goal, he said, “is not just to provide services,” but also “to change lives”—in the
partnership.
3
And so we have embarked upon a train of political debate and litigation regarding the
proper relationship between government and faith-based social service organizations. In
Congress, the House and Senate have debated substantially different versions of
legislation purporting to apply the President’s principles—the “Community Solutions
Act,” passed by the House in July, 2001, and the “Charity Aid, Recovery, and
Empowerment Act,” introduced to great fanfare in February, 2002 by Senators
Lieberman and Santorum (and reintroduced after its failure to pass in 2002 by Senator
Santorum in January, 2003).
4
As we shall see, many of the differences between these
pieces of legislation stem from differing approaches to the constitutional issues raised by
the interaction between faith-based organizations and government. In his State of the
Union Address, President Bush also proposed a $600 million voucher program for drug
rehabilitation programs.
5
The controversy over the faith-based initiative has emerged in
other venues and is also likely to be featured in the debate concerning the reauthorization
of the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Congressional resistance to the President’s
program has led the Bush Administration to move forward by means of executive orders,
opening up many areas of government contracting to faith-based organizations.
6
In the
courts, there seems to be no end to lawsuits in various stages of litigation.
7
Among the
most relevant to the President’s initiative are Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (the Ohio
voucher case, decided by the Supreme Court in June, 2002)
8
, Freedom from Religion
Foundation v. McCallum (dealing with the relationship between the state of Wisconsin
Convention