Articles

The "Charitable Choice" Debate

Faith And The City
March-April 2001 newsletter

The "charitable choice" provision of the federal welfare reform law, enacted by Congress in 1996, reinvigorated the longstanding public debate over the proper relationship between religion and government. Substantially expanding that relationship, charitable choice described new guidelines for states to enter into funding relationships with religious organizations that provide social services. In January of this year, President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which seeks to expand the range of federal funding available for social services programs operated by faith-based organizations.

Concensus and Controversy

Clearly, the president's initiative is controversial. Although a majority of citizens may favor federal funding for at least certain faith-based service providers, many would impose restrictions. According to For Goodness' Sake, a survey reported earlier this year by the Public Agenda, a New York-based research group, two-thirds of respondents suggested that government funding of faith-based organizations that help drug addicts and homeless people is a "good idea." However, of the 67 percent who indicated that such funding is a good idea, 23 percent considered it a good idea only if funded programs "stay away from religious messages." Nearly one-third of all respondents said it is a "bad idea" for government to fund religious organizations. (For a summary of the report, visit: www.publicagenda.org.)

Another report released this year, In Good Faith: A Dialogue on Government Funding of Faith-Based Social Services, further underscores the controversy. The report outlines key positions for and against government funding and notes that not all of its signatories, "a diverse group of religious, charitable, civil rights, and educational organizations," agrees with every statement in the document. In Good Faith, described as a "statement arising from discussions convened by the American Jewish Committee and the Feinstein Center for American Jewish History at Temple University," effectively outlines the principle parameters of the debate. (To view the report, visit: www.ajc.org or www.temple.edu/feinsteinctr/.)

According to the report, those in favor of charitable choice describe it as "an innovative and carefully crafted means to expand government financial collaboration with religious organizations to meet critical social needs, while protecting beneficiaries, providers, the public trust, and constitutional values."

Thos opposed to charitable choice maintain that it "undermines governmental neutrality toward religion and promotes government funded discrimination. It also jeopardizes beneficiaries' rights to religious liberty, and threatens the autonomy and vitality of religion and religious liberty."

Alternative Proposals

Meanwhile, religious leaders, lawmakers, and others are expressing concerns and offering suggestions on how to more effectively involve communities of faith in addressing the daunting challenge of serving needy members of our society.

Rev. Pat Robertson, a supporter of President Bush, expressed concerns that faith-based organizations might eventually be required to give up their "unique religious activities" in exchange for government funding. In addition, government funds could be directed to religious organizations that practice "Brainwashing techniques." As an alternative, Robertson proposed that private individuals and corporations make donations to government-approved faith-based organizations delivering social services and that such donors receive "dollar-for-dollar" federal tax credits.

Federal lawmakers are considering allowing charitable contribution deductions for people who do not itemize deductions on their income tax returns. Another proposal would offer full deductions for donations of food to encourage the nation's farmers, grocers, and restaurants to give to charities some of the millions of pounds of food discarded every week.

This brief article, of course, cannot comprehensively describe the complex debate over charitable choice. However, Faith And The City does encourage citizens -- especially members of the Atlanta region's diverse communities of faith -- to engage in this public dialogue, which will influence the continuing relationship between religion and government, as well as our capacity as a society to serve the neediest of our neighbors.