July 2001

Reactions to the Proposal 

Responses to the president's initiative have ranged from enthusiastic support to vehement opposition. Most of the debate has focused on charitable choice.

Proponents of the plan maintain that:

• Community and faith-based organizations are already serving the needy, often with great success.
• Providing federal funds to faith-based organizations is not a new idea; Bush's proposal merely expands charitable choice to more kinds of social services.
• Because secular alternatives to faith-based programs will be available, no one will be forced to accept religious teachings in order to receive assistance.
• The initiative will level the playing field, enabling faith-based organizations to compete for federal funds on an equal basis with secular groups, thereby eliminating discrimination against faith-based groups.
• Experience has shown that faith-based organizations do not discriminate against recipients in providing their services.
• The initiative is structured to protect the rights of both the organizations and those who receive services.
• The plan will help motivate individuals in need and thus counterbalance low morale, a factor that contributes to poverty.
• The initiative will provide new opportunities for groups that traditionally have not been involved in government contracts to work in partnership with the government.

Opponents charge that the president's plan will:

• Violate the First Amendment provision separating church and state.
• Fund discrimination by allowing organizations that employ fewer than 15 people to use religion as a criterion for employment.
• Fund discrimination by permitting faith-based groups to deny service to people who do not embrace particular religious beliefs or certain lifestyles.
• Enmesh faith-based organizations in government regulation or create a double standard by exempting faith-based organizations from certain regulations while requiring secular organizations to comply with them.
• Favor organizations that are associated with mainstream religions or fund organizations outside the mainstream that the critics find objectionable.
• Fund religious coercion by permitting faith-based organizations to force religious teachings on people in need as a condition of their obtaining assistance.
• Enable government to dictate what faith-based organizations can and cannot do or make faith-based groups hesitate to speak out in opposition to government policies for fear of losing funding.
• Create more bureaucracy or a whole new bureaucracy, rather than freeing faith-based and community organizations from red tape.
• Make faith-based organizations dependent on government funds.
• Expose faith-based groups to the risk of litigation.
• Spur competition between faith-based groups and by extension create religious strife.
• Merely increase competition for federal funds already devoted to social welfare, rather than make additional money available for these programs.
• Fail to address the causes of poverty.
• Reduce the impetus for government to address social issues.
• Overburden faith-based organizations by expecting them to accomplish more than they can, even with federal funds.

Foes also note that no empirical evidence exists indicating that faith-based organizations are more effective at solving social problems than other groups.

In some cases, opinions about the initiative vary widely within particular groups. Call to Renewal, a group of Christian organizations dedicated to fighting poverty, supports it. Christian Coalition head Pat Robertson does not, nor does the Reverend Jerry Falwell. Where the Reverend Reginald Jackson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council of New Jersey, finds the proposal "a very good move," Black Congressional Caucus member Bobby Scott (D-Va.) believes it promotes discrimination. "If you can get a pass on religious discrimination, you can get a pass on any kind of discrimination," he contends.