FAITH-BASED CHARITIES SHOULD BE VERY WARY OF FEDERAL AID.

Byline: Gerald Plessner Local View

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I, United States Constitution

ONE of the marvelous features of American democracy is its guarantee of freedom of religion and the press, freedom of expression and the encouragement to do good things. The Constitution and Bill of Rights give us the widest latitude to create new laws and protect rights as times change.

This is the case with the laws that establish the legal and tax status of religious institutions and charities. They define a unique creation of American democracy that is little understood by most Americans.

Sometimes, when confronted with a new idea, we are at risk of going against the original intent of the founders. It is then that public debate becomes heated, as will probably happen when we debate President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, which would give public funds to religious institutions for worthwhile social service.

Some advocates of the initiative say that current law, by denying funds to religious-based programs, discriminates against such activities.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Federal law ensures a special status for religions and other nonprofit organizations, many of which are religiously sponsored. The First Amendment guarantees to all religions the freedom to advocate their beliefs and conduct programs without government oversight.

But federal law goes further than benign neglect of religion. Religious institutions and all charities are granted two valuable benefits - tax exemption of their income and tax deductibility of their donors' gifts.

Rather than discriminate against religion, the law, by specific intent, encourages the growth of religion and encourages support of religion and other worthwhile community activities.

These benefits have important consequences for the institutions. Tax exemption enables churches and charities to use every dollar they receive for their own purposes. It also acknowledges that charities can use money more effectively when available directly than when given to the government only to be given back to the charity.

It is not hard to understand that money given directly to a charity or church will be used more effectively than tax funds processed through government.

Tax deductibility encourages citizens to support good works by providing tax credits for their donations. The government in this case is forgoing income so that citizens can support their churches and charities, for the same reasons as with tax exemption.

But charities and churches should exercise great caution before they accept public funding. Government funding always means government supervision.

Should churches be told whether or not religious teaching can be a part of their social welfare programs? Should government decide which religions qualify for support and which do not, or whether certain programs can limit their hiring to people who agree with their religion?

It is just as important for religious groups to understand that government support may hurt private donations. The bond between a religious institution and its adherents is a sensitive and fragile one. Donors may wonder if an institution that advocates their deeply held religious beliefs has, in some way, compromised its position to accept government funds. Other donors may decide that, because their favorite cause now accepts tax dollars, their support is no longer needed. These questions are raised, not out of thin air, but out of experience.

Remember the War on Poverty? As an executive for the Boy Scouts of America, I was told to fight that war in the Liberty City district of Miami, Fla. I was assigned to help write the model cities proposal so the city of Miami could ask for federal funds for inner-city programs.

While that experience gave me some insight into the process and compromises of seeking government aid, it also gave me pause to consider whether my charity should ask for tax support. I felt then that the issue turned on whether the program was sectarian or nonsectarian. The Boy Scouts, even then, limited membership to individuals who held certain beliefs.

If the Boy Scouts of America were to remain true to principles, it should reject government funds. If, on the other hand, the Boy Scouts could conduct programs that were nonsectarian and would be available to anyone without qualification, either as a client or a worker, then it should accept such funds. After all, religiously sponsored hospitals and social agencies had done so for many years.

Whatever the outcome, President Bush's program, if adopted, will change the nature of religious and charitable institutions for all time. We should be very careful before we do that.