On the recordApril 6, 2000
I rise today to oppose Representative Souder's amendment. This amendment will violate the constitutional separation of church and state; weaken important anti-discrimination civil rights protections; and entangle religious institutions in the reach of government. Representative Souder's amendment is damaging because his charitable choice provision is unconstitutional. It attacks existing constitutional protections separating church and state. It diverts taxpayer and government funding to sectarian religious groups who could then use these funds to facilitate overtly religious activities and practices. The Constitution does not allow the government to fund overtly religious or 'pervasively sectarian' religious organizations. This is an inappropriate use of government funds. Representative Souder's amendment is unneeded because the Constitution does permit the government to fund religious organizations that are 'nonsectarian' to pursue non-religious activities and currently the government funds many of these groups. These groups are often called religious affiliates. For example, local Catholic Charities and Jewish Social Services groups that receive federal funding are non-sectarian groups. The differences between non-sectarian religious organizations and pervasively sectarian religious organizations are very important and we must continue to respect these differences.
Source
govinfo.gov




