Bush Pushes 'Faith-Based' Measure

WASHINGTON- President Bush is enacting by executive fiat key pieces of his divisive "faith-based initiative," including one that lets federal contractors use religious favoritism in their hiring.

Hoping to involve churches and religious organizations more deeply in government efforts to address social ills, Bush on Thursday was signing an executive order aimed at giving those groups a leg up in the competition for federal money, administration officials said. He was announcing the changes in a speech to religious and charitable leaders in Philadelphia.

The president began pushing the issue on Capitol Hill in his second week in office but ran into a fierce debate over how religious groups could get government money without running afoul of the constitutional separation of church and state.

He was successful in the House but the Senate wouldn't even give him a watered-down version that mainly increased tax breaks for charitable giving.

Even with next year's total Republican control of Congress sure to create a more friendly environment, Bush decided to forge ahead on his own.

By far the most contentious of the changes is Bush's executive order informing federal agencies that religious organizations refusing to hire people of any faith can still win contracts.

Additionally, new regulations being unveiled Thursday from the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Housing and Urban Development also preserve the right of religious groups providing certain government-financed services to hire based on religion.

Broadly, Bush's directive tells federal agencies to ensure religious groups are treated equally with others in all respects, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Federal contractors also can no longer be denied federal money for displaying religious icons, such as a cross or a menorah.

The hiring issue was one of the central disputes as lawmakers considered Bush's proposals before. Civil rights law bars discrimination on the basis of religion, but constitutional problems arise when government money is involved.

Bush's aim is merely to erase barriers and give religious groups as fair a shake as any others, said Jim Towey, the director of the White House office of faith-based and community initiatives.

"He doesn't want to make it a faith-favored public square but he wants it to be faith-friendly," Towey said.

Also, the executive order restates that organizations cannot use federal funds to preach a particular faith, worship or provide religious instruction.

Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said religious groups would be allowed to discriminate in hiring while other groups could not.

"It's not equal treatment," he said. "It's special treatment for religious groups. ... In essence, the government is going to be funding religious discrimination."

For his Philadelphia announcement, Bush chose a presidential-election battleground state with the fifth-largest cache of electoral votes. The visit will be Bush's 17th to Pennsylvania - the most to any state.

Behind the president's push to expand the role of churches in addressing poverty, hunger, homelessness and drug abuse is his belief that they can be more effective than other groups in helping the needy.

His administration - fueled by the religious conservative constituency that forms Bush's political base - contends that religious groups face unfair barriers.

White House officials cited the examples of the Victory Center Rescue Mission in Iowa, which was threatened with losing $100,000 in federal money because its governing board wasn't secular enough, and the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty in New York, told it could not apply for a federal grant because the word "Jewish" was part of its name.

In other administrative changes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will now allow religious nonprofits such as schools and soup kitchens to get federal aid after natural disasters.

Finally, Bush was creating offices to help shepherd religious groups through the bureaucracy in two departments, Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development. That brings the total number of agencies with such offices to seven.

Interestingly enough I don't ever recall AP calling Clinton EO's "divisive" and by "fiat".....

It was a lib/dem (LBJ) who signed 11246 which required government to discriminate on race. Now we have GWB signing an EO to eliminate discrimination on faith.

Hoping to involve churches and religious organizations more deeply in government efforts to address social ills.

Or is it the other way around?,
hoping to involve government in churches and religious organizations
in order to (________) (fill in the blank)

Since 9/11 President Bush has not publicly uttered the name of Jesus Christ once.

Never any testimony, no statement of specific faith, zero, nada.

Anyway, this faith based malarchy sounds like the U.N. priority of human rights,
i.e. a Trojan Horse.

It's already enforced charity to have ANY governemnt dollars go to ANY charitable organization, religious or otherwise.

I'd rather see all gov't dollars going to charitable organizations cut off completely and the savings used to balance the budget or for tax cuts or both.

Interestingly enough I don't ever recall AP calling Clinton EO's "divisive" and by "fiat".....

It was a lib/dem (LBJ) who signed 11246 which required government to discriminate on race. Now we have GWB signing an EO to eliminate discrimination on faith.

You're absolutely right about the first point - "divisive" has no place in a news article except in quotes.

I disagree with your second point. Bush's plan is a mixed bag. There are sensible ideas like this one: "the Federal Emergency Management Agency will now allow religious nonprofits such as schools and soup kitchens to get federal aid after natural disasters." And certainly it's a good idea to correct the examples cited.

But what about this? "By far the most contentious of the changes is Bush's executive order informing federal agencies that religious organizations refusing to hire people of any faith can still win contracts." How is that not discrimination?

So you're in the same camp as those who want to force the (private organization) BSA to take hire women as camp counselors? I think that one has been settled, as has the question of religious organizations not being forced to hire those who do not agree with their religious tenets. It's like suggesting that no contracts can be awarded to Catholic charities because they don't allow men to become nuns.

Mind you, if we lived in a perfect world, there would be no need for government involvement in anything even remotely resembling charity, welfare, etc. However, as long as we don't the government is going to award contracts, and it's just as wrong to discriminate against certain bidders on the basis of their faith as it would be for certain bidders to be rejected on the basis of their color. Unless, it is up to government to pick and choose WHICH factors they will discriminate upon.

...it's just as wrong to discriminate against certain bidders on the basis of their faith as it would be for certain bidders to be rejected on the basis of their color.

Once again, I agree with you, in part. What you say here I agree with. But what's to keep religious organizations from hiring only members of their faith? In a small organization that may not be a big deal, but in a larger charity organization? What do we do about the charity with the sign up front that says, "Jews need not apply"?

Since faith-based organizations are exempted from non-discrimination laws, I'm not sure I understand the problem. Like I said, are we to deny the Salvation Army from bidding for the delivery of services to the homeless because they require their leaders to join their church and adhere to their faith and practice? Would we suggest that an orthodox Jewish charitable organization be denied because they only have male Rabbis? What if they had a sign up front that said "females need not apply"?

All I'm saying is that you are looking to 'second causes' to discriminate in the first cause. It's just like the city of San Francisco saying it will cancel all dealings with any organization that doesn't hire 'sexual minorities' (however they choose to define that). Why shouldn't SF deny all contracts with employers that hire people of faith....or smokers....or SUV drivers? It's a slippery slope to social planning through government policy.

*** If we are going to use govt funds to feed the needy, why shouldn't it go to a govt program? ***

The main reason for not eliminating faith-based groups
is that people who join together for a charitable reason generally have a better track record of providing these services, when compared to civil servants.

More people will get the help that they need from people who care, than from pelple who are just thinking of their next smoke/coffee break.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.