Clinton and John Ashcroft tore down the wall separating Church & State

[Q]

Did you know that Clinton's 1996 'Welfare Reform' Act included a "charitable choice" provision (section 104, sponsored by JOHN ASHCROFT) that allows "faith-based organizations to receive governmental funds yet maintain their religious character, integrity, and autonomy"?

All along we've been blaming Bush alone for 'tearing down the wall that separates church and state. But he was simply taking advantage of and exploiting laws that were already on the books...put there by the Clinton administration.

Just as the Clinton Telecommunication's act opened the door for Right-Wing Media Monopolies...the 'Charitable Choice' provisions opened the door for the Bush administration to use Religion as a political tool and expand his voter base.

-------------------------------------------------------

"Charitable Choice is a set of provisions in law1 intended to allow and facilitate the participation of religious and faith-based organizations (FBOs) in federally funded social service programs on the same basis as any other non-governmental service provider. While religious organizations have been eligible to receive public aid under certain government programs for many years, charitable choice is unique in that it does not require participating FBOs to "secularize" themselves as a pre-condition to receiving public funds. To the contrary, charitable choice allows publicly funded religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their religious faith in carrying out secular social service programs, so long as the programs are administered in accord with the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment." --- Brian Dillon


"Churches now face one of the greatest opportunities and challenges to use federal funds in the arena of social ministry, but with little government regulation. This opportunity is accompanied by two impassioned buzzwords of the 1990s: reform and choice.
Recently, Congress passed federal welfare reform legislation. This reform, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,1 was signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. PRWOR includes in Section 104 a provision known as Charitable Choice. Senator John Ashcroft (R–Missouri) is the sponsor of Section 104. One of his goals behind Charitable Choice is to see faith-based organizations expand their services to the public by cooperating with governmental officials. This cooperative effort would allow faith-based organizations to receive governmental funds yet maintain their religious character, integrity, and autonomy. --- KERT G. PARSLEY

-------------------------------------------------------

Assemblies of God USA

Charitable Choice: Government Funding for a Social Ministry
BY KERT G. PARSLEY

Opportunity

"The Lord secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy" (Psalm 140:12, NIV). We are admonished to remember and care for the poor and needy, yet America’s social and welfare status has reached a crisis. Churches now face one of the greatest opportunities and challenges to use federal funds in the arena of social ministry, but with little government regulation. This opportunity is accompanied by two impassioned buzzwords of the 1990s: reform and choice. Recently, Congress passed federal welfare reform legislation. This reform, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,1 was signed by President Clinton on August 22, 1996. PRWOR includes in Section 104 a provision known as Charitable Choice. Senator John Ashcroft (R–Missouri) is the sponsor of Section 104. One of his goals behind Charitable Choice is to see faith-based organizations expand their services to the public by cooperating with governmental officials. This cooperative effort would allow faith-based organizations to receive governmental funds yet maintain their religious character, integrity, and autonomy.

Available Funds

PRWOR applies to state programs created under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—the replacement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. TANF expands AFDC, hoping that states will implement a range of services to help individuals become self-sufficient. This coincides well with activities of many faith-based organizations. Funds are available for: "job search, job-readiness, and job-skills training programs; community service positions; GED and ESL programs; nutrition and food-budgeting advice; second-chance or maternity homes for expectant unmarried minors who cannot live with their own parents; abstinence education; drug-treatment services; and health clinics."3
States can enter into two types of assistance with providers, either through direct contracts with the provider or indirectly through certificate or voucher programs. If the programs are direct contracts, then none of the funds expended can be used for "sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization" Section 104 (j). Just as state government may not discriminate against providers or require them to discard or censor their religious emphasis, a faith-based provider may not discriminate against beneficiaries of those services. Their faith, or lack of it, may not be a precondition to receiving services, nor may a provider require beneficiaries to actively participate in religious practices.
This discrimination limitation applies only to PRWOR funds directly received in a purchase-of-services contract. If funds are indirectly received through the vehicle of certificates or vouchers, the provider may precondition services. The prohibition on expending funds for religious activities does not apply because it is the recipient who is free to choose among many providers—and chooses a faith-based one.

Government Regulation

Although allowing for governmental assistance, Section 104 of PRWOR does not bring what is perceived as the accompanying threat of governmental intervention. Such intervention has arisen previously, and regulations were so pervasive as to include controlling "church policy, hiring of personnel, and the content of religious programming."4 Faith-based providers neither have to cleanse their property of religious symbols or artwork nor alter their form of internal governance to participate under Charitable Choice.5
The primary extent of government intervention is in the area of fund accountability. The provider, faith based or not, is subject to account in accordance with generally accepted auditing principles for the use of federal funds. If the provider creates a separate account for those funds, then only that account shall be subject to the audit. An alternative is to create a separate corporation to manage/direct the funds. Charitable Choice widens the ability for faith-based providers to use federal funds in providing welfare services, while maintaining their own integrity and autonomy.

Kert G. Parsley, J.D., is the president of the Assemblies of God Loan Fund, Springfield, Missouri.
http://www.ag.org/top/empower/chuadm_fin_govfunding.cfm


------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor's Executive Order - GWB 96-10

In December 1996, the Governor issued an Executive Order directing state agencies to begin aggressive implementation of the landmark "charitable choice" provision of the federal welfare law, which invites private and religious charities to deliver welfare services – while at the same time guarding the religious integrity of participating groups and religious freedom of beneficiaries. The Texas Workforce Commission, along with the local workforce development boards has actively executed the provisions set forth by the Governor in Executive Order (GWB 96-10) through partnerships with faith-based and community-based organizations. --- http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/chchoice.html


---------------------------------------------------


PRAXIS
975 Bascom Mall
University of Wisconsin Law School
Madison, WI 53706
[e-mail]

Spring 2002
Charitable Choice and Welfare Reform
Brian Dillon

Charitable Choice is a set of provisions in law1 intended to allow and facilitate the participation of religious and faith-based organizations (FBOs) in federally funded social service programs on the same basis as any other non-governmental service provider. While religious organizations have been eligible to receive public aid under certain government programs for many years, charitable choice is unique in that it does not require participating FBOs to "secularize" themselves as a pre-condition to receiving public funds. To the contrary, charitable choice allows publicly funded religious organizations to retain their religious character and to employ their religious faith in carrying out secular social service programs, so long as the programs are administered in accord with the establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment.

While the intentions of charitable choice are clear, many question whether religious organizations receiving direct government funds2 will be able to administer social service programs in a constitutional manner under the first amendment. Many also contend that certain provisions of charitable choice amount to federally funded employment discrimination. Despite these concerns, President Bush and his administration promote charitable choice and are pushing legislation to expand the role of faith-based, community, and grassroots organizations in the provision of social services to citizens in need. Publicly funded welfare is in the midst of a revolution, and if the Bush administration is successful in implementing this major piece of its agenda, charitable choice provisions will only continue the trends initiated by the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 - namely, the devolution of welfare and an increasing role for grassroots, community, and faith-based organizations in the provision of social services to those in need.

Since the passage of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the size and character of the nation's welfare rolls have changed significantly. Because the reform was implemented during a period of substantial economic growth, however, the debate continues as to the relative contributions of welfare policies and economic conditions to these changes. Still, the trends are clear and remarkable. First, since peaking at 5.1 million in March 1994, the total number of families on welfare has declined by more than half.3 Second, the employment rate for single mothers, the largest share of adults receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), has increased from 57% in 1992 to almost 73% in 2000.4 Finally, the child poverty rate, which reached a high in the 1990s of 22%, dropped to 16.3% in 1999.5 Whether or not one deems the changes resulting from the 1996 Welfare Reform Act a "success" depends in part on how one defines the word. If getting people jobs and keeping them off of welfare rolls are the sole measures of success, then these numbers clearly mark a major step in the right direction. Admittedly, few can argue against the statistics - the "work-first" emphasis of the Welfare Reform Act has been successful in dealing with the economic aspects of poverty.

However, poverty is much more than an economic condition, and higher job rates and smaller welfare rolls alone are not adequate indicators of success. Recognizing this fact, Charitable Choice is an effort to fill the gaps left by the work-first emphasis of the 1996 Reform Act. Charitable choice proponents, in their attempt to fill these gaps, begin by emphasizing that people are more than material bodies and that poverty is more than a material condition. As explained by Mike Joyce, President and CEO of the Americans for Community and Faith-Centered Enterprise6, "Charitable choice seeks to expand the focus of welfare to address the spiritual and moral aspects of the condition that is poverty." --- http://students.law.wisc.edu/praxis/2002/6.html

[CO Liberal]

1. I Put The Blame Squarely On Ashcroft's Shoulders

He's the one who put that "Charitable Choice" crap into that bill. Remember, Clinton was up for re-election in 1996, and if he had vetoed the Welfare Reform Bill because of that provision, the GOP would have used that against him in the campaign.

If Clinton hadn't signed that bill, we may have ended up with President Bob Dole.

[Q]

3. So...you're suggesting that 'winning'..

...is more important than the Bill of Rights?

No wonder our party is in the minority.

[CO Liberal]

9. Just Try To Imagine....

...how many more of our rights would have been eroded if Bob Dole had won in 1996.

Principles are fine, but we live in the real world, and sometimes you have to be practical.

[Q]

12. Once again...you're suggesting that it's an either/or ...

...proposition. Principles or practicality? Why can't we have both?

It's hard to say what would have happened IF Dole won. What we DO KNOW is what happened under Clinton. The Welfare 'reform' act was a Clinton/DLC program. The RWing and Ashcroft didn't 'slip' the 'Charitable Choice' section into the Bill. Clinton and Gore actually PROMOTED it. In fact...I was just watching a video clip on Free Speech TV where Gore was touting this section of the Bill. The problem is that this Bill directly funds religious 'faith-based' programs WITHOUT requiring that religion be kept separate from social programs.

So far...the STATE has give a Billion Dollars to the CHURCH under this and George's faith-based initiatives (by executive order). What has this accomplished beyond giving the Church more money and power to influence politics and campaign for Bush?

[CO Liberal]

14. I Still Say It's Ashcroft's Fault - Not Clinton's

Why are you so eager to bash a fellow Democrat? :shrug:

[cmkramer]

11. Charitable choice rules

On the charitable choice thing, the rules are that as long as there is no proselytizing or discrimination as to who gets the help, it's considered good.

For instance, you can't make compulsory attendance at some sort of religious meeting or listening to a message a prequisite of receiving aid. You can't say that only "saved" people can be helped or that nonbelievers or nonChristians can be turned away.

Also, I believe that there must be a secular alternative because even if these rules are scrupulously followed, you do have people who would be made uncomfortable regardless.

[Q]

13. I'm watching 'God in Government' right now...

...on Free Speech TV. What's clear is that the 'rules' aren't being followed. There are prayer services and other religious activities as part of the 'welfare' and social services programs offered by religious organizations.

I suggest you reread the links offered in this thread. Once these organizations get their millions...there is literally no oversight or regulation as to how they use the money as long as they put it in a 'separate' account.

Americans are being hoodwinked as the Church grows ever more powerful and their influence over government and politics grows beyond anything the Founders ever imagined.

[cmkramer]

21. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said

If Democrats were in power -- or if there were even just a Democratic president, these things wouldn't be happening because Democrats tend to believe more in the concept of separation of church and state.

I was responding to the notion that Clinton would have approved of what is happening. I don't think he would.

[Malva Zebrina]

2. It is past where to put the blame

Clinton is gone, Ashcroft is gone and Bush has escalated this program without further approval needed and just doles out money according to his whims.
Further, I don't think there is any accountability or oversight necessary under Bush.

I think it is now an established procedure that will take years and years to rectify if any sense of the separation of church and state is to be maintained. And, if any move is made in the direction, any politician will be putting his political body into a hothouse. I think it is here to stay and that is, for me, a sign that the system is corrupting. Because religion is involved, there are many who advocate taking this money from taxpayers because of the "good" it does. That stance, while admirable in it's compassion, is shallow in it's thinking, imo, because it fails to recognize the perils ahead for all freedom of religion currently enjoyed in the past in this country.

In other words, once the government gets involved, they gotcha. Tow the line, the political line, in this case,demanded by an insane, tyrannical war mongerer, or you do not get the money. It goes without saying why the founders were well aware of that pitfall and did not want it included in the Constitution.

While I have read an accounting in actual dollars being granted by several different offices in the WH responsible for handing that money out to those requesting it, I have not been able to find out exactly who the recipients were by any one office.

At this point, I am not optimistic and think that one is better off starting a church and accompanying corporation, apply for a government church welfare grant, and get back what one has paid out to all the other churches :-)

On edit

If there is any blame to toss around, I would put it on the churches first, who seem to enjoy getting free money for their cause, while not paying taxes themself, and while preaching hatred toward other human beings. I do know that Pat Robertson applied for and did get a grant in the first year of the Bush religious largesse--so there you go. We paid for Robertson to spread his filth around.

[Q]

4. You're right in the sense that...

...we shouldn't dwell on the past to the exclusion of the present and future. But it's important to note where this type of democracy-destroying legislation originates.

It's not as much about 'blame' as it is awareness, responsibility and accountability.

America's democracy has suffered many horrible setbacks in the last couple decades. The loss of the 'free press' and the establishment of a theocracy being among the most notable.

[Q]

5. BTW...Free Speech TV's "God in Government"...

...is being broadcast this morning along with Democracy Now.

Theocracy...like Fascism...who would have thought it could ever happen here?

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

6. Is it possible

to be a Theocrat and a Fascist at the same time? Those 2 terms seem contradictory.

[Q]

8. I wasn't implying that both can or could exist at the same time...

...although I'm sure it's possible for Fascists to use Religion to control the masses.

Theocracy:

noun ( pl. -cies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. • ( the Theocracy) the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King. ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from Greek theokratia (see theo- , -cracy ).

[Q]

7. I'd like to hear from DUers about a 'secular' Government...

...and if you think a Democracy and Theocracy can coexist?

[burn the bush]

18. like a democratic taliban

[burn the bush]

10. figures that bush would b=come in and exploit it.

seemed to be working ok til he got there. But then so did our country.

[bread_and_roses]

15. Clinton's welfare "reform" was not OK for people on welfare pre-2000

That misnamed "reform" exponentially increased the hardship of what was already a hard lot. It was political pandering of the worst sort, at the expense of those least able to defend themselves. It was, and remains, an oppressive, demeaning, and exploitive piece of Legislation unworthy of a Democrat and unworthy of the richest Country in the world.

[Q]

16. Yes...kind of like the 'bankrupcy bill'...

...that representatives represented as 'helping' the people in some way.

The idea of 'reform' is not a bad thing in and of itself. But this 'welfare to work' legislation was meant to weaken and then eliminate the social services system and replace it with 'private sector', for-profit and religious organizations that are unaccountable to those they supposedly 'serve'.

And let's not forget that the 'work' part of the reform never came through. Those who supported this program (like the DLC) brag about 60% being pushed off welfare...but they seldom if ever mention that most of them were never able to find work that could support their families.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMPLEMINTZ]

19. That reminds me of the time

I was in the checkout lane at Jewel food store. The lady in front of me (this was when they still used food stamps) had a cart full of Filets, shrimp, and T-bone steaks. She paid with food stamps, she then paid for a case of beer with a hundred dollar bill. I was making $18,000 and my cart had Manchurin soup, Chunky soup, and macaroni and cheese.

I know what you mean by abusing the system. If we saw it in everyday life it was costing us taxpayers a boatload of money.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bread_and_roses]

22. and was she driving a cadillac and wearing diamonds?

The "welfare Queen" myth never does die, does it? I have worked with people on Food Stamps for over twenty years, and this is nonsense. If ever some 1% of those recieving food stamps reflected this Right Wing myth, then apparently everyone in the Country saw it except those of us working daily with people on Food Stamps.

What costs "the taxpayers" a boatload of money is tax subsidies and breaks for Corporations paying dirt wages and sending their employees to DSS for FS and Medicaid.