This is STAGING. For front-end user testing and QA.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy logo

Leading

Religious Leaders Assail Bush Plan to Aid Faith Groups

May 3, 2001 | Read Time: 3 minutes

By LAURA HRUBY and HARVY LIPMAN

A broad alliance of clergy members who oppose the Bush administration’s proposal to give more federal money to faith-based groups said last week that the plan would allow such groups to discriminate in their hiring practices and would invite government intrusion into religion.

As the House of Representatives began discussing the administration’s faith-based proposal, the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, an alliance of religious, public-policy, labor, and other organizations, released a petition signed by 850 clergy members opposing the plan. The petition called on Congress and President Bush to reject any legislation that allows faith-based groups to discriminate against employees of social-service programs on the basis of religion.

Such discrimination, which would allow groups to hire people based on their religious beliefs, would be permitted under a bill to implement the Bush plan that has been proposed by Reps. J.C. Watts, an Oklahoma Republican, and Tony P. Hall, an Ohio Democrat.

The Rev. J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs and a signer of the petition, testified at a House hearing that allowing faith-based groups that receive government funds to discriminate on the basis of religion is “an unconscionable advancement of religion that simultaneously turns back the clock on civil rights.”

‘Perilous’ Precedent

The petition echoed that sentiment, saying the Bush proposal would “entangle religion and government in an unprecedented and perilous way.”


“Recipients of government dollars may hesitate or fail to challenge and critique their funding source, namely the government, at times when it is appropriate, prudent, and necessary to do so,” said the Rev. Jeffrey Haggray, pastor of the Pennsylvania Avenue Baptist Church, in Washington, and also a petition signer. “Our nation cannot afford to suffer the diminishment and weakening of the churches’ capacity to speak truth to power when necessary, which can surely happen when religious groups become excessively entangled with government controls and regulations.”

The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on the coalition’s criticism of the administration proposal.

Coalition members also complained that a “summit” sponsored last week by Mr. Watts and other congressional Republicans to discuss the faith-based plan excluded religious leaders who oppose the proposal.

Kevin Schweers, a spokesman for Mr. Watts, denied that opponents of the proposal were excluded from the event. He said, however, that he could not provide a list of those who were invited to participate.

Expanding Help to the Poor

At the House hearing, the Rev. Donna Lawrence Jones, pastor of Cookman United Methodist Church, in Philadelphia, and Charles D. Clingman, executive director of the Jireh Development Corporation, a religiously affiliated group in Cincinnati that runs job-training programs and builds homes for low-income families, testified that those in need would benefit if more faith-based services were eligible for federal money.


Under existing law, faith-based programs can receive federal funds for only a few types of services, including job training and drug-abuse treatment.

Ms. Jones and Mr. Clingman also said that faith-based groups are able to accomplish more than secular charities because participants and their families are more comfortable with the staff of religious programs, and because religious organizations don’t face the same regulations as other charities.

For example, Mr. Clingman said, religious groups are not required to pay overtime, allowing their employees to work more flexible hours than those at other charities.

Amy Sherman, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Indianapolis, has studied charitable choice in nine states and said she found few of the potential problems that critics have warned against.

“Religious groups accepting government funding are not having to sell their souls, and clients’ civil rights are being respected,” she said.


About the Author

Contributor