Churches-for-Hire:
The effects of "Charitable Choice"
On Religious Autonomy in America
Although the "Charitable Choice Expansion Act" purports to be in the best interest of religion, its implementation will quickly transform a feeding hand into a chokehold. Enabled by this Act, governmental entities, at the federal, state, and local levels, would become the supervising employers of religious institutions by virtue of their role as governmental contractors. Religious institutions, which currently enjoy a great amount of independence from the government, will become "hired hands" of the state, by trading self-sufficiency for government funds. Religious institutions should be circumspect and remember one thing: the government does not fund what it cannot regulate. And, once the regulatory door is opened, it will swing wider and wider, becoming increasingly difficult to shut the government out of the affairs of religious institutions again. This violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and is profoundly detrimental to religious autonomy, across the board and across the nation.
Furthermore, this Act would put over 2,000 religious denominations in competition for any federally funded public health or social service contract. This provision, along with those that grant religious institutions the discretion to dole out subcontracts, would create a political battleground wherein sects fight to corner the market on a particular service to ensure that their 'own' get a 'share of the pie.' In addition, the so-called "nondiscrimination" principle upon which the Act is based would tie the government's hands in refusing to hire any religious organization on the basis of its religious doctrines.
Thirdly, "Charitable Choice" propels a cycle of dependency on federal funding as the contracts available to religious institutions increase. As a Volunteers of America spokesperson observed, "government funding 'impairs your impetus to go out and raise funds. That's a real danger all non profits face - just sitting back and figuring the government will take care of you.'" Not only do religious institutions lose motivation to tap private donor pools, but donors also perceive less reason to give because expectations would shift as public funding increased.
Finally, this Act would encroach upon the religious liberties of program beneficiaries, individual service providers, and taxpayers because it would allow religious organizations to deliver services in accordance with its religious tenets and practices. Religion is a very personal belief system varying from individual to individual. Accordingly, beneficiaries would often have beliefs antithetical to that of the assigned service provider. From their perspective, then, they would be exposed to other religious beliefs that they found offensive or be forced to endure the denigration of their own religious beliefs. This result contradicts the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which mandates that beneficiaries should not be subjected to state-sponsored indoctrination. Furthermore, beneficiaries cannot be discouraged from exercising their own religious beliefs, which are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. From the religious institution's perspective, however, their rights to express religious beliefs may endanger the effectiveness of its programs, especially in a group setting. These dilemmas apply with equal force to individual employees seeking to serve their community through religious contractors. Finally, taxpayers should not be forced to fund religions with which they disagree. This Act would ensure that such an offense was repeated time and time again.
The "Charitable Choice" Expansion Act is unconstitutional and incredibly shortsighted. Despite its superficial appeal by forging new outlets for church philanthropy, it would transform religious institutions from dignified, co-existent entities into subservient, rivaling 'hired hands.'