First, the first principles

By K. Hollyn Hollman

Church-State Intersection
January 12, 2002

On the day I began writing this column, National Public Radio's Diane Rehm did a show on "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives." The guests included E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Keith Pavlishchek from the Center for Public Justice, and my predecessor Melissa Rogers, Executive Director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, all of whom have been heavily involved in the national discussion on the funding of "faith-based" organizations.

The show provided an overview of recent legislative proposals that remain under debate on Capitol Hill. The participants discussed different perspectives on the issue, including that of the Baptist Joint Committee, which has long opposed "charitable choice" - the proposal that would fund pervasively religious organizations to perform social services.

In describing the development of this national conversation, E.J. Dionne lamented that people like "to retreat too first principles" before fully examining what many faith-based organizations are currently doing. He is correct to note that our love of liberty and commitment to the integrity of the First Amendment should not keep us from listening, learning, and exploring ways to improve the delivery of social services by houses of worship. We recognize that a religious organization's cooperation with government on issues of shared concern does not always require a compromise of religious convictions. Indeed, the BJC has worked to find common ground with a variety of organizations that have differing perspectives on religious and constitutional matters.

But keeping an open mind does not mean departing from first principles. We have insisted throughout the "charitable choice" debate that church-state issues remain front and center. In the early stages, our concerns were largely dismissed. After months of refusing to acknowledge any problems, however, proponents of H.R. 7 in the House amended the bill to address certain constitutional concerns.

Finally, it seemed that there was a greater understanding of the proposal's complexities. More people began recognizing the problems that arise when tax dollars are used to proselytize recipients of social services; when the government funds jobs that can be restricted to members of a particular religion; when federal regulations dictate how religious organizations should fulfill their missions; and when "secular alternatives" are required to prevent religious coercion.

As the cover story explains, the debate over "charitable choice" is far from over. Despite some helpful last-minute revisions, H.R. 7 still includes several worrisome provisions. And the debate in the Senate is just getting started.

Baptists have long proclaimed that separation of church and state protects our religious liberty. The First Amendment provides an essential restraint on government and a promise of the free exercise of religion, with minimal bureaucratic intrusion. Government should not interfere with or seek to regulate the work of churches. Government should be neutral toward religion, neither advancing nor inhibiting it, but leaving it free to flourish. Whether the issue is "charitable choice," vouchers for parochial schools, or school prayer, keeping these core principles in mind helps lead us to sensible, constitutional answers.

During a recent debate on the Virginia Moment of Silence Statute, former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger offered some useful advice for thinking about policy proposals that lead to constitutional debate. He noted that it is important to remember that not all good ideas are constitutional, and not all things constitutional are good ideas.

Constitutional concerns aside, it is not even clear that "charitable choice" is a good idea. There remain important empirical questions, such as whether religious providers of social services are more effective than secular programs - and if so, whether they would remain more effective after receiving public funds and becoming accountable to government regulators.

But even if these questions were resolved favorably, we would strongly oppose any proposal that threatens to compromise our first principles. The separation of church and state has served our country well for more than two centuries. It is our first freedom, and it must be defended against all ideas that would jeopardize it, both good and bad.