activities.
"What you'll find is entire charities feeding off the federal trough and then using the money that they gain thereby to fund their more sectarian projects," Lieberman alleged.
Arizona's charitable choice law is scheduled to go into effect in early August. Mark Barry, a research assistant to Rep. Mark Anderson (R-Mesa), the legislation's primary sponsor, explained that Arizona's charitable choice law won't fundamentally change the way social services are provided in the state, but will "enlarge the pool of providers" of those services, by allowing the state to contract with faith-based institutions, including those that discriminate in their hiring practices.
That's one of the reasons the Arizona Civil Liberties Union fought the legislation, said Eleanor Eisenberg, ACLU executive director.
"We are of the opinion that government has no business supporting discriminatory business practices," Eisenberg said. "Under the Civil Rights Act, religious organizations can discriminate, and my sense is that was in contemplation of the fact that a religious organization has a religious mission. And if you're hiring somebody to serve up a sermon, then it makes sense to say, 'Well, you need somebody who believes in the mission.' That's not true if you're hiring somebody to serve up soup or social services."
Eisenberg noted that there are some faith-affiliated organizations, such as Jewish Family and Children's Service and Catholic Social Services, that do not have a religious mission and whose efforts are secular, but laws such as charitable choice might allow for government intrusion into religious activities, or subject to proselytizing those people who are seeking food stamps or medical aid.
"I think the churches have played a very valuable role in providing social services, and that they're doing a fine job without government entanglement," Eisenberg said, "and that's the way it should continue."
Faith-based institutions will continue to provide social services, said Monsignor Edward Ryle, director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, which lobbies the state Legislature. Charitable choice, Ryle said, "is just making it explicit and reminding again that entities, sectarian agencies or entities that want to contract with the state have to maintain the contracting requirements of the state."
He noted that the Arizona law was amended to restrict the faith-based organizations to contracting to provide health and welfare goods and services. The law also prohibits the organizations from using public funds for proselytizing, and any faith-based organizations that contract with the state to provide services will be subject to government auditing and control.
"If a service wants to contract with the government, government has the right to hold them accountable for the use of tax dollars," Ryle said. "That's standard operating procedure."
He also doubts that, because a faith-based organization receives public funds to provide social services, that it will then be able to earmark more of its own money for sectarian purposes.
"If you look at the history of social welfare, you'll find that the general trend has been for agencies like Catholic Social Service and Jewish social services to try to keep putting more of their own money into their services, not cut back on the money they receive from the Jewish or Catholic communities to rely on state money," Ryle said. "So, I'd say the history, I think, would say that sectarian agencies want to keep helping, and these faith communities that support them want them to do more."
The ADL's Lieberman disagrees.
"When you've got $10 million going from the federal government to the Catholic Church for its child-care work, you can't tell me that the Catholic Church, or a Reform synagogue, won't benefit," Lieberman said. "It shouldn't be happening."
Lieberman said the ADL's main concern is that some more powerful religions will prosper at the expense of smaller ones, thus creating a situation of religious haves and have-nots.
"Five years from now, I suspect that you'll find that those mainstream religions that have good contract writers and perhaps that have good constituents in the federal government or state governments will get the lion's share, if not all, of the funding, and other non-mainstream constituencies will get none," Lieberman said.
Eisenberg, who said the ACLU has not yet decided whether it will mount a court challenge of charitable choice in Arizona, warns that the legislation dangerously blurs the line separating church and state.
"If you look at history, it's not often that you find countries that are dominated by religious leadership that have, for instance, the hallmark of our society, an orderly transition of power," Eisenberg said. "If you look at the history of Europe, as Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin said, the soil of Europe for years has been soaked with the blood of religious wars. There are some historians who feel for that reason primarily, the founders talked about prohibiting an establishment of religion in this country."
|
