07/11/01: Religious Exemption

[Freakapotimus]

Wednesday July 11 6:58 AM ET

U.S. Backs Off Religion Exemption
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Weaving its way through a fresh round of controversy over funneling federal money to religious groups, the White House backed off a plan to let the groups ignore local laws that ban discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Through most of Tuesday, Bush administration officials said they were reviewing a request by the Salvation Army to issue federal regulations to make clear that churches and other religious charities that receive federal money are not subject to local anti-discrimination laws.

Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials suggested the administration was open to the idea, saying that accepting government money should not force religious groups to abandon their principles.

After several hours of attack by gay rights groups, Democrats and others, however, the White House backed off. It said the nascent review was complete and the regulation would not be forthcoming.

At issue are state and local laws aimed at protecting gay rights. Some of them bar discrimination in hiring; others require employers to offer health insurance and other benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees. Typically, these laws do not apply to religious groups. But it's not clear whether groups lose that exemption once they accept taxpayer dollars.

The White House is not saying that taxpayer-funded churches groups should be forced to abide by these local laws. Rather, officials concluded that religious groups do not need overt protections to bypass gay-rights hiring laws, said spokesman Dan Bartlett.

Legislation pending in Congress - and being pushed hard by Bush - makes it clear that any religious group that gets government money may consider religion in making hiring decisions. The courts have said this includes one's religious practices - and for many religions that could mean rejecting job applicants because they are gay.

``That's when you get into definitions that will ultimately be decided by the courts,'' Bartlett said.

For instance, a religious group could claim that federal law allows it to hire whom it chooses, while someone else claims local law bars discrimination against gays.

The legislation as written, Bartlett said, provides ``adequate protections'' for groups that might object to hiring gays.

David Smith, a gay rights advocate, agreed that the legal issues are unresolved and said the solution is for Congress to explicitly bar discrimination against gays and lesbians. ``Federal funds should not be given to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation,'' he said.

The issue was raised by an internal report from the Salvation Army, the nation's largest charity, which suggested the White House would put forward the regulation in exchange for support of its initiative to open government programs to religious groups, now pending in Congress.

The report said White House officials wanted to move the legislation first ``and use the political momentum of this'' to push through the regulatory change. And it said White House officials believed a regulation was better than trying to move separate legislation on an exemption, ``which is more time-consuming and more visible.''

White House officials denied the quid pro quo, and the Salvation Army said the author of the report overstated the relationship between the issues.

Gay rights groups, Democrats and civil rights organizations reacted strongly to both the appearance of a back room deal and to the idea of skirting anti-discrimination laws.

By day's end, it was clear that the issue would mean a new round of controversy for Bush's overall legislation.

``It will just deepen opposition and make many of my colleagues more skeptical,'' Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said before the White House changed course.

Later, Lieberman's spokesman, Dan Gerstein, welcomed the change.

``This is a reassuring signal after a very disturbing signal,'' he said. ``Hopefully it means we can now kind of refocus on finding common ground and strengthening rather than weakening civil rights protections.''

[shorbe]

I think people should be allowed to hire whomever they damned well like. It's their business/company/whatever.

I also don't think religious groups should get taxpayer money. Then again, I don't believe in taxation anyway.

shorbe

[Freakapotimus]

Friday July 20 6:06 AM ET

House OKs Religious Charities Plan
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - White House-backed legislation to expand the role of religious charities in federal social service programs is headed for the Senate, where supporters want a swift vote, but majority Democrats show no sign of haste.

``The ball is now on our court. I think we can build on the momentum,'' GOP Sen. Rick Santorum said Thursday moments after the 223-198 House vote on a key part of President Bush's agenda.

Santorum said he hoped for a vote this fall. In England, a traveling president urged swift action in the Senate.

``It's an initiative that puts our federal government squarely on the side of faith-based and community-based programs, all of which exist to help a neighbor in need,'' President Bush said Friday before departing for Italy and a meeting with world leaders. ``It's a positive step to ensure that the American dream extends its reach to all of our communities.''

Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has refused to set a date for debate on the measure this year. In comments to reporters Thursday, Daschle underscored objections raised by critics in the House that the bill would pre-empt state and local laws barring discrimination in hiring.

``I can't imagine that we could pass any bill that would tolerate slipping back into a level of tolerance that would be unacceptable in today's society,'' he said.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the leading Democratic advocate of so-called faith-based efforts, also expressed dissatisfaction with the House-passed bill.

Spokesman Dan Gerstein said Lieberman has ``serious concerns about the weakness of the civil rights protections and constitutional safeguards'' and believes the possibility of pre-empting state and local laws is a ``serious vulnerability.''

The bill cleared the House largely along party lines, despite the prodding of fellow Democrats by the most prominent Democratic supporter, Rep. Tony Hall, to be more open to people of faith. ``Sometimes, we almost ... put out a sign that says, `You're not welcome in our party,''' the Ohio Democrat said.

The 233-198 vote represented a down payment on Bush's campaign pledge to ``rally the armies of compassion'' to combat the nation's social ills. Religious charities are permitted to receive grants in a small number of federal programs under current law. The legislation would expand the list significantly to areas such as housing, domestic violence and hunger relief.

Organizations would not be allowed to require aid recipients to attend worship services or religious instruction, and individuals would be offered access to assistance from nonreligious organizations if they wished. The organizations would be permitted to retain religious names, charters and symbols on building walls.

In addition, the bill includes tax breaks worth $13 billion over the next decade to encourage charitable giving by individuals and corporations.

Taxpayers who do not itemize would be permitted to deduct $25 in donations annually, rising to $100 by the end of the decade.

``Faith heals, faith renews, faith gives the hope that this country needs,'' said Rep. Charles Pickering, R-Miss. ``Our president has called on us to remove the hindrances ... to the faith-based approach.''

But Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said her Roman Catholic education ``has taught me to oppose discrimination in every form. ... The problem is that today this House will vote to legalize discrimination as we minister to the needs of the poor.''

In the waning moments of debate, the bill's supporters turned back a final attempt by Democrats to ban employment discrimination under federal, state or local laws for any organization receiving government funds under the law. The vote was 234-195. ``This bill would allow them (churches) to discriminate with federal funds,'' protested Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

That issue led the conservative Family Research Council to claim that the bill was ``in danger of being hijacked by homosexual groups.'' The council said it would abandon its support for the bill if it were changed to defer to state and local laws.

Lawmakers in both parties vied to declare their support for religious charitable work.

But some Democrats said the bill breached the separation of church and state. Many said pre-empting state and local laws would roll back hard-won protections.

Supporters said religious organizations need to retain their essential character and should be permitted to take religious views into account in hiring. They noted that Congress exempted them from anti-discrimination provisions in a landmark 1964 civil rights law.

The House leadership postponed the vote by one day to ease the objections of a pivotal group of Republicans citing the anti-discrimination issue. In the end, only four GOP lawmakers voted against the bill, while 15 Democrats crossed party lines to support it.

-

On the Net: Links to individual House members: http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html