 |
Coalition Statement
The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination
Contact Information:
Tony Hileman, Executive Director
Sponsor Organization:
Americans United for the Separation of Church and State
May 6, 2002
Dear Representative:
We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, labor, education, health and advocacy organizations are writing to urge you to oppose the Amendment or any attempt to expand the 1996 TANF "Charitable Choice" provisions during the welfare reauthorization debate.
The 1996 welfare reform law included little-noticed Charitable Choice provisions authored by then-Sen. John Ashcroft. Thankfully, through the end of the Clinton Administration in January 2001, no rules, regulations or guidance were issued for the provisions. In fact, the August 2001 Bush White House report, Unlevel Playing Field, concluded that "Charitable Choice has been essentially ignored by Federal administrators."
Any expansion of these unimplemented, but dangerous, provisions in TANF Reauthorization must be rejected because the 1996 language authorizes:
Preemption of state and local civil rights laws - the 1996 provisions contain preemptory language nearly identical to the controversial "Faith Based" bill of last year, H.R. 7. This will result in state and local laws - including those protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation - being overridden by the Federal law.
Government-Funded Employment Discrimination - the 1996 provisions explicitly permit religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion or religious beliefs in hiring for government programs and taxpayer-funded positions.
Proselytization in a government program - the 1996 language is even worse than H.R. 7, because it does permit proselytization of beneficiaries in programs that are directly funded by the government. While the 1996 language says that government "funds" cannot be used for proselytization, it fails to prohibit a privately-funded employee from proselytizing a beneficiary during a government program. Even H.R. 7 protected against this.
Lawsuits against state and local government - the 1996 provisions authorize lawsuits against city, county and state governments and their officials, available for religious organizations that believe that they were denied funding opportunities because of their "religious character." Of course, this blatantly ignores current Supreme Court case law that prohibits the direct government funding of programs that cannot separate religious activity from the delivery of social services. This will put cities and state agencies in a legal Catch-22 - whatever decision a state agency makes about directly funding a house of worship directly will result in a wave of litigation.
Activity that undermines the role of religion in society - Many people of faith have expressed serious concern that "Charitable Choice" will undermine the traditional role of religion as a prophetic critic of government. "Charitable Choice" will make houses of worship dependent on tax dollars, and like every other government-subsidized group, religion will be less likely to bite the hand that feeds it. "Charitable Choice" presents the serious risk of undermining the independence and autonomy of our nation's houses of worship by treating them as an arm of the state. In addition, "Charitable Choice" puts government in the difficult position of picking and choosing among religions.
For these reasons, we urge you to reject the amendment to the TANF reauthorization bill. The "Charitable Choice" provisions in TANF should certainly not be expanded - if anything, they should be repealed. These provisions are an attack on fundamental civil rights, religious liberty and the ability of state and local government to enforce their laws.
Sincerely,
American Humanist Association
Americans for Religious Liberty
Coalition for the Community of Reason
Coalition Statements
|
|
