epublican presidential candidate George W. Bush called yesterday for a working partnership between government and religious groups to combat social ills. Praising churches and other faith-based groups as part of the "armies of compassion," Bush described his proposal as "the next bold step in welfare reform."

   Addressing a crowd of over 500 parishioners at an Indianapolis, Ind. church, Bush said that if elected, his administration would rely on charitable groups including religious congregations. "We should promote these private and faith-based efforts because they work," the Texas governor declared. "But we should also promote them because their challenges are often greater than their resources." He promised to dedicate $8 billion to such groups in the first year of his presidency through a program of tax rebates and direct grants. According to Associated Press, the program "would be used to encourage Americans to give more to charity and increase the role of faith-based organizations in the fight to reduce poverty, welfare rolls, crime and other social problems." He called for states to provide tax credits to those donating money to charitable groups. "We will provide charity tax credits -- credits which will allow individuals to give a part of what they owe in state taxes directly to private and religious institutions fighting poverty in their community."

   Bush also promised to established an "Office of Faith-Based Action." Media reports described the agency as a "clearinghouse for information on effective religious organizations and assisting them in their dealings with the federal government." The office would also aid religious groups in seeking public monies; Bush noted that under his plan, "We will allow private and religious groups to compete to provide services in every federal, state and local social program."

   The governor's remarks were part of his visit to a celebration hosted by Front Porch Alliance, a project initiated by Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith which involves municipal government, neighborhood groups and local churches. They also mimic a proposal made in May by Vice President Al Gore who called for a "New Partnership" between church and state, and promised that if sent to the White House, "the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policies set forth in my administration." Unlike Bush, Gore was short on specifics for his "partnership." Reacting to today's announcement, an official with the Gore campaign gushed, "We're glad to see George Bush following Al Gore's lead to work with faith-based organizations."

   Both political hopefuls insist that their programs would pass constitutional scrutiny and not foster entanglement between government and religion. Gore claimed that his "New Partnership" with church groups would be "carefully tailored" to supposedly avoid any legal problems, and today Mr. Bush said that federal funding would pay for services delivered by sectarian groups, but not for the religious teachings which they espouse. "I am told by legal experts that my program will pass constitutional muster," Bush promised reporters after his talk. "The question is, 'Does it work?' That's what we ought to ask as a society."

"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..."

-- Act for Establishing Religious Freedom
Thomas Jefferson

   While religious groups do receive public funding, grants and other government perks, such assistance is -- in theory -- not be used for the promulgation of religious doctrine. Church-operated social outreaches which use public monies may not require a religious litmus test for applicants, or use the monies in any way to promote their doctrines. Critics say that government oversight, though, is often incomplete and that, ultimately, church groups cannot "secularize" their programs.

   While the scheme for aiding religious groups by promoting faith-based social outreaches is relatively new, its roots lay in the battles fought decades ago over government aid to parochial schools. Protestants often opposed any form of federal or state subsidies for the Roman Catholic school system, but in 1930 a state Supreme Court decided the important COCHRAN v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION case. Louisiana had purchased and supplied textbooks free of charge for the parochial schools; under COCHRAN, the practice was upheld with the court ruling: "The schools, however, are not the beneficiaries of these appropriations ... The school children ... are the beneficiaries." Other state high courts decided that it was the schools and the religious institution which benefited, though, and the matter finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court in EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TOWNSHIP (1947).

"While the scheme for aiding religious groups by promoting faith-based social outreaches is relatively new, its roots lay in the battles fought decades ago over government aid to parochial schools..."

   There, New Jersey parents were reimbursed for fees charged to their children on public buses so that they could attend Roman Catholic schools. The high court emphasized the "child benefit" theory. That opened the door for religious schools to qualify for public funds under the School Lunch Act and other programs.

   The "benefit" theory was expanded in other court decisions; soon, government grants were being made to religious educational institutions including colleges, under the theory that it was students, not the church, which would "benefit." From 1964 to 1969, legislation was passed in thirteen of the states providing aid to religious schools. The theory was that public bankrolling for textbooks, transportation, lunches and other "benefits" to students was permissible, as long as it did not directly fund or promote, say, a religion class or activity. Today, vouchers continue to be justified as part of this slippery-slope of public funding.

   Similarly, beginning in the 1960s and into the 1970s, various Community Development Block Grant programs began fund social services administered by religious groups. The groups were required to obey guidelines as a condition for receiving the money, of course; in theory, a Salvation Army rescue mission operating with public funds could not require clients to participate in religious services. The programs had to be "secular," and, somehow, divorced from the religious mission of the providing institution.

"The 'benefit' theory was expanded in other court decisions; soon, government grants were being made to religious educational institutions including colleges, under the theory that it was students,not the church, which would benefit..."

   With that precedent, supporters of public aid to religion have now gone a step further, and demanded that "successful" programs which incorporate a faith-based message should be considered an "option." To many separationists, this is a logical extension of bad law established back in EVERSON, and continued with the questionable practice of expecting churches and other religious groups to operate -- and not benefit from -- secular social services. In fact, sectarian groups could legally benefit from such a public subsidy as long as an attorney could demonstrate to a court that they were not the primary beneficiary.

   How far has George Bush taken this precedent of public funding for religion? In Texas, Bush is a major supporter of voucher schemes that would reimburse parents and provide "opportunity scholarships" for students attending private and religious schools. He also supports religion-based rehabilitation programs for penal inmates and drug/alcohol abusers. Texas boasts the largest program in the country using faith-based regimens, including one operated by Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministry. The 2-year, $5 million program is up for renewal shortly and thus far has been paid for with private funds. Prison security and support services, though, which enable Colson's program to operate, are provided at public expense. The Fellowship Ministry is hoping for public funding for the entire program if it is renewed.

   In Congress, legislators have already passed a measure which allows faith-based programs to compete for public funding to provide social services; it is unclear, though, what will happen if and when such funding grants are made. Some religious groups like National Catholic Charities already rely on the public treasury for the bulk of their funding, and reap handsome "administrative" fees for operating various outreaches. Other faith-based charities, though, may be tempted to resist any restrictions on their proselytizing activities; in that case, Rep. J.C. Watts' American Community Renewal Act (ACRA)and other proposals would help by granting such funding even to groups promoting a faith-based social message.

   And would such public funding really survive constitutional muster? Under the "benefit" theory, it possibly could. The changing political coloration of the U.S. Supreme Court may well pack the bench with justices who take a restrictive view of the Establishment Clause, considering it to be only a check on government interference in religious affairs.

   In the meantime, with campaign 2000 already heating up, candidates of both leading parties are turning to god, religion and the churches for support. When is the last time you heard a candidate openly and positively defend the separation of church and state as a necessary feature of enlightened, secular society? In calling for "partnerships" and deals with religious groups, though, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are reducing the separation of church and state to a cumbersome obstacle which can be circumvented, or an embarrassment to be mentioned only in passing.

[text only]