WASHINGTON - In a victory for churches and other religious groups that do business with the federal government, President Bush signed an order yesterday allowing taxpayer money to flow to organizations that discriminate in their hiring on the basis of religion.
Critics called Bush's surprise action an assault on the Constitution's separation of church and state.
Speaking to religious leaders in Philadelphia, the president declared that "faith-based" groups play a vital role in communities by providing social services, from feeding the hungry to ending drug addictions. For years, he complained, such groups have been denied federal contracts "for no good purpose."
"If a charity is helping the needy," he said, "it should not matter if there is a rabbi on the board or a cross or a crescent on the wall or a religious commitment in the charter."
With his announcement, he signaled an aggressive return to his domestic agenda after months of focusing on the war on terrorism, confrontation with Iraq and midterm elections.
Just after taking office, Bush promoted the idea of making federal money available to religious groups that provide social services. But his "faith-based" legislation died in the Senate this year. Yesterday, he sidestepped Congress, signing an executive order that requires no congressional approval.
White House officials said Bush was doing nothing more than ensuring that religious groups can compete equally with non-religious groups for federal money.
Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the officials said, churches that hire people based on religion are entitled to compete for federal grants. Bush, they said, wanted to ensure that any faith-based group that has or seeks a government contract to perform social services can do so and remain free to hire and fire people according to its religious faith.
Critics warned that Bush's decision would not only open the door for far more religious groups to apply for money but would also discard a crucial distinction in the law.
In the past, churches that received federal grants could use their own money to hire only people whose religious affiliation matched their own. For the first time, critics noted, religious groups will be able to use taxpayer money to do so.
"No American citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job," complained Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat who represents the town of Crawford, where the president's ranch is.
The debate reflects the long-standing uncertainty over how the constitutional separation of church and state applies to government funding of religious groups. One senior administration official said to expect "a lot of litigation" challenging Bush's action, perhaps carrying the debate on for years.
Under Bush's action, federal agencies will no longer be allowed to deny contracts or grants to religious groups solely because the group has a religious title or displays a religious icon. Bush said, though, that no money "will be used to directly support inherently religious activities."
Though contracts will now be able to flow to groups that use the money to pay employees who were hired based on their religious beliefs, officials stressed that federal laws still bar such groups from receiving most federal grants. Bush would need Congress to change those laws, and he called on lawmakers to do just that.
Contracts differ from federal grants, which groups can use as they please. A contract requires a group to perform a service - such as counseling homeless people or drug addicts.
The debate does not cut neatly along party lines. Bush's action was praised, for example, by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, who called it "constructive." He said he joined Bush in seeking to "harness the enormous potential of faith-inspired groups to help us help more Americans who are in need."
Lieberman was a sponsor of a bill last year that scaled back Bush's original faith-based plan. Bush's original proposal, Lieberman said, included a provision allowing religious groups to circumvent many state and local anti-discrimination laws.
That provision sparked protest once it was discovered that the Salvation Army had sought assurances from the White House that the charity, in exchange for its support of Bush's faith-based initiative, would be exempt from local laws barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Critics argued that some groups exploit their right to hire based on religion, by refusing to hire people of certain races or sexual orientations, claiming that they don't share the groups' faith. These groups might still be able to do so, opponents said, in localities that have no anti-discrimination laws.
Lawmakers and other critics framed Bush's announcement as an attack on federal civil rights protections.
Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, described an executive order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt banning discrimination in defense contracts during World War II as "the first civil rights victory there was." Of Bush's action, Anders said, "You could not strike a more core civil rights protection."
People on both sides of the debate point to a Georgia foster home as the type of case that could test the principles at stake. The United Methodist Children's Home turned down a job applicant because he was Jewish. The home, which got state money, is being sued.
Administration officials played down the reach of the action taken by the president. They stressed that it applied only to religious-affiliated groups, not to all recipients of federal grants and contracts.
They noted that the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton allowed a limited number of religious groups that hire based on faith to contract to carry out services, such as helping those on welfare find jobs or treating addictions.
Robert L. Woodson Sr., founder and director of an umbrella group for religious and community groups, said Bush's action essentially expands the welfare provisions.
"There weren't any constitutional issues raised then," said Woodson, a Bush supporter. "If it's OK for drug and alcohol programs, why not for day care and other services?"
A few religious groups oppose Bush's efforts to bestow federal money on faith-based groups, saying that would mean more government meddling in how they conduct their work.
C. Welton Gaddy, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance Foundation in Washington, called Bush's action "a slap in the face" to organizations that have worked to help their communities "without government manipulation."
Bush's faith-based initiative has caused headaches for the White House, and it might bring more if the legal challenges to the president's most recent decision begin to mount.
The president's quest for faith-based legislation stumbled a bit last year when John J. DiIulio Jr., a scholar whom Bush had appointed to lead the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, quit after seven months. In a recent article in Esquire, DiIulio, a Democrat, accused the White House of essentially being run by Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove.
"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one - a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio was quoted as saying. "What you've got is everything, and I mean everything, being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."
Shortly afterward, DiIulio apologized to the White House and said he was "remorseful."