Why does Charitable Choice threaten the religious liberty of beneficiaries seeking publicly funded services?
Charitable Choice proposals set up a “separate but equal” social service safety net for beneficiaries who are seeking publicly funded services and who are uncomfortable with or even disagree with the religious content of the service provider. Charitable Choice entitles those beneficiaries to a “separate but equal” social service somewhere else. A 1998 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable William F. Goodling indicates the constitutional dangers of directly funding houses of worship to administer secular programs as Charitable Choice proposes: “As the Court has explained, the reason for the prohibition on direct governmental aid to pervasively sectarian institutions is the unacceptable risk that that where- as in pervasively sectarian organization- secular and religious functions are ‘inextricably intertwined,’ government aid, although designated for a secular purpose, in fact will invariably advance the institution’s religious mission….And even if it were possib
