Test of Lieberman’s Faith

Last February, the Bush administration complained that religious groups wanting to help the needy have for years had to jump through hoops for federal funding and announced the creation of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Last week, a day after repeating that complaint, John J. DiIulio Jr., chosen by President Bush to spearhead the initiative, called it a day and returned to academic life.

DiIulio’s experience--not enough clout in the White House and distaste in Congress for the project’s knotty questions--has given Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) a taste of the difficulties ahead for a Senate version of Bush’s initiative, which he is the most likely candidate to sponsor. But if anyone can reach a compromise it is probably Lieberman, whose sentiments on faith in public life were a hallmark of his vice presidential campaign.

A version of the initiative, making it easier for religious groups to use federal funds in providing social services, had a rocky passage in the House and landed in the Senate’s lap. The White House hadn’t sufficiently thought through the social questions raised by the measure before launching it. The fair-minded DiIulio came under fire on all sides as conservatives worried about a dilution of religious fervor and liberals feared church encroachment on the state.

Lieberman’s task will be to set the scene for cooler deliberation and more clarity on the Senate side. It won’t be easy to meet his hope of a new bill that can be supported enthusiastically by both the White House and Congress.

The model for the initiative, the 1996 charitable choice provision of welfare reform, enjoyed bipartisan support and created none of the firestorm of the Bush initiative. But the recent House battle spotlighted a problem that should have been addressed then, the potential for employment discrimination by faith-based groups. It’s one thing for such groups to have long-standing exemptions from civil rights legislation for their own programs, but another when federal dollars are concerned. In those cases, closer scrutiny is warranted.

Likewise, organizations that can’t serve the needy without also trying to convert them should get their funding elsewhere. One proposal that first came up in the House would supply vouchers to people in need. They could then shop for their own assistance programs, whether the programs proselytized or not. That is just abdication of the government’s constitutional responsibility not to support religious indoctrination.

It will take time to develop a federal policy and eventually to write constitutionally sound contracts for religious organizations in such expanded areas as housing, juvenile justice and senior services. Lieberman does set out with some common ground in Washington, a recognition that there is good work being done around the nation by community-based organizations that ought to be supported, or at least not hindered.

Al Gore and Lieberman narrowly lost the 2000 election. Now, it will be up to the vanquished vice presidential candidate to make the program of another party’s president work.