Should Atheists be compelled to support religious groups, outreaches and programs. The Establishment Clause prohibits government funding of faith; but religious groups, and their friends on Capitol Hill, hope to change that. You may be forced to finance religion under the excuse of subsidizing social welfare programs...

Web Posted: August 30, 1998

ith lawmakers heading back to Washington from recess, new political battles about government funding of religious groups, and even a possible change in the rules which prohibit faith groups from partisan campaigning could be in the works.

   ¶    A version of the American Community Renewal Act could end up for a vote in Congress after clearing the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. First, the controversial measure has to go before the full House Banking & Financial Services Committee.

    ACRA, or HR 3865 was reintroduced for the current Congress on May 14, 1998, sponsored by Reps. J. C. Watts (R-OK) and James Talent (R-MO). It has 142 listed cosponsors, including House Speaker Newt Gingrich. ACRA is one of a series of "charitable choice" measure which ostensibly permit taxpayers to designated how they wish their monies to be spent. Unfortunately, some groups which oppose ACRA argue that this and other related measures are "unnecessary," since religious groups already receive public funds to provide social services. This is a dangerous slippery-slope argument which skirts the issue of the current political arrangement whereby tax monies are turned over to churches or other religious organizations provided that the services they render are somehow secular, and do not serve religious ends.

    The Watts-Talent scheme ends even that pretense at secularism, though. The measure would legalize the use of public monies for "faith based" outreaches. None of this is mentioned, however in the "Short Title and Table of Contents" section of HR 3865 which declares, in Sec 2(b):

"PURPOSE -- The purpose of this Act is to increase job creation, small business expansion and formation, educational opportunities, and home ownership, and to foster moral renewal, in economically depressed areas by providing Federal tax incentives, regulatory reforms, school reform pilot projects, and homeownership (sic) incentives."

    The measure then empowers the government to establish up to 100 so-called "Renewal Communities," and calls for a number of strategies including redevelopment grants and programs to transfer HUD (Housing and Urban Development) properties to local control. It is only at the end of the Act where constitutionally suspect provisions are mentioned concerning religious groups.

    Part G, designated as "Services Provided Through Religious Organizations" applies "to each program under this Act that makes awards of Federal financial assistance to public or private entities for the purpose of carrying out activities to prevent or treat substance abuse..." Section 582 ("Religious Organizations As Program Participants") then stipulates that: "A religious organization -- (A) may be a designated award recipient; (B) may make designated subawards to other public or nonprofit private entities (including other religious organizations)..."

    Subsequent sections of HR 3865 then go in to detailed elaboration of the role to be played by religious groups within these "renewal communities."

    Under Section 582(b), "The purpose of this section is to allow religious organizations to be program participants on the same basis as any other nonprofit private provider without impairing the religious character of such organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom of program beneficiaries." This stipulation, which must be read most carefully, thus ends requirements that religious groups which receive government funds use them only in the operation of programs which are secular in both content and purpose. Any ambiguity, though, is set aside in subsection (c), "Nondiscrimination Against Religious Organizations." Reps. Watts and Talent then declare, in contradiction to the entire intent of the Establishment Clause:

"(1) FINDINGS -- The Congress finds that the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not require that --

   '(A) social-welfare programs discriminate against faith-based providers of services; or

   (B) faith-based providers of services, as a prerequisite to participation in Federal programs, abandon their religious character and censor their religious expression."

   Additional provisions of the American Community Renewal Act include:

    "RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS -- Except as provided in this section, any religious organization that is a program participant shall retain its independence from Federal, State and local government, including such organization's control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious beliefs."

and:

"Neither the Federal Government nor a State shall require a religious organization to --

    (A) alter its form of internal governance; or

   (B) remove religious art, icons, scriptures, or other symbols; in order to be a program participant."

    Finally, the Act permits "A religious organization that is a program participant" to be able to "require than an employee rendering programs services adhere to --

    (A) the religious beliefs and practices of such organization; and

   (B) any rules of the organization regarding the use of drugs or alcohol."

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN

    Passage of the ACRA would seriously alter the interpretation of the Establishment Clause which has governed the use of public funds by religious groups. Until now, any religious group administering a social service program with government funds had to do so in a secular fashion; the program had to be open to all without discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religious affiliation. The program also had to be primarily secular in its methodology and content. Thus, a "faith-based" drug or alcohol program, for instance, which included religious belief and practice as a component could not qualify for government funding. ACRA would change all of that, and these "faith- based" outreaches would be eligible for equal consideration along with secular programs.

PUBLIC FUNDING OF RELIGION

    The Watt-Talent proposal is just the latest in a series of moves to permit public funding of religious groups and exercise while removing any constitutional restrictions pertaining to the establishment clause. Similar programs include efforts to pass vouchers, which would provide parents wishing to send their children to private or religious schools. with subsidies, and other forms of "charitable choice."

   Unfortunately, public subsidies of religious groups already exists on a massive scale. Churches operate hospitals, retirement homes, shelters and other outreaches and often derive the bulk of their financial support (if not all of it) from various forms of government aid, including direct grants and so-called Community Development Block Grants. Nearly 60% of the annual operating budget of National Catholic Charities now comes from public sources, and we have estimated that another 10% to 12% is then included for "administrative expenses." While these operations are to be primarily secular and not proselytize a religious message, those and other guidelines are enforced with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Critics argue that social programs such as day care or other services which take place at a church inherently benefit religion, or identify the church with the state. Certainly, a government meeting taking place in a church would probably do so; why not a social program?

CHURCHES SEEKING (YOUR) CASH NOW!

    In promoting his American Community Renewal Act, Rep. Watts had declared that the legislation "reflects American ideals by empowering individuals to renew the institutions of private society which hold communities together through the time honored values of faith, family, work, community and neighborhood." But HR 3865 is, for many groups who support it, a key to the public treasury, and a way of obtaining State subsidies for religious organizations and faith-based programs. Ironically, many of the organizations which have signed on to the ACRA posture themselves as economic conservatives, presumably leery of government fiscal subsidies. They include: Catholic Alliance, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Coalitions for America, Foundation of Prayer Ministries, Jewish Policy Center, Joshua's Assembly, Maranatha Evangelistic Temple, Navajo Spiritual Land Recovery Project, Victory Fellowship Ministries, Traditional Values Coalition, and Word of Life Ministries.

SHOULD ATHEISTS, OR ANYONE ELSE
BE COMPELLED TO SUPPORT RELIGION?

    One of the first tasks of the American revolution was the disestablishment of churches. In many colonies, sectarian religious groups were the "official" state church, and were subsidized with tax revenues. Often, the exercise of certain rights such as ownership of property or holding a public office was linked to membership in this established religion. Some religious groups actually favored disestablishment; the Baptists, for instance, challenged the special status given to the Anglican (Episcopal) Church and the Congregationalists. Virginia led the way, and the Declaration of Rights, drafted in part by James Madison, supported "free exercise of religion." Thomas Jefferson was even more explicit with his 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which declared in part:

"no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief; but that all men shall be free to profess ... their opinion in matters of religion."

   Under the guise of "community renewal" or "charitable choice," though, the Watts-Talent scheme would force all Americans, including millions of Atheists, to provide the government with tax money for distribution to faith-based groups and social projects.

CHURCHES: TAX EXEMPTIONS AND POLITICS

    ¶   We find rumbles of another dangerous religious demand -- that of calling for an end to the prohibition on partisan political campaigning by religious groups. Here too, literally decades of abuse have blurred any meaningful distinction between the campaign and preaching pulpits. Politicians frequently "go on the stump" by visiting local churches, a policy widely practiced by candidates right and left, and in both major political parties. The more egregious abuses have attracted official concern. Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition has energized a network of nearly 125,000 participating churches and congregations across the nation for a political agenda which critics say is distinctly partisan. Vice President Albert Gore's involvement at a Buddhist Temple fund raiser in the 1996 campaign is still under investigation. At best, elections laws which require that religious nonprofit organizations limit their activities to "issues rather than candidates" is broad and often vague.

   But are some religious activists seeking to lift all restrictions on political campaigning by churches or faith groups?

   An article in Thursday's issue of The Washington Times newspaper hints that such a political trial balloon has been launched, in a piece that links IRS restrictions on clerical partisan activism to the campaign shenanigans of Lyndon Johnson in 1954. The Times quotes Purdue University sociologist James Davidson, author of a forthcoming article in the quarterly Review of Religious Research.

    "The ban on (church) electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state," argues Davidson. "It was prompted by (Lyndon) Johnson's desire to challenge McCarthyism, protect the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Texas, and win reelection."

   The Times goes on to observe that since 1954, restrictions by the Internal Revenue Service have prohibited certain nonprofit groups, including churches, from engaging in activism in "any political campaign on behalf of any candidate."

    Those restrictions have not always been followed; where they have been, religious groups have become increasingly defensive and belligerent. In 1995, the Church at Pierce Creed in New York ran newspaper advertisements against Bill Clinton's presidential campaign, and lost its tax exemption. The prestigious Christian Century magazine lost its exemption temporarily for supporting Johnson in the 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater. And as The Times notes, it is no secret that Roman Catholic clergy worked hard to promote the candidacy of John Kennedy in the 1960 White House contest, although the young Massachusetts Senator explicitly spoke out on behalf of separation of church and state.

    The IRS regulations, though, exist within a broad gray area of legal interpretation and practical enforcement. In many states, clergymen openly speak out on behalf of political candidates. A spokesman for American United suggested that churches were not as politicized in the 1950s as they are today -- a questionable proposition. In addition, candidates can be indirectly endorsed when religious leaders and groups appear at rallies, or use sermons to emphasize certain texts and points with the public clearly identifies with a particular party or political hopeful. Both liberal and conservative religious interest groups are active in lobbying for legislation as well.

   The Times article notes that "Last year, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson discussed" the possibility of ending the IRS restrictions during a TV interview with House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Republican from Texas. In addition, Robertson legal group -- the American Center for Law and Justice -- has gone to court against the IRS in the Pierce Creek church case for "unequal enforcement."

    Interestingly, Davidson told The Times that "church leaders will leave well enough alone," and not join any effort by Robertson or his allies to challenge the tax exemption criteria. Most of the mainstream religious groups already maintain an active presence in Washington and state capitols throughout the nation with a network of issue-oriented political committees. It is also easy for ministers, even as a group, to publicly support a candidate while adding a "wink of the eye" postscript that, of course, their churches officially cannot.

[text only]