Since October 2004, USAID, (the US Agency for International Development) has operated under the following faith-based funding rule (Word Doc.): "religious organizations should be able to compete on an equal footing with other organizations for USAID funding," adding this church-state protection:
USAID funds could not be used for acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of sanctuaries, chapels, or any other room that a religious congregation that is a recipient or sub-recipient of USAID assistance uses as its principal place of worship.
A change proposed in March of this year (pdf), however, would eliminate that safeguard and allow international aid to be used to build or repair buildings that have a clear religious function.
USAID funds may be used for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of structures that are used, in whole or in part, for inherently religious activities, so long as the program for which USAID assistance is provided (i) Is authorized by law and has a secular purpose, (ii) is made generally available to a wide range of organizations and beneficiaries which are defined without reference to religion, (iii) has the effect of furthering a development objective, (iv) the criteria upon which structures are selected for acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation are religiously neutral, and (v) the selection criteria are amenable to neutral application.
In a letter sent yesterday (pdf), the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty explained its opposition to this proposal.
The Proposed Rule, however, opens the door to government spending for the building of houses of worship and other buildings used primarily for religious activities. Such spending would severely undercut the U.S. commitment to religious freedom at home and abroad. It conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court standards, as well as the position of the Obama Administration in its efforts to strengthen the legal basis of federal policy governing the relationship between the government and the nongovernmental entities that receive government funding and administer government programs. There has been no change in constitutional law that warrants relaxing the standard for the use of USAID funds by religious organizations set forth in the current regulations.
…
While the proposed rule claims that this would “more accurately reflect current Establishment Clause jurisprudence with respect to the use of Federal funds for inherently religious activities,”the change instead reflects a new permissive standard that cannot be squared with U.S. Supreme Court standards.
This rule change rests on a contorted argument: aid which clearly benefits and promotes religion is acceptable if the ultimate motive behind the aid is primarily secular. The recipient's purpose in accepting the aid, and intention for using it, then, may be thoroughly religious, as long as the government's rationale for providing the aid is not, opening up a giant loophole for "indirect" government funding.
Among other things, this new standard would ignore 1/3 of the standard Lemon Test that courts have used for 40 years to determine the constitutionality of government activity. How could building a church or mosque using government funds not "have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion," as prohibited by that standard?
