"Time Is Slipping Away," Whines Lieberman As Groups Blast Discrimination Loophole

A bipartisan compromise bill to enact part of President Bush's
faith-based initiative is once again in trouble on Capitol Hill.

Opponents in the House and Senate have joined with gay civil rights
groups in what the Boston Globe is describing as "an aggressive
lobbying campaign" to block the legislation, and possibly de-rail a
vote prior to the October 4 congressional recess deadline.

The compromise bill, S. 1924 is known as CARE or the "Charity Aid,
Empowerment and Recovery Act." Cobbled together by Sens. Joseph
Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Rick Santorum (R-PA.), the measure calls for
tax incentives to encourage giving to religious organizations
operating faith-based social programs. Parts of the bill also provide
money for training and legal support for those groups wishing to apply
for federal grant money, and a $2 billion social services fund to be
distributed by states and other agencies.

Proponents claim that the measure skirts many of the contentious legal
issues that were part of earlier efforts to fund the faith-based
initiative. The House of Representatives has already passed HR 7, the
"Community Solutions Act" that expanded the charitable choice
provision of the 1996 welfare reform act. The measure permits
churches, mosques and temples to compete for government money in order
to administer social welfare programs. It also allows those groups to
retain their "religious character" and ignore many of the First
Amendment-related controls that existed previously.

Critics say that HR 7 and even CARE give wide latitude to religious
service providers, and would, in effect, permit them to use public
money for promoting religion. American Atheists has opposed the
faith-based initiative from its inception, charging that under the
guise of combating poverty and other social ills, it imposes a
"Religion Tax" on American citizens.

The CARE measure was adopted as a compromise on the initiative. The
White House is already trying to tap additional public funding
sources, though, and recently ordered major federal agencies such as
Housing and Human Services to re-write their regulations to include
more faith-based programs.

At stake are billions of dollars in potential grants and other forms
of financial aid to houses of worship.

With the Senate under enormous pressure from the White House to pass
CARE in time for the upcoming election recess, the new civil rights
coalition led by Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, wants to
amend the measure and require religious groups accepting public money
to obey civil rights laws and other anti-discrimination statutes.

That could upset the delicate balance of liberals and especially
conservatives who fear that such a mandate would compromise religious
freedom and offend some faith-based service providers. If successful,
the measure would mean that a church, for instance, could not
discriminate in hiring practices on the basis of religious doctrine.

Since the Roosevelt Era and the New Deal, federal public aid programs
have explicitly banned any such discrimination. The Bush initiative,
though, breaks with that policy and gives faith-based providers
greater leeway in employment and other policies.

Frank and others "fear that discrimination will take place as a result
of tenets of faith or cultural practices," notes Globe reporter Mary
Leonard.

"It will lead to racism," Rep. Frank warned. He added that religious
groups would only hire those who reflect their own teachings and that
"Christian fundamentalists won't hire gays or lesbians."

Joining with Frank are the Human Rights Campaign and the Lambda Legal
Defense Fund. HRC says that while it "recognizes and supports the
critical role performed by the many faith-and-community-based
organizations," it seeks to amend S. 1924 with language prohibiting
any group receiving tax dollars under the program from discriminating
against gay Americans.

A Monkey Wrench In The Works?

Lieberman and Santorum are reportedly "frustrated and disappointed"
that once again the faith-based initiative is stalling on Capitol Hill.

"Most senators would agree that getting help to charitable
organizations in times of economic distress and war is a good thing to
do," Santorum told reporters -- all the while ducking the
constitutional problems of providing public money to religious groups.
Santorum added that he and Lieberman had intentionally avoided any
prohibition on discriminatory policies by faith groups in hopes of
avoiding "the hot button issue" that has characterized the history of the
legislation.

He also failed in a cloak room maneuver to persuade Senate Democrats
to agree to a vote on CARE with a strict limit on amendments and time
for debate.

Sen. Lieberman is reportedly even furious about the latest pit-fall
for his pet compromise.

"Time is slipping away," he told the Globe. "This is a good bill, and
it's one of the best things we could do for our communities this year.
But, for reasons that are sometimes clear and sometimes not so clear,
some of our colleagues are holding up action."

Sen.Jack Reed (D-RI) is working with Frank and the coalition to draft
an amendment to CARE that would bar both discrimination in hiring and
other practices by groups operating faith-based social programs, as
well as outright proselytizing. That would erode support for the
initiative, though, from many conservatives and evangelical groups
that insist they cannot participate in programs that affect the
application of their dogmas to employment guidelines.