Faith-based plans suggest Bush is a divider, not a uniter
Friday, March 2, 2001 | byHANNAH ROSENTHAL
Just weeks into his new administration President Bush stands at a crossroads that will test his promise to be a "uniter, not a divider."
By focusing so early in his administration on the needs of public school students and the less fortunate in society, Bush has sought to unite people from all walks of life to tackle some of the most intractable problems facing Americans today. We welcome that message and look forward to working with the president and the new administration on these issues.
While Bush deserves praise for placing these matters at the forefront of his agenda, his current plans for education and faith-based action would sow division rather than foster the cooperation needed for compromise and solutions.
Regrettably, he has led with plans that threaten our religious freedom by proposing unprecedented potential breaches in the constitutional separation between church and state.
As a minority faith group, we know that the United States owes its religious diversity to these important church-state protections. Precisely because the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from favoring one religion over another, both minority and majority religions have flourished.
But the president's solutions—vouchers for religious schools and taxpayer dollars to religious institutions that provide social services—threaten this foundation by entangling government and religion.
And if Bush insists on such plans, many of his laudable initiatives are threatened.
A federal school voucher program would not only violate the Constitution by channeling taxpayer dollars into religious schools, it would drain scarce resources away from public schools, which remain the primary route to education for most children. This will only exacerbate the division between "have" and "have- not" schools.
Add to that the establishment of an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to press for a greater role for religious institutions in providing government-funded social services. In one fell swoop, the Bush administration will have undermined the nation's unity, compromising our ability to pursue solutions to the pressing human problems of homelessness, hunger, poverty and addiction that afflict so many in our otherwise affluent society.
As a community with vast experience working with diverse religious groups to attack these problems, we have seen first-hand the value that many faith-based programs can bring. Bush's plan to open offices for faith-based and community initiatives at the departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development have the potential to help many in need. However, only if delicate yet profoundly important safeguards are in place.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs remains steadfastly opposed to charitable choice programs—which allow pervasively sectarian institutions to receive federal funds for the provision of government services—that do not contain meaningful and effective First Amendment safeguards. These could include provisions that ban proselytizing, coercion or indoctrination, and that protect clients and service-provider employees against religiously-based discrimination.
Bush's plan would allow sectarian government contractors to discriminate in hiring for government-funded programs based upon religious belief. Under current law, houses of worship and certain religious institutions are granted an exemption from the prohibition on religious discrimination in hiring, allowing them to favor those who share their religious beliefs. Those operating tax payer-funded programs, however, may not engage in the same practice. Without safeguards in place, it is not inconceivable that a job announcement for a government supported social program could read "Catholics and Jews need not apply."
In addition, clients could face religious coercion or indoctrination as they receive services in a sectarian environment, replete with religious symbols and literature from religious workers whose primary mission may be to promote their beliefs and practices.
Many American Jews, listening to prayers at public ceremonies, are dismayed when clergy offer their invocations in the names of Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity, which excludes those who do not believe in Jesus.
As has happened in previous inaugurations, the clergy at Bush's swearing-in ceremony offered such prayers.
The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell offered his prayer at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremony "in the name that's above all other names, Jesus, the Christ. Let all who agree say, 'Amen.'"
Perhaps Bush should take the example of Caldwell, who subsequently apologized.
"If I had to do it over again," the minister told the Washington Post, "I probably would not say, 'All who agree, say Amen.' Additionally, I probably would not say, 'Jesus, the name that's above all other names.' That truly could be interpreted as inflammatory or offensive."
If Bush's programs go forward, it will not be long before America's parochial schools and social service providers confront the need to offer such apologies. But their apologies will be for government sanctioned exclusion. We will work to convince the president that even as his priorities are right, his solutions are misguided. And we will work tirelessly to ensure that Congress stands firm against all threats to religious freedom.