Posted By James Besser
This Jewish Life: Reauthorization and Restraint
The policy issues I work on seem to encompass a lot of programs that need reauthorizing- The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), Head Start and now, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
With an educational background in mental health, I know the benefits that programs like SAMHSA and Head Start can bring to communities across the country. At the same time, as a student of Jewish history, I know that the preservation of church and state has been the chief guarantor of religious freedom for Jews and other religious minorities in United States.
So it has been a challenge to weigh the benefits of programs that meet essential needs against efforts by some elected officials to use those programs to weaken the First Amendment.
I know that the Reform Movement's adamant and unyielding defense of the separation of church and state has in the past put us in the difficult position of having to oppose reauthorizations of programs that we support. For example, for 5 years, Head Start reauthorization proposals included provisions that would have allowed religious groups that sponsor Head Start chapters to discriminate in their hiring. This situation forced the Union for Reform Judaism to oppose attempts to reauthorize a fabulous program.
Luckily, this year, these stipulations were removed and we were finally able to support the legislation to reauthorize Head Start. I admit that I am relieved that I came to the RAC in the year that Head Start was uncontroversial because as a student of community psychology and education, I learned about all of the positive outcomes of the Head Start program and I imagine that it would have been quite a challenge for me to keep silent about my support.
This year I am faced with a similar issue-the SAMHSA reauthorization proposal has "charitable choice" provisions, which would allow direct government funding of pervasively sectarian (solely religious) organizations. Among other concerns, charitable choice allows government-funded religious discrimination and threatens a pre-emption of local civil rights laws. The direct violations of the separation of church and state involved in charitable choice have long been a concern of the Reform Movement. Rabbi Saperstein has even testified in Congressional hearings on this very issue.
So, in association with the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination, I am spending time in the next couple of weeks trying to convince members of the Senate Health, Education, and Labor (HELP) committee to remove the charitable choice provisions before advancing the legislation.
I have realized that the RAC's willingness to oppose objectionable provisions within legislation that is overwhelmingly positive, such as SAMHSA, reinforces and strengthens our voice advocating for religious freedom. As unsettling and uncomfortable as prioritizing the separation of church and state over the possibility of reauthorizing great government programs may be, these decisions gives legitimacy and power to our advocacy on church/state issues.
To read more about Head Start Reauthorization, check out this 2005 New York Times Article
To learn more about the Reform perspective on Charitable Choice, read excerpts from Rabbi David Saperstein's testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee here.