On January 29, 2001, President George Bush announced the “faith-based” initiative with the signing of two executive orders. According to President Bush the purpose of the “faith-based initiative is for the Federal government to “ ‘coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities.’ ” (2) In 1999, when he was running for President he made it known that he would try to remove obstacles for faith-based organizations so they could help those in need by providing social services. The faith-based initiative was a campaign theme and he has been advocating the proposal to allow for religious charities to act as an alternative to government agencies for administering social service needs. (3) He claims that all American society’s communities would benefit and staying on message he injected that this would be an extension of the “compassionate conservatism” slogan used while running for president. In line with his campaign theme, President Bush said, “’government of course cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities. But when people of faith provide social services, we will not discriminate against them.’” (4) It is this federal grant money to religious groups that raises cautious concern between both liberals and conservatives, along with Republicans and Democrats. (5)This proposal could raise many significant Constitutional questions and jeopardize religious freedom with government intrusion. If the plan becomes law it would include a five hundred dollar per person charity tax credit and a charitable deduction for those whom don’t itemize on their tax returns. (6) As far as this writer is concerned, allowing any form of aid will only lead to government intrusion into what is supposed to be religious freedom and a very important one that the founding fathers considered with great care and respect. In addition, there should be no official church or churches that are sponsored by the government, and the concern for social services should be addressed either by categorical or block grants to some communities in the United States, whose social service budgets are already under-funded. The closing of mental hospitals in Connecticut is a prime example of the slashing of social service needs to the drug addicted and the mentally ill.

The first Executive Order created a new White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. The second Executive Order attempted to clear the way so that the Bureaucratic agencies would not impede policy proposals, progress and that five centers would be established the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education along with both, HUD, (Housing Urban Development), and HHS, (Health and Human Services). These five Cabinet agencies is a move by President Bush to relax government regulations and boost funding of charities who have religious ties, and it will be John Diulio who Bush named to be the director of the newly created office to take on this task. Stephen Goldsmith, the former mayor of Indianapolis and Bush’s former domestic advisor in the 2000 Presidential campaign was named to lead the Corporation for National Service with the intent to create an advisory board for the new White House office and a separate entity that could solicit funding to support the religious efforts that the government cannot directly fund because of constitutional issues. One must ask how ethical this is? To get around existing laws with creative Executive agents. Will there be any check on Mr. Diulio? I would highly doubt it because he does not have to be confirmed with the position he holds, with Bush signing the Executive Order. (7)

Americorps, that was created in the Administration of former President William J. Clinton, will be restructured by Goldsmith, and with the assistance of Diulio, this private organization could fund religious charities. Through volunteers only and without the usage of money, President Bush wouldn’t have to be concerned with sensitive constitutional issues. (8) It is when the transfer of government grants that questions of legitimacy and constitutional guarantees surface. This could be viewed as another creative way for the Bush administration to circumvent the laws of the United States Constitution that guarantees the separation of church and state. But as long as the federal government does not fund religious activity, than the volunteerism of Americorps can be looked at without a cynical eye.

According to President Bush, the creation of the centers at these five bureaucratic agencies would result in better relation with the private and the public sector. The purpose of the centers would be to report on regulation matters that directly effect the nonprofit groups and make suggestions on how to de-regulate. With President Bush’s commitment to this initiative, he planned on introducing the proposal to the legislative branch to be passed and made into law by the Congress. (9) One could perceive de-regulation as another conservative ideal that has the interests of business over people and another creative way for the Bush administration to further weaken the welfare state in America. In short, the government already has the Department of Health and Human Services. Why doesn’t President Bush work in conjunction with this department already in place? This is the agency where the focus should be rather than on how to better help non-profits in a mission to create better relations with the private and public sector. The Executive branch should be attempting to build a solid relationship within government and not take away from established programs. If President Bush feels the present system is inadequate than perhaps, the government ought to put more money and emphasis into it so the problems can be rectified.

“The initiative has five main components to it, consisting of sections that begin and end with: “Section 1 pertains to the Policy aspect; Section 2, pertains to Establishment of; Section 3, pertains to the functions of; Section 4, pertains to Administration details; and, Section 5, deals with Judicial Review.“ “Section 1, clearly identifies the policy and the what the purpose of its implementation will be if the proposal gets the needed votes to pass in Congress. It is within this section that identifies faith-based and other community organizations to help in the assistance of the poor, run-down neighborhoods, and battling crime-laden areas. President Bush also reiterated his Presidential campaign message, by injecting the “paramount goal” being, compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should they have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field...” When it came to the social services element of the initiative, he said it must be “result oriented” and “should value the ideals of “pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality”.” “Section 2, set up the establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives that fell into the Executive Office of the President. The office of the OFCBI would have the responsibility of establishing policies, priorities, and objectives. It would also attempt enlist and expand the cause to faith-based and community organizations under the appropriate laws of the United States.” “Section 3, dealt with the functions of the newly created OFBCI. Only under the precedent of the law could President Bush and his new staff be able to carry out the development, leadership, and coordination that it would need to bring forth the Administration’s policy agenda affecting faith-based and other community organizations. In the hopes of expanding this role the function would also include executive action, the passage of legislation that affected this initiative, both federal and private funding and de-regulation. Part b, stated that the policy decisions should be consistent with the goals of the president, while Part c, dealt with the integration of the agenda. The goal of the coordinating effort of Part d, was to garner support in the public domain through volunteerism, special projects, demonstration pilots, and public-private partnerships. Part e, dealt with charitable giving while, Part f, pertained to bringing ideas to the president for strengthening the program. Part g, stated that the providing of policy and legal education to state, local and community officials would be offered. Part h, explained that it would develop and implement the strategic components under the direction of the president in order to enhance the strength of the institutions of in American society. Part i, in working with nonprofit organizations is to try innovative breakthroughs, while Part j, includes the aspect of eliminating legislative, regulatory and other barriers that would stall the proposal. Part k, is to monitor the implementation, while Part l, is to make sure that standards of accountability are met. “Section 4, part a, describes the role of the OFBCI, that is to establish ad hoc committees, task agencies and interagency groups. The staff is headed by the Assistant to the President of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and the office under the adherence of the law will carry out the executive order provisos, and within 30 days the office would start in operating. Under part c, the office would be working in conjunction with other executive departments, and Part d, goes on to specify that these executive agencies and departments would coordinate and provide the necessary support and information needed. Part e, specified that the Executive Order would be implemented with the combination of appropriations and the legal standards, that will have to be met, first.” “Section 5 dealt with Judicial Review. It stated that the order did not, “create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at the law or equity by a party against the United States, it agencies, or instrumentalities, its officers...’” (10)

On a personal level, I could never agree with this initiative because it leaves out those who are atheist or agnostic, and assumes everyone believes in faith the way President Bush does. America is a very diverse nation, and a country that has seen significant change since its inception over 225 years ago. On an academic level the proposal is long, time-consuming, and potentially a very risky legal and political advance, that could be very costly. If one should not mix business with pleasure, than a president ought not put his personal will or his religious leanings upon the American public, as with Section 3, part b, in which the president clearly states, “that the policy decisions should be consistent with the goals of the president”, and that goal is public-private partnerships in bringing forth his agenda in giving government aid to faith-based organizations. This initiative should be voted on with great care and great respect. However, the faith-based initiative shouldn’t leave the nation to wonder about the legitimacy of either the First Amendment or the United States Constitution. President Bush’s, “faith based initiative”, that he is proposing to Congress is not an item that should ever be passed into law, by either the United States Senate nor the U.S. House of Representatives. The initiative threatens religious autonomy and further weakens the social welfare state, that has already been hit in drastic ways, with the passage of the Welfare Reform, (also known as TANF, Temporary Aid Needy Families), legislation signed into law on August 22, 1996. Furthermore, the proposal could possibly create a long and costly legal debate over the Establishment Clause of the first Amendment, of the United States Constitution, and forever change the composition and interpretation of that document, which speaks directly to the guarantee of religious freedom. One could make a valid argument that President Bush’s proposal violates the Constitutional guarantee for separation of church and state as provided for, in the “Establishment Clause of the First Amendment”, in the United States Constitution that explicitly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. I will argue that Congress should reject President Bush’s proposal and mark it DOA, (or Dead on Arrival), because it not only threatens the fabric of guaranteed freedoms, but it also extends the “Charitable Choice Expansion Act”, which already has indirectly involved religious activities in the secular society. In the Welfare Reform legislation of 1996, the number “#150” of the “Charitable Choice Act”, its provision therein allowed religious groups to competitively bid with secular groups in obtaining federal block and categorical grants. (11)

One of the biggest controversies evolving out of the proposal is governmental grants. The question of who qualifies and who is legitimate to receive funding pops up for immediate scrutiny and questioning. And if those faiths do take funding, doesn’t this violate the separation of church and state? Does the injection of state funding promote solidify government-sponsored discrimination? One should be worried when the government starts to have regulatory power over an issue that is so clearly defined in the Constitution, which is religious freedom. To have the government directly financially involved in religion is an awful idea. There are already agencies that are lack funding who will be compromised by this government-sponsored action.

Sara Melendez, who is the President of Independent Sector, a coalition of Charities said she is against the plan because the state charity tax would allow states to fund the credit with surplus federal welfare funds that were meant for the poor. In short, surplus welfare money would not be thrown back into the pool for welfare recipients, but would be re-administered to fund faith-based groups. The proposal would allow tax filers who don’t itemize to claim a deduction with charitable giving. It would also offer tax breaks to banks and matching funds in the development of individuals who are poor. Subsequently, it would limit liability to corporations that make “in-kind” contributions. (12) Sharon Daly, the Vice-President at Catholic Charities USA said that she would warn parishes against accepting money and is concerned that churches could be brought into litigation down the road if they do accept funding. (13) Conservative anti-faith based initiative opponent Michael Horowitz said that “’the first Amendment not only protects us from religion...and more importantly in this instance it protects us from religion.’” (14)

The 1996 Welfare Reform legislation that was signed into law by former President William J. Clinton, on August 22, 1996, established the “Charitable Choice Expansion Act”, that allowed religious groups to compete on an equal basis with secular ones for federal government grants, in both public health and social service programs. (15) This was the first time that grants by the federal government were offered to religious organizations. The competition within secular groups and secular ones who compete for federal money is what President Bush has offered in his proposal. The administration’s goal is to expand the provisions made in the 1996 bill. The Bush administration goal is to ease both federal and state regulations that are making it hard to fully carry-out the partnership between the government and faith-based organizations. In short, as many concede the use of government money would allow churches to be able to use federal or state aid to act in a way as a conduit of the government in the administering of social service, or social welfare programs. (16) This is one negative result of the 1996 Welfare Reform bill, and one that needs revision, rather than extension. Former Missouri-Republican, U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft, co-sponsored this bill along with Connecticut-Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, that allowed faith-based organizations to apply for federal welfare-to-work money. In 1996, the Congress also extended the availability for block grants to be used for drug treatment services. (17) One an issue that this writer is familiar with, by the mid-1990’s the state of Connecticut closed down ADRC, which was an drug and alcohol detoxification center. The State of Connecticut also closed Fairfield Hills, Norwich State Hospital, while Cedarcrest Hospital was downsized by fifty per cent of available beds. The closing of these psychiatric facilities does in fact make this writer skeptical to how the government advocates for those in need of social service programs.

President Bush would now like to have de-regulation and remove any obstacles that stop or hinder, any aspects of his proposal. In realistic terms, however, religious institutions could end up being regulated by the government by accepting funds and lose its religious autonomy, in the process. In the past religious groups have needed to establish separate secular non-profit organizational arms of the church to qualify in order to receive federal funds, while they were restricted in speaking about religion in any way, to those in need. (18) Under the Bush ‘“Charitable Choice” proviso, religious groups will no longer have to form non-secular groups to receive federal grant money. There are over two thousand religious denominations in the United States who would be competing for money and this would, create a “jockeying for position”, by these groups, for a “piece of the pie”. It would also create a dramatic political discourse between religious freedom and the establishment clause.

J.C. Watts, the U.S. House Representative, and Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would have both the tax incentive clause for private donators and would also include the divisive “Charitable Choice” Act. Under Federal Law, religion can show preference but is not allowed to use federal funds to discriminate against any individual(s). With Watts signing on to President Bush’s initiative, both legal and civil rights for all Americans are at risk of losing its legitimacy. (19) On March 14, 2001, the Senate put the “Charitable Choice Act” on hold because of the controversy surrounding its long-term implications. U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, who is proposing the bill for President Bush in the Senate wants to push forward the less controversial bill that deals with charitable giving first. He cautioned that the “Charitable Choice” law would have to be accomplished in a piecemeal fashion. He did recognize that the president could use the existing law as the new framework to move ahead with the “faith-based initiative”. (20) In short, what Watts has introduced is equally as bad, to what President Bush proposed.

The “Left” saw the proposal as a threat to the separation of church and state. The “Right” viewed it as having future detrimental effects that would make churches dependent on government and that groups like the Nation of Islam would receive government funding. The “Right” is also concerned that religion could be adversely affected by the funding and consequently, be subjected to the Congressional Oversight Committee and further government regulations. (21) One knows if the government gives out money it inevitably has the right to be the main subject in oversight in the direction and accountability of the funds. Despite what the “Right” may think about the Nation of Islam, the proposal would still leave the door open for that sect to receive federal fund, even though it has expressed anti-Semitic views. Bob Jones accused the Catholic Church of being a “cult”, but does this mean the Catholic Church doesn’t qualify for federal funs under President Bush’s proposal? The Jewish faith is a minority faith in the United States. Does this mean that the Jewish faith under this initiative should be ineligible? Isn’t religion practice supposed to be neutral? Is this the President’s call? Is it the Congress’s call? Or more likely, isn’t the United States Supreme Court who interprets the law and the United States Constitution that can either open the door for policies or shut the door on policies? What is at stake in President Bush’s proposal is the “Establishment Clause”, of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (22)

The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that the United States Constitution demands neutrality when it pertains to religion, and not hostility. If the exclusion of religion from programs is due to the basis of religious practice alone than it is deemed as nothing less than hostile and is interpreted as “hostile” in the court’s view. The grant money must remain neutral and competition must remain neutral and competition should not create division. Therefore, neutrality toward religious groups must specify all religious groups and not one over another, including the Christian faith of the Reverend Jerry Falwell, over Louis Farrakahn and the Nation of Islam. (23)

In 1992, a “Coercion Test”, was argued before the United States Supreme Court, in Lee vs. Wisconsin, 505 U.S. 577. It is with this type of a case that the U.S. Supreme Court determines the applicability of the U.S. Constitution regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, speaking to the separation of church and state. In this case the Supreme Court was looking to see if any pressure was being levied against to force or coerce individual(s) to participate, in activity. The legal opinion was that “Unconstitutional Coercion occurs when the government directs a formal religious exercise in such a way to oblige the participants of objectors”. (24)

The Supreme Court has consistently turned toward the Neutrality principle in upholding funding or aid that is offered to a broad range of groups or persons without regard to religion. (25)

The favorable ruling in the majority opinion of Mitchell vs. Helms, has set the political and legal tone that President Bush is able to use the decision to expedite the proposal of the “faith-based initiative“. In the conceptual framework and the context of the legal opinions on neutrality, the textbook lending programs in claiming that the First Amendment has been violated, plaintiffs must prove that the aid has been used for religious purposes. There are two pre-existing philosophies regarding the separation of church and state with the public and the private sector. The Separationists hold to the ideal that the state should have no religious message. However, four Justices on the United States Supreme Court have a non-preferentialist viewpoint on how they view religion. In their view religion is a fact of life in American society and that one religion cannot have preference over any other. Should one remove religion from the government’s voice, then the result would be hostility and through this hostility is shown towards religion. It is this hostility they argue, which in and of itself is not neutral. This is how they rationalized their decision, in Mitchell vs. Helms. (26) Furthermore, they claimed that refusal to grant on behalf of religion and hostility is shown to be the reason, then this would be viewed as unconstitutional. The non-preferentialists are Justices: William Rehnquist; Antonin Scalia; David Kennedy; and Clarence Thomas. The Seprationists are Justices: David Souter; Stevens; and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Justices Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O’Connor tend to be moderate or neutral in their views on this issue. The government, however, does not directly give money to religion because it can’t support religion and if you give fund secular activities that are run by religious organizations, the public is in fact supporting that church activity or institution. This is the premise that the separationists base their opinions on. (27)

One of the test cases in providing educational aid to public schools as it pertains to the Establishment Clause, is found in Agostini vs. Felton, that assessed the constitutionality of government aid to non-secular agents. In the latest case on the issue of educational aid by the federal government to religious schools, is the Mitchell vs. Helms, Supreme Court case. to United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice David Souter has linked neutrality with “non-preferentialism” and what Souter also views it as “evenhandedness”, writing his dissenting opinion. Souter thinks that the six-Justice majority was wrong to uphold the aid program because the money can be diverted in an easy fashion to religious schools. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Stephen Breyer voted to uphold the Establishment Clause, in Agostini, in relation to it proper standard under the existing law, as to whether the government should be able to give educational support to religious schools. (28)

In Mitchell vs. Helms, Helms and others brought suit contending that the funded program violated the Establishment Clause. They argued in bringing their case forward that these funds could advance religion or religious purpose because the materials and equipment loaned to the religious schools were direct aid and the schools were in the public sector. Although a federal district court judge who reheard the original case upheld the decision, the U.S. District Court of Appeals rejected the decision on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari. Chapter Two of the Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981. 20 USA C.A. 7301-7373, provides distribution through educational agencies to local agencies like computers or media equipment. The law stipulates that these materials can be lent to both the public and the private schools for “secular, neutral, and non-ideological” educational purposes. (29) The 6-3 majority decision in Mitchell vs. Helms, Supreme Court of the United States, 2000 -- U.S. -- 120 S.Ct. -,- L.Ed.2d-, the decision that was rendered speaks to the magnitude of how the opinion will have significant impact in how the “non-preferentialists” would make changes to the interpretation over how “Establishment Clause”, arguments are heard in the future. In a large way what President Bush is now doing with the faith-based initiative was set-up through this decision. What it said in effect, is that if you fail to fund religion you are violating the Establishment Clause. The principle of neutrality which is upholding aid that is offered to a broad range of groups or persons without regard to their religion. (30)

In short, with “neutrality” there should be no reference to religion by the federal government. But in his majority opinion Justice Thomas wrote that in terms of the question of “neutrality”, as it pertained to the indoctrination of religion in or out of the state’s control. As far as he was concerned, the government in devising an aid program has to conclude that a given level of aid is necessary to further that purpose among secular recipients and has provided no more than the same provisions to religious recipients. The “non-preferentialists”, wanted to drop the second element of the Lemon decision in which the statute had a primary effect of advancing or that it inhibited religion. (31) So the real question that was to be asked was whether government aid is advancing the cause of religion. In the Helms case, Thomas argued in talking about, New York’s Title I, program and using the criterion of Lemon, that it did not result in governmental indoctrination in reference to religion. (32) In talking about more recent law Thomas also concluded that going by the first two criteria in Agostini, that it does not result in government indoctrination. As far as Thomas is concerned Chapter two did not constitute a “law respecting an establishment of religion.” (33) As for neutrality, Justice Thomas argued that private choice helps to guarantee neutrality, and that should be done only through the, “independent and private choices of individuals”. (34)

In conclusion, the “faith-based” initiative that President Bush has proposed should not ever be passed through Congress, despite the previous “Charitable Choice Expansion Act”, that was passed under the Clinton administration. Likewise, the Congress should never allow the bill to pass and should serve its function well as the check and balancer of not only the U.S. Supreme Court, in regard to the decision of Mitchell vs. Helms, (giving the funding of religion a new license to operate in America as far as the Supreme Court is concerned), in relation to the Establishment Clause, but also to act as a “watchdog”, and to ensure that President Bush is acting on behalf of the common good of the American people, and not his own political and personal interests. More importantly, the Congress must act responsibly and reject this ill-advised legislative item that both Rick Santorum and J.C. Watts have proposed into legislation. Further, the Congress must act as a check for the common good and protection of the nation and serve as the check to not allow for what a Conservative Supreme Court allowed in Helms, to overtake what the separation issues of church and state are. For all intent and purposes the government with its Welfare Reform in 1996 got out of the welfare business as record numbers have been released from the rolls. If the government wants to really act in a proactive manner perhaps, it could renew some of the programs it got rid of and pour more money back into helping struggling mothers and children and relax the time limit provisions that were established in 1996. If there is in fact a surplus of money and the government is concerned with the poor, the starving , the drug addicts, or the homeless, than put the money back where it was taken from. To involve private corporations into the mix is not a good idea either. Private corporations care firstly about profits, and people second. The government who is of the people, for the people, and by the people, should place people first and not worry as much about how to pay for starving children. Yes, Bush is correct. The government should make sure people are not hungry or homeless, but it should not rely on religious organizations to do this. The government already has agencies to provide these services in a functionary manner. This is where the government money should go, and the only place it should go to, in contrast with Bush wanting to find a legal way to funnel federal money to religious organizations. If the United States can spend one billion dollars on any one nuclear-like missile, then it can find a way to help in the welfare and social services game. This in fact is quite despicable! By compromising the U.S. Constitution and allowing to further weaken the funds that would be made available to social service organizations already in place speaks volumes about the ongoing negative attitude about big government. It is not a stretch to say that the “New Federalism” that former President Ronald Reagan instituted is still alive and working today. Whatever surplus the government has due to the success of getting people off welfare in record numbers should go right back into helping the TANF bill signed in 1996. In analyzing this matter, perhaps, the Oversight Committee in Congress could perform a study of what is happening with the categorical grants that have been allocated to states for welfare reform. However, in looking at this issue briefly, the excess categorical grant money should go right back in to helping the nation’s most neediest and most vulnerable citizens. The only check left now is not in the form of dollar bills. It is in the form of Congress rejecting President Bush’s “faith-based” initiative and be the final arbiter in protecting the over 2,000 religious denominations and the American public, from a potential disaster. This proposal may look good in a symbolic fashion, but it substance is lacking in quality, and consequently, it would be like pouring gasoline on an already exploding fire if this proposal became law. Finally, if this faith-based initiative does pass it will put another ideal of equality for all that President Roosevelt advocated in 1941, in jeopardy. President Clinton already ended “welfare as we know it”, and now President Bush is attempting to abridge religious freedom, as we don’t know it, just yet. Consequently, the principles of not only the “New Deal” of FDR, are being tossed aside, but the Civil Rights Act, of 1964, is another abridgement. Overall, President Bush may have good intentions, but one must execute the laws of the United States in consistent measure with the U.S. Constitution, rather than how one feels it should be executed. In this case constitutional fact should override political feeling, or for that matter, campaign promises. It will now be up to Congress to vote on this controversial agenda item, that President Bush has initiated.