A month or so ago, I mentioned that the Senate had passed a radically scaled-back version of the Bush faith-based initiative, essentially passing legislation that alters the tax code to spur charitable donations but failing to give Bush what he really wanted — federal funds going directly to religious ministries.
The broader faith-based initiative may have been improved through negotiations, but the administration’s goal of funding ministries with tax dollars remains very much alive.
Today, for example, the House is considering a measure called the Workforce Investment Act. The $4 billion legislation is principally devoted to funding job training programs, but at the behest of the Bush administration and several conservative GOP lawmakers, the bill also intends to direct public funds to faith-based entities to run job training centers in churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples.
Proponents of the idea argue that the church-state partnering in this context is constitutional because the federal government will not be subsidizing religion, it will be paying a “contractor” (a religious ministry) to perform a secular government service, in this case, job training courses. I disagree with this analysis, but then again, they didn’t ask me.
In any event, as congressional critics of the plan have come to realize, there’s one major sticking point about this proposal that supporters can’t seem to get around — publicly-funded employment discrimination.
Under existing law, ministries can hire and fire whomever they want. As private religious entities, they can legally discriminate, for any reason at all, at will. Courts have ruled that’s acceptable because under a Title VII exemption, ministries don’t have to adhere to the same civil rights laws other employers do.
But consider how this dynamic changes once public funding enters the equation.
A Baptist church that runs a job training program, for example, can currently discriminate and hire only Baptist men, if they choose to. But if that same church is accepting public funds and still limiting employment to Baptist men, it becomes employment discrimination subsidized by all of us.
In other words, taxpayers would be forced to finance a religious ministry, but most of us would be ineligible to apply for a secular job at the ministry because we’re a member of the “wrong” religion. Ultimately, that Baptist church could post a sign in its window that says “No Jews or Catholics Need Apply,” and even if that job was financed by the government, such a policy would be legal.
Advocates of faith-based funding appear to believe there’s nothing wrong with this. Reps. Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) and John Boehner (R-Ohio), sponsors of the job training bill, recently wrote, “Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith, because it is that faith that motivates them to serve their neighbors in trouble.”
I’m afraid the congressmen are missing the point. A ministry that wants to sustain a “religious mission” with employees who “share the tenets and practices of their faith” can discriminate to their heart’s content right now. If it’s so important to them to ignore civil rights laws, then they shouldn’t be looking to the government for a handout.
Just as importantly, McKeon and Boehner appear to be trying to have it both ways. On one hand, they’re arguing the federal government can fund religious ministries because the faith-based entities will be performing a secular service. At the same time, the same advocates insist that the faith-based groups receiving public aid must be able to maintain a “religious mission.” Which is it, guys? Are we contracting for a secular service or are we financing a religious group with religious aims?
From what I hear, the bill will probably pass the House with the faith-based measure the Republicans want in tact. The legislation’s future in the Senate, however, is less certain. Several senators, most notably Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), have indicated that any bill that includes publicly funded employment discrimination will be met with stiff resistance.