aced with opposition on Capitol Hill, the Bush administration is ordering five more federal agencies to rewrite regulations in order to help churches and other religious groups obtain money to operate faith-based social programs.

   Meanwhile, a new study released by the Hudson Institute and the Center for Public Justice indicates that while lawmakers have not voted to fund a federal faith-based initiative, tax money is flowing into the coffers of religious organizations in record amounts. Amy Sherman, a scholar at Hudson Institute, said that while it is not new for houses of worship to operate social welfare programs, "What is new is that the government is helping to pay some of these bills of these organizations."

   According to Sherman, robust faith-based partnerships between governments and religious groups are operating in 15 states, and funnel nearly $124 million to 762 different providers. All of this is being implemented thanks to a provision in the 1996 welfare reform act which established so-called "charitable choice." Sponsored by then-U.S. Senator John Ashcroft (now the Attorney General), the choice provision put churches, mosques, temples and other religious groups on the same level as secular non-profit organizations, and permitted them to complete for federal dollars in order to operate social outreaches without "compromising" their religious character.

   All of this comes as President George Bush's federal faith-based initiative stalls on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers resumed work earlier this week following a Labor Day break and have set the beginning of October as a target date for recess. Several "religion friendly" bills await action. The House approved a robust faith-based initiative bill, but over in the Senate, supporters have been unable to bring a compromise scaled-down version known as CARE -- the Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment Act -- for a vote. Leaders in both parties, including Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) support the measure, but there is widespread opposition from critics, including some religious organizations.

   The White House is attempting to implement the initiative without the bothere of Congressional approval, though, by ordering key Cabinet agencies to rewrite departmental rules and direct more taxpayer revenue to churches and other religious groups.

   Associate Press staffer Laura Meckler noted earlier this week that the giant Department of Health and Human Services "will let churches, synagogues and mosques use federal money for programs infused with religion and consider religion in hiring and firing workers."

   The AP story quoted the head of one faith-based social agency in Cleveland, Ohio who said that if a victim of domestic violence came in for assistance, "The first thing I'm going to do is pray with you. I'm now using my religious art to really minister to this person."

   Another advocate of using tax money to support religious outreaches is Robert Polito, director of the HHS Center for Faith-based and Community Initiatives.

   "We wouldn't be called the faith-based office if we weren't trying see how we can partner with the faith community," Polito gushed to reporters. "We don't have to take the temperature of the religiosity of the program."

   It is precisely these questions of constitutional applicability and whether such actions violate the separation of church and state, that have lawmakers in gridlock over the faith-based initiative.

   The "end run" around Congressional approval of the Bush faith-based funding plan began within days of the president's inauguration.

   On January 29, 2001 Bush signed two Executive Orders creating the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and ordering major federal agencies to establish liaisons with religious groups in order to encourage their involvement in social programs. The new president told guests at a lavish White House ceremony that the second mandate was designed to clear obstacles "that make private groups hesitant to work with government."

   Several bills were introduced to further fund the initiative, including HR 7, the "Community Solutions Act." This measure cleared the House, and a last-minute add-on opened even more federal departmental budgets to religious groups bidding for social service contracts. The legislation stalled in the Senate, however, when critics raised questions about the legality of the scheme, and charged that it was funding untested programs. Experts, meanwhile, questioned claims that faith-based social programs were necessarily cheaper and more effective than their secular counterparts.

   Now, the White House is again trying to craft public policy without congressional approval or oversight.

   ¶      New guidelines would ignore wording in the proposed compromise legislation, and allow religious groups to receive public funding even though they may use religion as a litmus test in hiring and firing practices. Steve Wagner, director of the faith-based liaison office at Housing and Urban Development told the Washington Post that civil rights protection "creates an impediment to faith-based organizations that's unnecessary."

   Sen. Edward Kennedy who has supported the alternative CARE proposal said that HUD's draft interpretation giving wide latitude to churches and other houses of worship "effectively nullifies this compromise language."

   ¶       The Post noted that new faith-based funding schemes are expanding at the Justice and Labor departments. "However, the effort is moving most dramatically at HHS where there is new money to spend."

   ¶       Federal policies allow cash to "trickle-down" from the original recipients to small faith-based outreach operators -- "in essence," notes the Post, "running programs to address a wide range of social problems without congressional guidance on the church vs. state issue." In addition, churches receiving money will not be required to set up separate corporations to track the government grants. Mr. Polito predicts that Department of Health and Human Services will be awarding 25 grants by the end of this month.

[text only]