|
Edited on Mon Mar-01-04 04:10 AM by LincolnMcGrath
I'm sure none of us would be against a little lunch money, or gubmint cheese. This fight is about more.
Government-funded social service programs surrounded by or connected to religious messages or activities, however subtle or indirect, threaten to entangle a religious message with the provision of social services. The proposed regulation requires grantees to reassure beneficiaries that failure to participate in religious services will not affect the services they receive. It strains credulity to believe that individuals in need, particularly in the most dire personal circumstances, will always be in a condition to make a thoughtful and well-considered decision whether or not to participate in worship or similar activities offered by a religious social service provider. At the very least, additional safeguards should be included in the regulations, such as the requirement that religious activities be offered separately in time and location, and that the individuals actually providing government-funded social services not be involved in “offering” such religious activity to program recipients. In addition, the rule should make clear that, as provided in the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589 (1988) pervasively sectarian organizations should not receive direct funding. We also recommend that the rules include provisions to make clear that beneficiaries should have the right to receive services from a different or non-religious provider, in a manner at least as robust as in proposed SAMHSA rules.
Proposed 45 CFR Chapter X, Sec. 1050.3 (f) would require religious organizations to segregate their government funds from other funds, in part to properly insulate the religious group’s privately raised funds from unwarranted government audits. The problem, however, is that even segregation of funds is not sufficient to guarantee that government is not funding pervasively sectarian organizations such as churches. Particularly absent a requirement that any government funds supplement and not supplant church funds, the government grant frees church funds for other, religious missions. Conversely, government grants could lead to a decline in private contributions by parishioners of churches receiving funds, on the rationale that the government is picking up the slack, so that individuals can reduce their contributions. Again, to ensure that the program complies with the constitutional limits of the Establishment Clause as discussed in the proposed regulation, the final rule should make clear that pervasively sectarian organizations should not receive direct funding.
|