t least two of the "three - R's" could change in publicly funded literacy programs thanks to new funding guidelines enacted Wednesday by the House Education and Workforce Committee. Legislators approved by voice vote the latest in a slew of "charitable choice" measures that bring religious groups closer to full participation in federally funded social service programs.

   In front of the full committee was H.R. 3222, the Literacy Involves Families Together (LIFT) Act introduced last November by Rep. William Goodling. The measure was designed to supplement to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by promoting "Early Start" and other reading-and-writing programs. Money would target organizations and government entities focusing on Native Americans, immigrants, and families with large numbers of children whose parents do not have a high school education, or have poor levels of literacy. The bill is funded with $500 million for its first year of operation.

   The literacy initiative, however, quickly became a pawn in a larger game on Wednesday when Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) dragged religion in by offering an amendment aimed at encouraging sectarian groups to apply for grant money. The new, amended version of H.R. 3222 passed by voice vote.

   Souder's amendment had nothing to do with the mechanics of teaching reading and writing skills; it was solely about religion. It added wording to the original H.R. 3222:

"SEC. 1213. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. "(a) RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDED AS PARTNERSHIP PARTICIPANTS. -- In carrying out this part, the Secretary (of Education), and any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance under this part, shall treat religious organizations the same as other nongovernmental organizations, so long as the part is implemented in a manner consistent with the Establishment Clause of the first amendment (sic) to the Constitution. The Secretary, and any grantee or subgrantee receiving assistance under this part, shall not discriminate against an organization that participates in a partnership that is an eligible entity that is receiving assistance under this part or is applying to receive such assistance, on the basis that the organization has a religious character."

"(2) ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS. -- Neither the Federal Government nor a State or local government shall require a religious organization --

"(A) to alter its form of internal governance; or

"(B) to remove religious arts, icons, scripture, or other symbols; in order to be eligible to participate in a partnership that is an eligible entity that is receiving assistance under this part or is applying to receive such assistance."

"(3) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. -- A religious organization's exemption ... regarding employment practices shall not be affected by its participation in, or receipt of funds from, a program under this part."

   Souder's amendment hands the money over to sectarian groups, but nowhere establishes a monitoring or oversight mechanism to make sure that public money is not used in a discriminatory way by the religious groups.

   The present version of H.R. 3222 -- amended thanks to Mr. Souder -- is a disturbing incremental step in eroding separation of church and state, and abolishing what few controls presently exist regarding how religious groups may use public funds when administering social services.

   ¶    The measure allows groups to employ a religious litmus test for employment, even in programs that are administered with public money. Those considered for a position may be rejected on the basis of sexual orientation, race, or some other factor which is part of the group's "religious character."

   "For example," noted a recent Associated Press story, "a Catholic church could leave a crucifix up on a wall during tutoring or a synagogue would not have to hire non-Jewish staff to get funding, Souder said..."

   ¶    Religious groups which do accept public funding to operate social programs must now -- at least in theory -- create a secular atmosphere that is non-proselytizing and has a minimal overtone of religion. H.R. 3222, however, sets a dangerous precedent by allowing groups to conduct literacy or other programs using taxpayer money, with less attention spent to having a "neutral" ambiance A program could be conducted on church property, in a class setting replete with religious symbols, pictures, slogans and tracts, including those which point to an official position on social matters. The Act blurs the distinction between a purely secular activity, and one that is coopted for subtle or even overt religious practices.

   ¶    While H.R. 3222 is just the latest in a slew of trendy "charitable choice" proposals, some on Capitol Hill are nervous. Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.) opposed the Souder amendment, and warned, "The practice of federally sanctioned religious discrimination is wrong for children, it's wrong for adults. It's so wrong, I don't think you need to differentiate..."

   H.R. 3222 must also be seen in the context of a wider trend involving proposals to involve faith-based groups in administering social programs. Two days ago, a coalition of religious leaders and organizations rallied on the steps of the U.S. capitol building and called for the formation of "partnerships" among sectarian groups, business and government, and "holding new dialogues" in order to presumably eradicate poverty.

   Not all of the denominations involved agree on the details. Some religious liberals are wary of faith-based groups having so much leeway in using public monies that they can overtly use tax funds to proselytize their own sectarian views. Others fear that with government money come controls on its use. Religious conservatives seem to have fewer worries over this, however; many support "legalizing" faith-based social programs that mix a charitable mission -- albeit one paid for by the treasury -- with a religious message.

   The emerging coalition of religious conservatives and liberals, though, includes a diverse range of groups, such as the National Council of Churches, Catholic organizations and the National Association of Evangelicals. They intend to hold "town meetings" in over a dozen cities in coming weeks to pressure governments to free up more money for antipoverty initiatives, and urge churches and other faith-based sects to get involved. In a manifesto titled "Covenant to Overcome Poverty," the coalition branded persistent poverty as "morally unacceptable."

   While the groups agreed that more tax money must be directed toward social services, especially those involving sectarian groups, none raised the prospect of covering such costs through a tax on religious earnings, property held by denominations, or other mechanisms.

   Dangers abound in these sorts of proposals, say critics.

   Existing programs do not effectively monitor participants to ensure that First Amendment guidelines are being observed, and that social services are not being skewed or "piggybacked" in order to deliver a religious message. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that churches or other sectarian groups necessarily have the skills and expertise to efficiently administer such programs. Indeed, the enthusiasm of religious groups for getting involved may have less to do with "helping" people in an unconditional, nonjudgmental manner, than with exploiting these programs in order to gain converts, improve the public perception of religion in general, or employ religious professionals. It is hard to believe that at least some of those participating in last week's Washington "rally" -- such as March for Jesus and Christian Legal Society -- do not have a political agenda. March for Jesus, for instance, has condemned the "scourge" of homosexuality; would a social outreach operated by this group really be meaningful and inclusive?

   Finally, there is the very real danger that with such schemes, Americans -- including millions of us who are atheists and have no religious belief -- will end up being compelling to fund religion "through the back door." All religious people may not like such an arrangement, either. What if Scientology, or a Muslim group, or Christian Identity applies for public money in order to operate a "charity" or social program?

   In the meantime, proposals like H.R. 3221 blur the distinction between church and state, further involve the religious community in public policy, and bring us closer to the public funding of sectarian groups and their agendas.

[text only]