ppearing on the Fox News Sunday program yesterday, Sen. Joseph L. Lieberman announced that he was crafting new legislation that would increase the availability of federal funds for religion-based charitable groups.

   This comes after the House last Thursday passed H.R. 7, the "Community Solutions Act" which was a major step in funding President Bush's federal faith-based initiative. Lieberman said that his legislation would compete with H.R. 7.

   "That's not right. It's not necessary. And it's going to stop a bipartisan agreement on this very good idea," gushed Lieberman.

   "I've always believed that religion is a source of unity in America, not division," Lieberman added. "Right now, this bill (H.R. 7) is framed in a way that seems to have divided us.

   The Community Solutions Act was sponsored by Reps. J.C. Watts, Jr (R-Oklahoma) and Tony Hall (D-Ohio). It would expand the "charitable choice" section of the 1996 welfare reform act, and encourage churches and other houses of worship to compete for federal grants in order to operate faith-based social programs. Despite clearing the house in a 233-198 vote, the measure is expected to encounter even stiffer opposition in the U.S. Senate. During Tuesday's debate over H.R. 7, opponents focused on provisions which would allow religious groups accepting government money to ignore local and state anti-discrimination statutes, and use religion as a criteria in hiring practices.

   Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act gives similar immunity to religious groups.

   Lieberman said that his faith-based funding bill would be designed to encourage the participation of churches, mosques and temples in the social service mix "in a constitutionally appropriate way." It is expected that the Lieberman bill would emphasize an expanded charitable choice provision and other grants to religious groups, but require those same organizations to not use ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sectarian belief when hiring personnel.

   It is not known at this time whether Lieberman's version would allow religious charities to by-pass other regulations that apply to secular groups, such as hiring credentialed professionals in drug and alcohol treatment programs. Religion-based programs like Teen Challenge, often cited as a paradigm in the delivery of rehab services by President Bush, are exempt from having to hire professional psychologists and other therapists, and may instead rely on preachers or untrained "Bible-based" counselors with little or no academic training.

   Lieberman's announcement should have separationists concerned, despite the fact that the Connecticut lawmaker pledged to oppose H.R. 7 when it is brought up on the Senate floor. As written, the Community Solutions Act may not even have the votes to pass. Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle said that he will allow the legislation to come up for discussion despite his own reservations.

   Appearing yesterday on the NBC program "Meet The Press," Daschle (D-South Dakota) said, "I don't want to be tied to a specific time frame, but ... we'll have that debate." He added that with the current Senate workload, "it will be difficult to get it done this year."

   So why is Lieberman on the verge of promoting his own faith-based funding initiative? Will religious and political interest groups back him?

   One way of understanding Lieberman's move is to examine his role in the recent year 2000 election campaign, and the rhetoric in last Tuesday's debate over H.R.7.

   ¶    Lieberman's pick as a vice presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket reaffirmed Al Gore's strategy of distancing himself from the alleged moral debauchery of the Clinton White House, and instead chasing the "God issue" in hopes of breaking the Republican monopoly on "values" as a campaign issue. Gore, for instance, was first to propose a faith-based partnership between government and religious groups. Democratic strategists referred to the campaign as the first step in "taking back God" as a symbol for the party. And Lieberman turned the campaign trail into a pulpit stump, constantly appearing in houses of worship, and lacing his political rhetoric with religious language. Even after the election, Lieberman joined with religious and political conservatives in "beating up" on the Hollywood entertainment industry for its violent movies, salacious music lyrics and even edgy video games. Indeed, while speaking at last week's Democratic Leadership Conference meeting in Indianapolis (a key city in the effort to establish municipal faith-based social programs), Lieberman again caution the party's "friends in Hollywood" that if they did not comply with decency demands, they could face government censorship through the power of the Federal Communications Commission.

"Religious groups, tired of suffering from 'empty pew' syndrome, may still embrace a Lieberman faith-based initiative, even if it means changing hiring practices..."

   Bottom line: Lieberman, considered a possible 2004 White House nominee for the Democrats, has every intention of meeting his Republican counterparts point for point on issues relating to religion, the status of ecclesiastical groups in civil society, and the need for a "Big Mom" style of government.

   ¶    While H.R. 7 did not win overwhelmingly on the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, the opposition often concentrated on only one provision of the proposed Act, the civil rights exemption. Many rose to reassure reporters, fellow lawmakers and the C-SPAN audience that they were people of faith, and even favored the innovative idea of diverting more money into the coffers of religious groups, and defended existing programs which subsidize sectarian charities. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) boasted that she, her husband an children "have among us 100 years of Catholic education," and said she was proud of Catholic Charities -- a social outreach that receives nearly 60% of its operating budget from taxpayers. The only problem she had with H.R. 7 that it would "legalize discrimination as we minister to the needs of the poor."

   These sorts of statements played into claims of H.R. 7 backers, such as Wisconsin Rep. James Sensenbrenner, who declared that the charitable choice expansion "is not a new idea, and over the past several years, Democrats and Republicans alike have voted for charitable choice in the Welfare Reform Act, the community services block grant law, and two substance abuse laws under the public health services act."

   Sensenbrenner added that the Community Solutions Act "represents a logical extension" of existing legislation.

   Thus, the burning question becomes: will opponents of H.R. 7 actively begin promoting a Lieberman bill which calls for expansion of charitable choice and other aid-to-religion schemes but require recipients to comply with anti-discrimination laws? A number of scenarios become possible.

   ¶    Backers of H.R. 7, realizing their daunting task in the Senate, could opt for a scaled-down measure including a civil rights enforcement provision. Many of the 198 "nay" votes in the House would switch, betting that faith-based initiatives enjoy the support of key constituencies, including many black congregations. Liberals could try selling a Lieberman-style bill, using such support as a credential in the 2002 local and 2004 national elections, evidence that they are not part of a Secular Humanist agenda inside the beltway.

   ¶    Religious groups, tied of suffering from "empty pew" syndrome, may still embrace a faith-based initiative, even if it means changing hiring practices. Some groups would simply ignore civil rights protections, and there is no stipulation in the existing federal legislation which provides for an active program of oversight and monitoring to ensure compliance. In Texas, there is already a lawsuit involving a church-operated jobs training program which accepted public funds, but pressured clients to change their beliefs in respect to religion. Religious groups may "press the envelope" to test any legislation, and see how far they could go in circumventing civil rights statutes. Some groups would undoubtedly refuse to participate, insisting that provisions in a Lieberman-style bill would compromise their religious mission.

   The prospect of a Lieberman faith-based funding bill appeals strongly to many interest groups, including Democratic "centrists" intent on winning back church-goers and others drawn to the GOP's religious morality crusade. The legislation could also stop the embarrassing hemorrhage in Democratic ranks of black clergy, political leaders and congregations who have embraced President Bush's federal initiative with enthusiasm. Philadelphia Mayor John Street is a case in point, along with members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted for H.R. 7.

   Marginalized in this debate is the question of who exactly will fund these religious entitlement programs. Among those being taxed -- 27 million Americans who describes themselves as Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Skeptics or nonbeliever of some kind. This, say the critics, amounts to the imposition of a Religion Tax on those of have no spiritual beliefs, and adhere to a thoroughly secular lifestyle.

   Lieberman's criticism of H.R. 7 mirrors the skepticism of many lawmakers in Washington, and in the Senate. During his Fox News Channel appearance, Lieberman restricted his focus not to the idea that the Community Solutions Act forced Americans to subsidize faith-based outreaches, but rather his "serious concerns about the weakness of the civil rights protections and constitutional safeguards," according to a spokesman. The current mood in Washington, then, is one that wants to ignore the touchy subjects of taxing non-religious Americans to fund faith-based programs, and find some way -- any way -- of drafting legislation that can squeeze under legal bar of First Amendment muster, and win votes at the ballot box.

[text only]