[HPN] 'Charitable Choice': two views: PRO

[Coalition on Homelessness, SF]

***********************************************************
HOMELESS PEOPLE'S VIEWS, News, Alerts, Actions & Research
7,000+ ONLINE POSTS by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
INFO & to join/leave list - Tom Boland <wgcp@earthlink.net>
***********************************************************
'Charitable Choice': two views

Pro: Restoring a church-state partnership

Thursday, February 10, 2000

By REV. STEPHEN GIORDANO

In 1996, as part of the Welfare Reform Act, the concept of Charitable
Choice was introduced as a means for the religious community to more
fully participate in the federal Welfare Program.

For this month's edition of Faith & Values, the board has asked Dr.
Joseph Chuman and myself to offer a pro-and-con on this important issue,
which is becoming more and more a part of the rhetoric of the year 2000
debate.

Our task is to offer our perspective on whether this is a positive or
negative development; whether Charitable Choice is a way to invite the
religious community to be a part of a collaborative effort to provide
services for all people, or a dangerous precedent that may destroy the
necessary wall that separates the functioning of the religious community
and the functioning of the state.

Let me begin by stating my clear support for Charitable Choice and any
other effort that will allow religious and secular groups to more fully
participate in building a more caring community for the people of our
state and nation. If we don't find more effective ways to work together,
our response will be fragmented and diminished.

For me, this conversation about Charitable Choice began when an adjunct
professor at New Brunswick Seminary stated early in 1999 that the role
of religion in the public square and the personal philosophy of
presidential candidates toward such participation would be key issues
for this year's election.

Confirming that forecast are the results of a recent survey conducted by
the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Andrew Kohut,
reporting on the results of this survey on the Jan. 23 edition of PBS'
"Religion and Ethics," stated that religious belief and commitment is
one of the strongest indicators in voter behavior; that concern about
the morality of how we treat one another is the highest concern of the
voters surveyed; and that compared to the mid-1990s, significantly more
voters are in favor of government spending for the social needs of the
poor.

Clearly, Charitable Choice is an important way to allow the religious
community to collaborate with government in providing services. Nothing
should stand in the way of these efforts. Let me explain the basis of my
opinion by reflecting upon several controversial issues within and
beyond the religious community.

First, of course, is the overused hyperbole of the dire results of not
keeping firm the wall that separates Church and State. Our nation's
founders, who established the doctrine of the separation between church
and state, did so for the noble purpose of guaranteeing religious
freedom for all citizens of our great nation.

They came from nations that had established a particular denomination as
the state religion at the exclusion of other denominations, and this was
not their desire for the great American experiment.

From the beginning, it seems clear that their desire was to place no
limitations on the right of the individual's religious freedom, but this
original intent has been, in my opinion, distorted so as to replace
freedom of religion with the exclusion of religion from the public
square. The net result of this effort has been to replace the variety of
religion's expressions within our society with the religion of
secularism.

I have no objection to a person's right to practice the religion of
secularism or atheism, but I object strenuously to the restriction of
the rights of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Baha'is, or others to
practice their religions. All the talk about religion and its proper
place within the public sphere in this year's presidential debate is an
indication that we are returning to a more accurate perspective in the
issue of the separation between church and state.

And, while including religious conversations in the public debate is an
important symbolic recognition that there needs to be more collaboration
between the church, the various religious communities, and the state in
order to more effectively serve the needs of our community, the
formation of public policy to support that collaboration is even more
important.

John J. DiLulio, in his essay, "The Lord's Work: The Church and Civil
Society," cites such an example of positive public policy. "Section 104
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (aka the welfare law) encourages states to engage faith-based
organizations as providers of welfare services funded by Washington --
job-search programs, maternity homes for expectant unmarried minors,
drug-treatment programs, and much more.

"Under this so-called Charitable Choice provision, religious providers
that accept government funds have a right to maintain their religious
character -- displaying religious art, using religious criteria in
personnel decisions, and limiting the range of government audits by
placing federal funds into separate budgets."

The religious community is not looking for a free pass from meeting
appropriate criteria for providing services such as child care, homeless
shelters, soup kitchens, parish nursing, etc., but we are looking for
the ability to have it understood that providing these services is part
of our expression of our religious beliefs.

Clearly, any services provided are to be offered on a non-sectarian
basis, but the fullest service that a religious community could provide
is one that includes the perspective of faith and hope in difficult
times. The most charitable choice to offer is a choice that includes
caring for the body and also the spirit of a person in need.

In a 1995 lecture, Nobel laureate economist Robert W. Fogel argued that
the United States is now in the midst of a "Fourth Great Awakening," a
new religious revival fueled by a revulsion with the corruptions of
contemporary society. Of course, his thesis about a "religious revival"
sounds wonderful to me as a leader of a religious community.

However, in his Epistle in the New Testament, James states that "faith
without works is dead." I would add that a revival that does not include
works of compassion for all people is also dead.

Charitable Choice is a means toward a collaborative effort that includes
the religious community and all others in providing a more caring and
inclusive community. The challenges we face as a nation in caring for
the poor among us are great.

As the logo under my denomination's crest expresses it, "United We
Stand, Divided We Fall." Let us seize the opportunity offered by
Charitable Choice to unite for a greater effort to build a more caring
community for all of us.

Copyright © 2000 Bergen Record Corp.  


END FORWARD

**In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only.**

*******************************************************
7,500+ POSTS by or via homeless & ex-homeless people
Nothing About Us Without Us - Democratize Public Policy
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
468 Turk St.
San Francisco, CA 94102
vox: (415) 346.3740
Fax: (415) 775.5639
coh@sfo.com
http://www.sfo.com/~coh