Is the building and preservation of so-called "sacred places" the next step in Bush's federal faith-based initiative?

or the first time in U.S. history, public money would help build churches, mosques, temples and other houses of worship as long as part of those facilities are also used for social programs according to new policy being implemented by the Bush administration.

   The plan is part of an expansive White House initiative which would direct billions of federal dollars into the coffers of religious groups seeking to operate faith-based social outreaches. While Congress has yet to approve any legislation authorizing the program, President Bush has used his power of issuing Executive Orders to have key federal agencies rewrite their internal regulations, and make churches and other houses of worship eligible for a wide range of grants and government assistance.

   So far, the Bush plan has proposed subsidizing faith-based social programs with administrative funding, training seminars and other forms of aid. The new policy shift, announced in a proposed rule change for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, significantly expands the scope of government entitlement, though, and makes money available for construction or rehabilitation of church facilities. Last year, HUD disbursed $7.7 billion for various housing and community development grants. Current regulations generally prohibit religious groups from receiving this form of assistance, though, since it clearly violates the separation of church and state.

   Supporters of the faith-based initiatives criticize that constraint, and say that the new HUD regulations would simply end discrimination against religious groups, and put churches "on a level playing field" with secular counterparts when seeking public money.

   "We see no reason to exclude religious organizations from participation in these programs if there can be a reasonable mechanism to ensure that a program has no particular religious connotation one way or another," declared Richard Hauser, general counsel to HUD. He told the New York Times, "There's no reason you can't have a cathedral upstairs and something that would look like any other room in the basement for counseling."

   But critics are attacking the proposal, charging that it places the government -- and taxpayers -- in the role of constructing churches, mosques, temples or other houses of worship in clear violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

   In a media statement released Sunday, American Atheists President Ellen Johnson warned: "For the first time since the American Revolution, taxpayers will be picking up the tab for building churches and other facilities used for sectarian worship as part of a scheme just to further the faith-based initiative."

   "It's pretty clear that this new rule is also part of a plan to use government money to pay for the rehabilitation of dilapidated houses of worship, and divert money away from secular social services," Johnson added.

   Christopher Anders, legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union told reporters that the new Bush plan "is probably the most clearly unconstitutional aspect of the White House's faith-based initiative that we've seen up to this point."

   Other critics like Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank said that the new HUD rules would require government officials to determine which part of a building was to be used for worship and which sections were reserved for social services.

   "You run into the nightmarish problem of having the government monitor what goes on inside churches and sanctuaries," said Frank. "Are we going to start sending in the inspector general to charge people with committing a bar mitzvah?"

   While the Founders of the American Republic opposed the use of any public money to subsidize "established" or tax-dependent churches, government policy has to varying degrees ignored that prohibition. Taxes have been used to purchase school books and other supplies for religious schools; grant land to religious institutions (a common practice after World War II); and carve-out special tax exemptions. Religious groups have also been the beneficiaries of grants and other programs which use tax money to assist churches operating social service programs. At least on paper, those programs had to be "secular" in their intent and function, and could not involve religious proselytizing. Often, houses of worship and sectarian groups were not permitted to apply for subsidies because of concerns over the separation of church and state. Churches, mosques, and temples wishing to operate social service programs frequently established "separate" non-profit corporations, and supposedly observed rules segregating their religious and secular social outreach missions.

   All of this began to change with passage of the 1996 welfare reform act, which declared that religious groups could compete with their secular counterparts and operate state-funded programs without altering their "religious character." The legislation was sponsored by then-Sen. John Ashcroft, who now serves as U.S. Attorney General. One effect of the Act was to "muddy the waters" concerning how far religious groups could go in promoting their sectarian message, while still accepting public funds. Ashcroft's measure did not provide for any monitoring or oversight mechanism, a deficiency which critics charged gave a "green light" to churches and other houses of worship seeking to blend religious proselytizing and the delivery of badly-needed social services.

   Since passage of the 1996 law, the effort to "level the playing field" and give religious groups wider access to public funding and other grants has accelerated. President Bush created his White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives just days after being inaugurated. Nearly a dozen federal agencies have loosened restrictions on handing money over to faith-based outreaches which cover everything from feeding the poor to providing job training and teen pregnancy counseling. Critics say that the net effect of religion-saturated programs is to weaken the wall of separation between church and state, and even institute a de facto "Religion Tax" on Americans.

   The new regulation pushes the envelope on how far government can go in assisting religious social service groups, though, since it deals with buildings and "hard assets" like real estate.

   "A church could erect a building using federal money to create a shelter for the homeless in one part and private money to create a sanctuary in the other, official said," noted the New York Times. "A synagogue could use a grant to rehabilitate part of its building for a counseling center for AIDS patients or the poor. A Muslim group could apply for federal money to upgrade the lighting and equipment in a room in its mosque to allow it to be used as a counseling center for single parents."

   There may be constitutional problems, though, in such an lofty entitlement program. Legal experts point to a 1971 Supreme Court case, TILTON v. RICHARDSON, that restricted the use of public funds in such projects. The case examined the 1963 Federal Higher Education Facility Act which provided construction grants to religion-affiliated schools. The money was to be restricted only for the building of non-religious structures, but stipulated that after twenty years, the school could use those facilities for any purposes including sectarian worship.

   In two votes, the high court divided over different aspects of the issues raised in TILTON. A 5-4 ruling upheld the precedent of providing grants for school facilities which were not to be used for worship or other sectarian activities. But the justices ruled 8-1, deciding that a provision limiting the state's interest to a period of twenty years was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren Burger cited an earlier case (BRADFIELD v. ROB) which stated that not all financial assistance to church-sponsored activity violated the Establishment Clause. He also noted that under the Higher Education Facility Act, the beneficiaries were supposedly schools where "children are not as susceptible to religious coercion and in which religious instruction is not as central to the curriculum." He also argued that the HEFA "did not lead to excessive entanglement because the aid was aimed at religiously neutral facilities." But, added Burger, "Because the State's interest in the structure remains after twenty years, the provision giving the schools the ability to use the facility for religious purposes is unconstitutional."

   What the court studiously avoided in TILTON v. RICHARDSON, and has steered clear of in other cases, is the more nagging issue of whether assistance to religious groups for non-religious purposes could, somehow, facilitate and enhance their ability to proselytize and carry out religious propaganda. If a church receives government funding to operate or expand a community food bank or other social service program, can it really segregate that activity from its religious mission? What if a hall constructed with public money that fed the homeless also was the site of sectarian services? Who monitors these programs to make sure that those sorts of abuses would not, or do not, occur?

   Dr. Marci Hamilton, professor at the Cardozo School of Law suggests that defenders of the latest rule revisions at HUD may face an uphill legal battle.

   "Once religious entities start arguing that any portion of their building is for nonreligious purposes," she told the New York Times, "they start opening themselves up to all sorts of problems like their tax-exempt status as religious institutions."

   She described the legal travail of segregating secular and religious activities a "whole Pandora's box."

   William Terry of the National Congress for Community Economic Development said that the new Bush rules conveyed "an important message, and it denotes the tenor of this administration." Citing the problem of dividing secular and religious missions, Terry added "It's like trying to take the sugar out of cupcakes. The line can get blurred."

   The new HUD rule, which still has not been officially improved, is the most explicit and overt move by the Bush administration to rally support for not only the faith-based initiative, but the use of public funds to construct new houses of worship, or rehabilitate existing dilapidated structures.

   Until now, the goal of tapping the public treasury to save crumbling houses of worship appealed to notions such as architectural preservation or "inner city redevelopment." The administration has quietly enlisted the support of private advocacy groups like "Partners for Sacred Places," suggesting that in the right political climate, money would be available to repair and pay for the upkeep of select houses of worship.

   John DiIulio, the first Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, told a PSP gathering two years ago that Americans were "behind the curve" in not being willing to use tax revenue to assist inner-city religious groups in preserving these structures. He also cited the need to utilize these buildings as centers for the delivery of faith-based social services.

   The idea is finding a wider audience on Capitol Hill, with key lawmakers like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) expressing support for the proposal.

   "This should be a welcome aid," declared an excited Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III, president of the National 10-Point Leadership Foundation, in reacting to the new HUD proposal. His group represents a coalition of denominations composed of primarily black churches which increasing have come out in support of the Bush faith-based initiative. Dismissing constitutional concerns over the separation of church and state, Rivers describes the plan to build new social service-cum-worship facilities at public expense as "entirely reasonable."

[text only]