Sunday, April 1, 2001
With Washington offering federal money NOT LONG AGO came a visitor to the River of Life Mission in Chinatown bearing glad tidings in the form of an available government grant.
to faith-based organizations, churches
in Hawaii face the question
-- who will provide...
By Lee Catterall
Star-BulletinThe dangling of enough tax dollars to cover a third of the charity's budget was a great temptation. The mission had recently averted eviction from its Pauahi Street quarters by investing much of its resources to purchase the building.
Then came the catch: To qualify for the grant, as the mission's executive director, Bob Marchant, recalls, one-third of the building would have to be put off-limits to religious activities, including the Gospel message that is dished up with each meal provided to those in need.
The offer was turned away. "Our feeling as a board and a staff is that if we're doing what God wants us to do, then he'll provide for us through donations and foundations," says Marchant.
In contrast, the Rev. Larry Fryer, who directs the New Hope Community Center in a poor neighborhood in Augusta, Ga., told The New York Times: "Now, I'm a minister, but if I have to remove the Bible, remove the cross from the wall, remove the Ten Commandments to get that government money, I'll do it. If God is in me, that's good enough."
PRESIDENT BUSH'S proposal to give government assistance to church-related charities has triggered an emotional debate across the nation. The controversy crosses ideological lines about the possible blurring of church and state. It crosses denominational, political, racial and almost every other line in America, leaving traditional allies on opposite sides in some cases and aligning strange bedfellows in others.
In Hawaii, the president's initiative, which would broaden a policy enacted by Congress five years ago, is not exactly setting church bells ringing off the steeple.Some religious charities are concerned about being forced to compromise the way they function to be eligible. Other charities with religious affiliations could face reductions in the grants they already receive because of competition for limited federal funds.
"We already qualify," explains Jerry Rauckhorst, director of Catholic Charities. "So the possibility that some of those dollars are going to be diverted to other kinds of organizations I would say is pretty possible."
Likewise, says Reynold Feldman, development director for the Lutheran Angel Network Charities. "The only difference for us is that it will give us more competitors."
Rauckhorst estimates than 85 percent of the $18 million annual budget for Catholic Charities comes from government. Feldman says Angel Network's $420,000 includes $68,000 in government grants. Both organizations are nonprofit corporations outside of church walls and maintain religiously diverse staffs that provide services without regard to the religious preferences of their clients.
Although controversial, most of Bush's proposal is not new. Government has provided funds for church-affiliated social services for decades. In 1996, President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill that included what is known as the charitable choice provision, allowing religious charities to compete for welfare dollars. President Bush wants to expand that provision to include more than 100 programs in job training, after-school programs and housing.
Most traditional churches would have difficulty adapting to government guidelines that would disallow their practices or mix religion with social services, but some might change to become eligible.
Garrett Hashimoto, director the Hawaii Christian Coalition, says he expects most conservative churches to opt out rather than adapt. "There are a lot of churches that provide services to the needy," he says. "I don't think they would go after these moneys unless they formed a separate entity, such as Catholic Charities." He adds: "If you can't follow the guidelines, you don't have to apply."
SOME CHURCHES that already have formed separate corporations to provide social services have not sought public dollars. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons, "has never accepted state or federal government money," says Sally Okura Lee, director of the LDS Family Services Agency.
"We believe in self-reliance. That is a great principle of the church. We don't believe in the dole system." Most of her agency's clients are Mormons, she added.
In another instance, Buddhists have not set up a social services agency either inside or outside their flocks. Instead, they have been encouraged to contribute to interfaith agencies and have helped develop programs to benefit the entire community, says the Rev. Yoshiaki Fujitani, a retired Buddhist minister.
More importantly, Bush's plan has three new features: It would allow grants directly to religious organizations in addition to entities such as Catholic Charities and Angel Network, allow the funded organizations to discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation, and allow religious rituals to be part of their programs.
RAMANANDA, president of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Hawaii, known better as the Hare Krishnas, says he is "very encouraged" by the Bush initiative. "I think he's a breath of fresh air, talking about morality. The founding fathers had a very great interest in having a moral obligation to upholding religious practices."
The Hare Krishnas distribute 100 vegetarian meals to the homeless at Ala Moana Beach Park's Magic Island at dinnertime every Monday, Wednesday and Friday through its Food for Life program, Ramananda says. He said he would "absolutely" be interested in applying for government grants and feels the temple would be qualified.
Hare Krishnas on the mainland already have received millions of dollars in government contracts not only for Food for Life but for homeless shelters and transitional homes for recovering addicts and parolees.
The Church of Scientology can be expected to queue for federal assistance, although it has been called a cult and a scam. "If there's an opportunity, why not?" says Sakura Thompson, a Scientology spokeswoman in Honolulu. She pointed out that her church's substance-abuse program, Narconon, "has helped tens of thousands of people get off drugs. Results like those speak for themselves."
But President Bush, a Methodist, told The New York Times last year: "I have a problem with the teachings of Scientology being viewed on the same par as Judaism or Christianity."
EVEN SO, controversial organizations such as the Hare Krishnas and Scientology may be eligible for federal grants because neither discriminates in providing services or in hiring. Not relying on volunteers "would actually be nice," Ramananda says. "We have never been able to have that luxury."
The question in Congress is whether to allow discriminatory hiring practices and proselytizing by recipients of government grants. Even some proponents of the Bush initiative seem unclear on this issue. "I'm not looking to fund a church's faith or their religious activity," said House Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. "I don't know of any church that runs a faith-based (social services) operation through their church. I would be highly concerned if we were funding an organization that says we're going to try to make people Baptists. That is a blatant violation of separation of church and state."
Brent White, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii, agrees. "I worked in soup kitchens in New York City," White says, "and in some of those soup kitchens they require people before they eat to have a prayer and listen to a sermon. Giving money to faith-based organizations to have the food there gives them the hook to get more people in so they can make them listen to the sermon and say the prayer."
THE ACLU SUPPORTS government funding of charities affiliated with churches so long as they are separate and secular. "I think Catholic Charities does a great job here," White says. "They're a great example of how a religious organization can separate their doctrine from their services."
Rauckhorst, the Catholic Charities director, says it is possible for a charity to operate without abandoning its roots. "I think you can deliver service with an attitude that is based on core values of the organization without crossing the line and getting into religious dogma, conversion, those types of things," he says.
"I see us do it at Catholic Charities every day."
Rauckhorst and the ACLU's White are not in total agreement. Rauckhorst says he believes organizations that include nondenominational faith in their service should be eligible for government help.
The 12-step program used by Alcoholics Anonymous, which includes prayer and meditation as ways of achieving "a spiritual awakening," is "the proven method for working with alcoholics, and it's been replicated in just about every other area, whether it's dieting or whatever," Rauckhorst says. It has a "universal appeal" that should be allowed in government-supported programs, he says.
White says, "I certainly don't think religion is necessary for someone to rehabilitate themselves. There are secular alternatives that work" and should be available as treatment alternatives to be utilized by drug courts and penal institutions.
ALTERNATIVES ARE the key, White says. He and Rauckhorst agree that government funding that preserves an individual's freedom of religion or freedom to do without would be worthwhile.
For that reason, a voucher system may be the most sensible approach. People could be issued vouchers to pay for service at a government clinic, a faith-based organization, or a non-religious private agency.
"That's the same as giving food stamps," White says. "I don't think that's a problem on any level. That's completely a free choice of an individual to use the vouchers however they want."
Rauckhorst also sees vouchers as a possible solution, "although I don't know that it has to go that far. "Anything is a possibility," he says. "Is it likely? Is it to be a regular occurrence? I doubt it."
The voucher system may not be so far-fetched. Bush has embraced the idea if needed because of constitutional concerns about separation of church and state. "We should not use taxpayers' money to fund groups that proselytize," Bush told the Washington Post recently. "My attitude is, you fund an individual."
Vouchers providing individuals the choice of faith-based or religion-free social services may be the only way to avoid a battle in Congress and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court over the principle of separation of church and state.
In much the same way as charitable choice went almost unnoticed when incorporated into the 1996 welfare reform bill, so a non-controversial part of the Bush initiative could have enormous benefits for faith-based charities. TAX DEDUCTION INCENTIVE
The proposal would allow the 80 million taxpayers who did not itemize taxes to claim a deduction for contributions to charitable organizations, faith-based or otherwise. Since 1986, the charities deduction has been allowed only to those who itemize deductions.
Jerry Rauckhorst, executive director of Catholic Charities in Hawaii, says he considers the proposal to be "very, very positive. It will really help in terms of contributions that come in across the country."
The deduction aspect of the faith-based charities initiative has no opposition.
