From federal suits to administrative action, Bush’s faith-based initiative remains in the public spotlight. Action Taken by the Supreme Court on Government Funded Religion The Supreme Court, on Feb. 25, 2004, ruled in favor of the state of Washington in a major challenge to limits on government-funded religion. In the case of Locke v. Davey, the Court held that Washington’s exclusion of a devotional theology degree from its Promise Scholarship program does not violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Davey, a student that was awarded the state funded Promise Scholarship, chose to attend a private, church-affiliated institution, Northwest College. Northwest College is an eligible school under the Promise Scholarship, but Davey’s choice of major was not. Davey chose a double major in pastoral ministries and business management/administration. Both parties in the suit agreed that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional in nature. Davey brought the action under the belief that the denial of his scholarship violated, among other things, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court explains that this case involves the “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Rehnquist writes, “since this country’s founding, there has been popular uprising against procuring taxpayer funds to support church leaders, which is the hallmarks of an ‘established’ religion.” 37 states have similar laws. After the Court’s decision legal analysts are uncertain whether the narrow opinion could extend to school voucher programs that include religious study in their programs, or other elements of charitable choice and the faith-based initiative. Federal Suits and Faith-based Organizations Two high profile religious discrimination suits were filed last month. A Michigan based Christian juvenile rehabilitation program, Teen Ranch, filed suit against the state’s Family Independence Agency (FIA). Teen Ranch claims discrimination by the state agency because of their religious nature. This action came after the FIA had placed a moratorium on placing kids at Teen Ranch because of complaints made by children stating they were being forced to take part in religious activities. The FIA has lifted the freeze after being served with the federal suit notice. The Alliance Defense Fund, representing Teen Ranch, argues that the FIA’s moratorium was illegal and violated the First Amendment of the Constitution. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids. The FIA will appear at a March 24 hearing to explain why it imposed the ban. In New York, current and former employees are suing The Salvation Army in federal court. Workers in the social services and child welfare programs are accusing the organization of creating a hostile work environment by preaching religion and sexual intolerance. The plaintiffs fear they will lose their job due to reluctance to reveal their religious practices and profess adherence to The Salvation Army’s new religious policies and principles. (The Salvation Army recently amended its mission to include a religious message.) According to the complaint filed by New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) on behalf of the plaintiffs, The Salvation Army currently receives $50 million in government funds to run social service and child welfare programs for the city, county, and state governments. These government-funded programs currently serve about 2,300 clients a day and include foster care and adoption services, group homes, boarding homes, a non-secure detention facility for juvenile delinquents, services for children with developmental disabilities, HIV services, and group day care. The complaint also states that nearly 90 percent of the beneficiaries that The Salvation Army’s social service and child welfare program provides government mandated services to are in custody of, and/or referred by, governmental agencies. The NYCLU argues that these government-funded programs must provide the government mandated social services without regard to religion. NYCLU’s executive director, Donna Liberman, notes that this lawsuit is “the first major challenge to the coming wave faith-based initiatives” of the Bush administration. Administration Continues to Push for Agency Action Two federal agencies are moving forward with rules that would allow religious institutions to partner with government to provide social services. Both Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Agriculture have proposed rules on the participation of religious organization in their programs. Both proposed rules carry out Bush’s Executive Order 13279, a controversial order that allows religious discrimination in hiring with federal funds. HUD has already published a rule for religious organizations in its programs. Its new proposed rule extends the provisions to the State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the Supportive Housing for Elderly Program and Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities. The latter two programs had specific conditions that prohibited project owners from having a religious purpose in its articles of incorporation. The proposed rule would eliminate such conditions. The public has been asked to submit comments regarding HUD’s proposed rule by May 3, 2004 Department of Agriculture’s March 5 proposed rule is the department’s first step toward the implementation of Bush’s faith-based initiative. The rule extends to all direct beneficiaries and contractors and mirrors the proposals set forth by other federal agencies. The public may comment on this proposed ruling. All comments must be submitted to the department by May 4, 2004. For more information on the development these administrative rules read the Roundtable on Religion and Social Policy’s (an independent research project funded by the Rockefeller Institute of Government supported by the Pew Charitable Trust) Developments in the Faith-based and Community Initiative: Comments on Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and Guidance Documents. The Misrepresentation of Funding Facts The greatest myth of the faith-based initiative is that before federal agencies approved new rules allowing faith-based organizations to compete for government funding there were no religious groups partnering with government. The reality is that religious organizations such as Catholic Charities, The Salvation Army and others have been partnering with government for years. These new regulations, publicity and government funded workshops on how to apply for grants have been giving small faith-based organizations hopes of receiving federal funds. Government officials are giving the impression that there is more money out there for them. Yet the reality is otherwise. There is not more money for social service providers -- instead there are more competitors for the same amount of funds. One of the most egregious examples of a misleading statement came from Jim Towey, head of the White House Office on Faith-based and Community Initiatives. In a Talk Radio News interview on March 4 Towey states, "The results will show that there's been a dramatic increase in funds going to faith-based organizations. Two agencies where there is comparison data available, HHS and HUD, you will see over $144 million -- new dollars going to faith-based groups from 2002 -- fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2003. You'll see an increase of 41 percent in one year in HHS grants to faith-based groups. You'll see at HUD now that over half of the money that goes to Section 202, elderly housing, which is a program of about $750 million, with about half of that money is going to faith-based organizations." But the money going to faith-based organizations from HHS and HUD is not “new money.” (See this week’s OMB Watcher article on the Senate Budget Proposal) Tax cuts have resulted in less funding for domestic social service programs, not more. Federal agencies cannot set aside money for faith-based programs because doing so would be unconstitutional preference for religious groups over secular groups.