n the wake of yesterday's Executive Orders by President George W. Bush creating a federal office to divert public funds to faith-based groups operating social programs, supporters of the move are citing a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court case, BOWEN v. KENDRICK (1988) as a constitutional precedent. Televangelist Pat Robertson, appearing on last night's "700 Club" program, said that the ruling upheld the practice of diverting tax money to religious groups engaged in outreaches such as running soup kitchens, shelters and drug/alcohol rehab programs. While he expressed concerns about the possibility of regulations that might come with such funding, though, Robertson denounced cases where government decided to suspend aid because the groups receiving it were engaged in blatant religious proselytizing.

   He cited a case where the Department of Agriculture stopped providing bulk food to one church-operated program since Bibles and other religious materials were being distributed. Robertson denounced that action as "discrimination against religious groups."

   Bush's move to fund a White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives has ignited a firestorm of debate over the status of the First Amendment separation of church and state, and how far government can -- or should -- go in assisting religious groups. Backers of the programs alternate between expressing the need to include religious groups in the social welfare mix, while insisting that government money would not be used for any sectarian components or activities. Yet, Bush and close policy advisors like University of Texas professor Marvin Olasky blatantly declare their admiration for the "spiritual" mission of sectarian groups operating social programs, and even the need for public policy to nourish both the body and "soul."

   Confused?

   So are some religious organizations. CNN yesterday interviewed the head of one faith-based social group who stated that her mission included spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. She opined that money from the government, though, would only be utilized for the sectarian component of her church's program.

   Is that possible?

   Groups like the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities are already receiving the bulk of their annual funding from a cluster of publicly funded programs at the federal, state and local level. Presumably, they were required to operate these outreaches in a sectarian fashion. Faith-based groups usually establish "parallel" non-profit corporations. Tax money is, in theory anyway, to be used only for the secular component of the program.

   It's often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish where the religious character of a program ends and the "secular" part operates. The case cited by Robertson involved the Memphis Union Mission in Tennessee, which demanded that all clients receiving food (provided by the USDA) attend a daily chapel service which included Bible verse recitation.

"We already have plenty of evidence that groups taking public money for what are supposedly neutral or religion-free programs abuse their power, and either blatantly preach religion or pressure clients into adopting religion as a cure-all. They're already out of control, and with the Bush program, things are likely to get even worse..." ELLEN JOHNSON, President AMERICAN ATHEISTS

   Although the mission received about $30,000 a year worth of meat from the government, the group's director, Mark Calhoun seems to distinguish between that and an outright financial subsidy. He told Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, "We never received government funds. We received the food because there were no string attached. As soon as the strings were attached, we said we'd rather have God's blessing on this ministry and government. It's said because the very work Christian organizations like ours do, is helping our own government and country (sic), and to impugn us for that makes no sense at all..."

   Organizers at many religion-based programs that will qualify for grants under the Bush proposal manifest a similar ambivalence. Calhoun added, "People come to us starving for a change of life; not starving for food..." That echoes Mr. Bush's confusing statements that on one hand he is merely trying to help groups that can effectively address social problems like homelessness, poverty or addiction, while maintaining that "spiritual" change is needed.

   Religious skeptics divide into a spectrum of opinions regarding the new Bush faith-based initiative. Most appear to be more concerned with the possibility that with government aid would come possible oversight and regulation. Few, at least in media statements, have addressed the more fundamental issue that the program would compel millions of Americans to support religion, if only indirectly. Marvin Olasky, the architect of much of Bush's scheme, muddles the issue even further. He told CBN, "Groups, atheistic essentially, can get involved in all sorts of government programs. Groups based in Christ can't unless they give up Christ, and good groups refuse to do that."

   Secular charities and philanthropic groups, though, don't promote "atheism." Olasky is also more suspicious of charitable choice, the plan crafted by former Missouri Senator John Ashcroft which allows religious groups to compete for public funding in order to administer social programs, but still remains open to the possibility of tax subsidies for churches.

   "I don't think churches should rush into any type of embrace with the government that could very easily become a bear hug," said Olasky. "If we're careful about this and think it through, those risks could be dealt with in a way that would encourage churches to do this that would not make them subject to government fat (sic.) It's a very real danger, but one that can be controlled."

   A constitutional challenge to Bush's new program is likely. Any court taking up the matter is expected to rely on BOWEN v. KENDRICK, in part, as a judicial standard.

   The case examined the Adolescent Family life Act (AFLA) which authorized federal grants to private and religious groups providing research and other services connected with premarital adolescent sexuality and pregnancy. The American Jewish Congress and other appellees challenged the legislation, arguing that it violated the separation of church and state in permitting the involvement of groups with a sectarian agenda. The act imposed certain funding limitations, including a prohibition on family planning services such as contraception. The Act stipulated that "grants may be made only to projects or programs which do not advocate, promote, or encourage abortion."

   Many of those receiving AFLA subsidies were religious groups, or had ties to sectarian organizations. A District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, noting that while AFLA had a "legitimate secular purpose" (the supposed prevention of social and economic injury caused by teen pregnancy and premarital sex), it still had the "direct and immediate" effect of advancing religion and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

   The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, however, that AFLA passed constitutional muster. The case affirmed the questionable argument that government aid to religious groups, in some cases, could serve a pervasively secular goal.

   In passing the AFLA, congressional sponsors argued that the legislation would only incidentally advance religious belief and groups. The Court agreed, and noted that the measure was "neutral" since it did not use religious affiliation as a litmus test when handing out funds. Finally, the five justice majority argued:

"We do not think the possibility that AFLA grants may go to religious institutions that can be considered 'pervasively sectarian' is sufficient to conclude that no grants whatsoever can be given under the statute to religious organizations..."

   The ruling in BOWEN v. KENDRICK reaffirmed the court's tendency toward "accommodation" with religion rather than strict separation. Chief Justice William Rhenquist, who has suggested that Jefferson's "wall of separation" between church and state is a useless metaphor with no legal or historical basis, delivered the majority opinion. He was joined, in whole or part, by Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy. Then-Justices Blackman, Marshall and Stevens joined in dissent.

   Administration spin-doctors defending the new "Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives" advance several arguments in trying to address state-church separation concerns.

   ¶   Money will presumably be used for "services" and "not religion."

Programs will ostensibly not require that recipients participate in religious activities.

   ¶    "Secular alternatives" must be available.

   ¶    Money will not be used to promote a "particular" or "single" religion.

   Critics, though, note that none of these points deal with the fact that religious groups accepting such funds may avoid civil rights laws and other protections (unlike secular providers) in their hiring and other practices.

   "Bush wants to level the playing field," said ACLU legislative analyst Terri Schroder. "But it's not level. Civil rights laws are relaxed" for religious groups. This would permit an organization that opposes interracial marriage, for instance, to refuse to hire people in such a domestic relationship.

   Religious groups simply cannot resist the temptation to incorporate their faith into any social mission they embark on, including those with public money says Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "It's simply too easy for them to 'smuggle' religion into these programs, especially in light of the double-talk from Bush about using public money to assist groups and still permitting them to maintain their sectarian character," Johnson said. "And there is little or no oversight. These groups would consider any significant accountability and monitoring which seeks to ensure that they are not promoting dogmas or creeds as an infringement on their religious freedom."

    Existing programs, added Johnson, lack accountability as well.

   "We already have plenty of evidence that groups taking public money for what are supposedly neutral or religion-free programs abuse their power, and either blatantly preach religion or pressure clients into adopting religion as a cure-all." She cited the battery of news reports in the media over the past week, where operators of social outreaches tied to churches already admit that they incorporate religion into their activities.

   "They're already out of control," said Johnson, "and with the Bush program, things are likely to get even worse."

[text only]