“No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place of ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief: but that all men shall be free to profess ... their opinion in matters of religion.”

Should Americans be compelled to support organized religion? Legislative proposals, including the 1996 “Charitable Choice” provision of the Welfare Reform Act (“Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996”), and proposals to form “faith-based partnerships” between religious groups and government are moving our nation in this dangerous direction. Some political and sectarian groups insist that churches, synagogues, and other religious movements should be given a greater role in operating and administering social welfare programs. With government “privatizing” the welfare system, billions of dollars in grants and other disbursements are now being handed out to various non-profit organizations. Changes in the law, and in the way welfare operates today in the United States, means that religious groups will be able to compete for these contracts.

All of this seriously threatens the separation of church and state in America today. Already, sectarian groups take public tax money and use it to operate social service programs that are religion-based. New proposals in Congress would expand the latitude these religious organizations have in using public funds to advance their sectarian message. Under the guise of “welfare reform” or “streamlining” the delivery of social services, we are in danger of using public funds to support religion and instituting what amounts to a religion tax which all Americans -- including tens of millions of Atheists, agnostics, freethinkers and other like-minded citizens -- must pay.

Unfortunately, government programs have long had the effect of aiding religious groups. Tax money has been used to finance everything from hospitals run by religious denominations to programs which provide direct and indirect financial and material aid to religious schools. Courts have been sharply divided in cases examining the constitutionality of such programs. Many critics say that even the majority in some Supreme Court cases seem to go to great lengths in trying to uphold policies which allow religious schools or groups to be the beneficiaries of public funding.

DISESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION;
AN AMERICAN TRADITION

Prior to the American Revolution, a number of colonies had an official or “established” church which was often supported by a tax. One frequently had to belong to such an official religion in order to enjoy certain rights such as owning property, operating a business or holding an office of public trust. Most of the Founding Fathers were opposed to such a practice, though, and called for the “disestablishment” of religion. Churches were disestablished (written out of the law as the “official” sect, their public funding terminated) in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey in 1776, and in New York, North Carolina and Georgia in 1777. In 1790, South Carolina disestablished its state-supported church, while Connecticut did so in 1818. Massachusetts was the last state which took its official religion off the public dole in 1833.

Religious groups frequently protested disestablishment. Some states in New England continued the unfair policy of giving religious groups free land. Other formerly-established churches attempted to “incorporate” through Congress so that they might administer a tax in their communities. James Madison vetoed one bill that would have allowed the Episcopal Church in Alexandria, Virginia to have this authority. It took until the 1860s to fully end these schemes which allowed churches to use public money for their survival.

Churches & Charity

Religious organizations often boast of their “charitable” works, as if government social programs and even non-sectarian charities have not helped millions of Americans. Today, religious charities often depend on local, state and federal funding for most of their budgets -- even thought the churches like to take full credit.

When public monies have been provided to religious groups to operate social outreaches -- everything from housing programs to health clinics or neighborhood food distribution -- certain conditions had to be followed, at least in theory. The tax money had to be used for secular purposes (food, health services) rather than religious worship or proselytizing. No person accepting the services could be compelled to change their religious beliefs, attend religious services or engage in any other type of sectarian activity as the “price” for benefiting from the program. Everyone, whether they agreed with the doctrines of the religious group operating the program, had to be eligible. If they felt uncomfortable with the program, a secular alternative -- one that was not religion-based -- had to be available. The program had to follow other guidelines, too, such as not requiring staff members to hold a particular religious belief. Religious symbols, tracts and other materials could not be in evidence, or used as a component of the program.

Religious groups often established separate, non-profit corporations -- “fronts” -- so they could accept government money and operate these social service programs. In theory, this allowed the government to monitor the programs for compliance, and protect the independence of the religious organization sponsoring the program.

American Atheists has maintained that even these programs should not have been permitted. It is difficult to truly separate the secular and religious component in any of these social outreaches. Even with guidelines, the mere existence of the programs creates the public impression that faith-based groups are engaged in beneficial services to the community at their own expense. Government funding has resulted in “free publicity” for religious groups, and it has provided a source of jobs -- at public expense -- for persons connected with these churches, who otherwise would have to go out and find other employment.

Finally, even with the guidelines, the opportunity for abuse pervades these programs. There is often little or no government oversight to guarantee that they are not being used to promote religious belief, or that religion is not smuggled into a particular social program. When federal money trickles down to state and local agencies, it is often disbursed by committees staffed by representatives of the very faith-based groups which are seeking grants. When religious groups apply for public money, there is generally only a perfunctory review, and little supervision and follow-up to guarantee that this money is not being used to support religious activities, messages and proselytizing.

Ideally, we should prohibit religious groups from accepting any public money to operate social services. Some faith-based organizations rightly insist that they should use their own money, not the taxpayers’, to fund their charitable works. Others fear that with government money will eventually come control and more intrusion into the affairs of religious denominations. In any case, American Atheists takes the position that absolutely no funds should flow from the public treasury into the coffers of sectarian religious groups -- for any excuse! Any public funding of religion, for whatever reason, amounts to a religious tax on the American people. The decision to contribute to a church or other house of worship -- or not contribute -- should be a private one.

THE CHARITABLE CHOICE THREAT

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act contained provisions which allow a greater role for religious groups in operating social services. It seriously lowers the legal standards for such groups, and further erodes the separation of church and state. It may well constitute a further peril to the independence of religious congregations by “hooking” them on the public payroll. (We often speak of “getting people off the welfare treadmill,” but in this case public policy is encouraging a similar syndrome for churches, mosques, temples and other faith groups.) Finally, it expands a dangerous and unfair religious tax on the American people, forcing them to support faith-based organizations and programs.

* The “charitable choice” provision was promoted by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) In unabashed language, he admitted that the goal of the legislation was to encourage religious groups to become further involved with social service programs. This is one of the things he said about the legislation:

“In the past, many successful faith-based organizations have not participated in government programs for fear of having to compromise their religious integrity or being hobbled by excessive government regulation and intrusion. The confusing array of legal precedents has often led government officials to conclude mistakenly that the constitutional law requires that faith-based organizations be excluded from the mix of private service providers, or that entities accepting government funds forego their religious character.”

Ashcroft admitted:

“One of my goals in proposing the charitable choice provision was to encourage faith-based organizations to expand their involvement in the welfare reform effort by providing assurances their religious integrity would be protected.”

* “Charitable Choice” states that faith-based providers must be given equal consideration with secular, non-profit organizations when bidding for social service contracts. This encourages religious groups to accept public money and “hunt” for public funding sources. Unfortunately, the legislation further muddles the already-complex and confusing array of laws and court guidelines pertaining to religious groups accepting public money. The law claims that it does not violate the separation of church and state (a decision usually left for the judicial system, not Congress) and that the money is not to be used for religious proselytizing or indoctrination, but then guarantees that religious groups need not abandon their “faith-based” mission or character. Religious providers may not be forced to remove icons, religious art, scriptures or other symbols from their premises. Religion-based activities (such as prayer at a meal) may be carried out, although in theory, any social service beneficiary may not be compelled to participate.

Even though the program is supposedly based on “choice,” problems abound. Clients accepting social services are presumably free to decline any participation in the religious parts of a program, but what guarantee is there that this will be enforced? As “charitable choice” schemes expand, would groups such as juveniles really be informed of their rights in such programs? Those who decline to pray, read Bible or Koran verses, or engage in other religious rituals would be marginalized and possibly harassed for failing to conform. Is this right?

The legislation pays lip service to separation of church and state, and provides that a secular alternative must be available for those not wishing to participate in a religion-based service program. What kind of oversight exists, though, to guarantee this?

And remember that all religious groups may apply for public funding. Christians may be excited about receiving a public subsidy to “serve” the public, but what happens when Muslims, Hindus or even fringe religious groups begin to apply for their share of tax money? What happens if an Atheist family must seek public assistance through a “faith-based” program operated by Roman Catholics? The Nation of Islam? A Hindu Temple? How would a Christian family react?

The fairest approach is to fund no religious groups. If the goal is to feed hungry people, provide medical care, train people for the job market and render other services, those objectives -- not “faith-based” doctrines -- should be the focus of social service legislation. Involving religious groups and “faith-based” outreaches at public expense still amounts to a religious tax.

* Religious groups which accept “charitable choice” funding play by a special set of rules. In order to “encourage” religious involvement, this legislation provides wide latitude for faith-based groups above and beyond that enjoyed by secular, nonprofit service providers. Sectarian providers may discriminate and use a religious litmus test when hiring staff to administer such programs.

In addition, this legislation opens the door to widespread fiscal abuse. Religious groups have been involved in financial and other scandals, and have attempted to use freedom of religion as a legal shield. “Charitable Choice” allows these groups to establish separate nonprofit corporations to operate social programs, thus insulating their parent denominations/sects from any scrutiny. The religious character of these faith-based outreaches can be a powerful disincentive for monitoring and oversight to insure that the service provider is obeying the law.

* Many social service and religious groups have spoken out against “charitable choice” schemes. They include The B’nai B’rith, Church of the Brethren, United Methodists, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Presbyterian Church, Rabbinical Assembly, and United Church of Christ. It is important to note that while certain religious groups may speak out against “charitable choice,” that does not mean that they oppose other forms of public funding and special privileges for organized religion! They may oppose this legislation for fear of potential government oversight. They may also support the notion of religious groups accepting public money to operate programs that appear to be mostly secular. Again, this is why American Atheists seeks an end to any and all programs which divert public money to religious groups under any excuse!

FAITH-BASED PARTNERSHIPS:
MELDING PRIVATE AND TAX MONEY TO BENEFIT RELIGION

Another category under the heading of public funding of religion is so-called “faith-based partnerships.” These are relatively new, but they are all the rage in many religious, political and public policy circles. While “charitable choice” is certainly one form of this “partnership,” it is not the only possible arrangement. “Partnerships” are increasingly popular with state and local governments. They meld public and private money in order to operate a variety of social services and outreaches.

Some groups which oppose “charitable choice” still support a “partnership” arrangement which might, for instance, give religious groups considerable latitude in how they operate social service programs. As with the federal legislation, though, these “partnerships” rarely attract much media or political scrutiny. The money is often disbursed by committees appointed by government leaders or bodies; and religious groups are inevitably represented, guaranteeing that faith-based organizations receive “their share” of our tax dollars.

* In Texas, Gov. George W. Bush has promoted “faith-based” partnerships involving everything from drug and alcohol rehab to prison-based ministries. An estimated $10 million has been spent so far (September, 2000).

* In New Jersey, the state operates a special “Office of Faith-Based Partnership” to encourage participation by religious groups in the public policy sphere. This has helped churches purchase housing units, storefronts and even vacated business real estate.

* As with federal “Charitable Choice,” these “partnerships” appear to have minimal or no oversight. State and local governments are often more concerned with efforts to involve the religious community than they are in supervising the recipients of these public funds so that they do not use the money in promotion of their religious mission.

* Some “partnership” proposals would use tax credits and other incentives, rather than outright grants, to encourage the growth of religion-based social programs. American Atheists considers this to be a disingenuous “end run” around the First Amendment by tinkering with the tax system in order to encourage contributions to religious groups. Again, the real goal is not to feed and cloth the needy, or provide job training or other social services, but rather create public policies which involve religious groups in the administration and operation of such programs. “Partnership” boosters such as Bush advisor Marvin Olasky frequently refer to the need for a religious component in social welfare services.

Ending Religious Taxation in America

In the 1947 case EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING TOWNSHIP, Supreme Court justices noted:

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institution, whatever they may called, or whatever they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups or vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State’ ...”

Despite that guidance, the court nevertheless upheld a public policy which reimbursed parents who sent their youngsters to religious school for the cost of transportation. Courts have continued to chip away at the wall of separation between church and state, gradually opening the door of the public treasury with the possibility of more taxpayer funding of religion. Some defend these policies as long as “all religious groups” may qualify for funding, or if clients receiving social services have the “alternative” of obtaining services from a secular provider.

The fact that all religious groups may qualify for public assistance, though, does not render this practice fair and constitutional. We take seriously the principle that no public monies should be given to any religious groups for any purpose whatsoever. “Charitable Choice,” Faith-Based “partnerships,” vouchers and other schemes simply amount to a religious tax. They compel tens of millions of Atheists to directly and indirectly fund religious groups, programs and outreaches.

STOPPING CHARITABLE CHOICE, PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER SUBSIDIES FOR SECTARIAN RELIGION

What can Atheists -- and other Americans who oppose a religious tax and other public funding of religious groups -- do to stop this trend?

* Learn more about Charitable Choice. The American Atheist Magazine and American Atheist Newsletter often carry news items about this dangerous trend.

* Support educational and legal efforts to thwart “charitable choice” and partnership schemes.

* Speak out! Let your elected officials know where you stand.

TEARING DOWN THE WALL OF SEPARATION AT TREASURY... CHARITABLE CHOICE: * Encourages religious groups to apply for federal funding, compete for social service contracts. * States that religious groups must have equal consideration with secular, nonprofit organizations in seeking tax money to operate social programs. * Lowers the bar on legal control. Faith-based groups have greater latitude in promoting a religious message. Religious symbols, materials and activities are tolerated. * Invites abuse by tempting religious groups to take government money. * Critics say program lacks suitable controls, oversight to prevent abuse by groups that will incorporate a religious message into their program. * Could threaten the independence of religious groups by requiring oversight, monitoring by government * Compels all to pay a RELIGION TAX which uses public money to fund faith-based social outreaches. * Seriously alters the precarious relationship between church and state, and muddles already confusing guidelines. Legislation declares that it does not violate the separation of church and state, yet churches and other sectarian groups may take our money and still retain their “faith-based” mission and character. * Could set a dangerous legal precedent resulting in even more blatant funding schemes for organized religion. “FAITH-BASED PARTNERSHIPS” * May include “charitable choice,” but also covers the use of state, even local money by religious organizations. * Includes a wide range of activities by sectarian groups; everything from operating housing units to “faith-based” drug and alcohol rehab programs to food pantries or after-school programs. * Opens the door for wide abuse by religious groups which accept public money, and use their outreach to blatantly proselytize or “smuggle” a sectarian message. Clients in such programs may be coerced into accepting a religious message, or change their views about faith. * Can meld public and private grant money. * Create problems of accountability and oversight; religious groups may cite the First Amendment as a legal shield. * Like “Charitable Choice,” compels all to pay a RELIGION TAX which uses public money to fund faith-based social outreaches. DISESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION * Sought to abolish “official” churches and sects in the respective states. * Ended, in theory, direct taxation in order to support sectarian religion. * Helped to establish a “wall of separation” between church and state. * Helped to end a “religion tax” that compelled all citizens to financially support a particular religious institution. * Guaranteed both freedom of and freedom from religion. * Is now threatened by schemes to fund religion under the guise of promoting and encouraging “faith-based” social services.

[text only]