The Bush administration's Faith-Based Initiative came under attack from civil-rights groups at a July 17 news conference outside the Capitol Building. Provisions of the bill had been in flux until recently. The measure, known by the shorthand of HR 7, passed the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote.
The following day, July 18, the House voted 234-195 to block an effort that would have required faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to adhere to state and local laws prohibiting discrimination.
"Today's anti-gay vote orchestrated by the Republican leadership and sanctioned by President Bush and Vice President Cheney makes this version of the president's faith-based initiative untenable and a direct threat to state and local civil rights laws," the Human Rights Campaign stated. "This regrettable vote gives a free pass to publicly funded religious charities who want to circumvent state and local nondiscrimination laws.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union called the narrow House passage of the contentious initiative a grave injury to civil rights and freedom of religion and urged the Senate to reject the measure.
"The House made a grievous mistake today," said Terri Schroeder, an ACLU Legislative Representative. "It took the first step toward legalizing discrimination by religious organizations which receive federal funds and further entangled government with religious institutions across the country."
Were the "Community Solutions Act of 2001" ( HR 7 ) to pass the Senate, it would allow religious organizations that receive tax dollars to provide social programs to disregard long-standing civil-rights protections and use religious criteria in hiring and in the provision of services, the ACLU said.
The government-funded religion measure was adopted by the House on a 233 to 198 vote.
"For 60 years, the federal government has demanded that tax dollars be used to protect fairness, equity, and equal opportunity," Schroeder said. "If the faith-based legislation becomes law, Congress and the Administration will have ... laid waste to the crucial civil rights protections put in place during World War II under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
Faith-based communities "have been on the front lines dealing with society's woes since the beginning of time," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson ( D-Texas ) , chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, at the July 17 press conference. She called the goals of HR 7 laudable in theory but unconstitutional in practice.
"We cannot afford to roll back the strides made in the civil-rights movement" by passing HR 7, "which would allow religious institutions to receive federal funds and allow them to discriminate in the use of these funds," Johnson said.
"This bill gives them a right that most religious groups haven't asked for, the right to discriminate," said Rep. Barney Frank ( D-Massachusetts ) . "The legislation as present from the Judiciary Committee, allows any entity receiving federal money for secular purposes under this bill, to ignore every state and local antidiscrimination law."
He said, HR 7 "gives people a license to ignore existing state and local antidiscrimination law ... it preempts state and local law," even when it comes to spending state and local money. "Obviously gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are mainly targeted there, but it could be unmarried mothers, it could be other groups as well."
Rep. Jerrold Nadler ( D-New York ) fears that under HR 7, "religious groups using federal funds will for the first time be permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion and religious views. It means that a religious group can say that we don't want to hire women for the soup kitchen because our religion says that women should stay in the home."
Rep. Bobby Scott ( D-Virginia ) noted that 60 years ago President Roosevelt signed an executive order forbidding federal contractors from discriminating "against any worker because of race, creed, color, or national origin." He said, "With the passage of HR 7, we are witness to the erosion of 60 years of civil-rights law."
The only barrier to any group receiving federal funds today "is an unwillingness to comply with civil-rights laws," said Scott. "It is ridiculous to suggest that you need a new law to uphold existing law."
HR 7 "allows religious organizations to use federal tax dollars to discriminate in their hiring. It is not right. It is not fair. It is not just," said Rep. John Lewis ( D-Georgia ) . "I spent more than 40 years of my life fighting for civil rights. I cannot and will not support any bill that allows a government to promote discrimination or return us to the days when religious intolerance was permitted. And neither should the Congress."
"The bill contains no additional funds to support the charitable work of our religious organizations," said Elijah Cummings. "By funding faith-based programs with existing federal dollars, the bill would undermine successful non-religious programs."
"We really only have a few major problems with HR 7: It is unfair. It is unwise. It is unconstitutional," said Ralph Neas, president of People For the American Way. He called the bill "a cruel hoax upon the American people" for violating the separation of church and state.
"Our country should not funnel tax money...that all of us pay...to groups who actively discriminate," said Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign.
One would expect socially conservative organizations to be in the middle of any legislative debate that was seen as both pro-faith and antigay. This is the exception to the rule. Search the website of the Christian Coalition and there is not a whisper of HR 7 among the 13 legislative issues they highlight. Pat Robertson long ago stated his personal opposition to the idea.
The Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, and others are all silent. Even the right-wing CNSnews.com has little mention of the faith-based initiative save to doubt Bush's resolve in light of the Salvation Army flap.
As the group Concerned Women for America argued in the current issue of their magazine, "Religious conservatives warn that FBOs [ faith-based organizations ] that accept government funds could compromise their religious identity."
And so the Bush initiative has active opponents on the political left, passive opposition among his natural allies on the right, and legislators in the center who see only a lose-lose situation for themselves.
