November 11, 2004 | Read Time: 2 minutes
A new federal law providing $25-million for improved security at religious institutions and other nonprofit organizations has placed some Jewish groups at odds with one another. Some groups welcome the effort to help protect vulnerable charities, and others say that accepting the money would set a bad precedent of endorsing government support of religious institutions.
President Bush last month signed the Homeland Security Act, which includes the money to improve security at nonprofit-owned buildings that are determined to be at increased risk for a terrorist attack, including churches and synagogues.
Given the hostility many Arabs feel toward Jews and Israel, Jewish organizations in the United States are especially concerned that attacks could be directed at them. United Jewish Communities, which represents 156 Jewish federations, led the effort to lobby for the money.
The bill would pay for concrete barriers, blast-proof doors, protective window coatings, and reinforced parking-lot gates, among other measures.
The amount approved is a quarter of the $100-million originally proposed in Congress.
Howard Rieger, president of United Jewish Communities, said in a statement that “It is an unfortunate fact, but we live today in a world of terrorist threats where a wide range of sites are vulnerable, from Red Cross buildings to train stations, schools, hotels, airports, cultural and community centers.”
However, the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents 900 congregations, has urged its member synagogues not to accept the money.
To do so “dangerously threatens the wall between church and state” because it involves government in religious matters, the group said in a message to its members.
“Government funds’ going directly to houses of worship is unconstitutional,” said Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center, the Reform movement’s Washington arm. “A significant majority of the Jewish community supports the separation of church and state as being indispensable to religious liberty.”
