support at public institutions of education, permitting federal funding for abstinence instructions, and supplying public school teachers to work at faith-based institutions. Perhaps, the most dramatic rearrangement of the church-state order came from the decision issued in which Mitchell v. Helms held that the third assertion of the Lemon Test, between prohibiting “excessive entanglement government and was violable under unspecified circumstances. religion” While the validity of such interactions between government and state were upheld by the judiciary, the legislative branch developed faith-based initiatives as a means for religious organizations to receive federal funding in a bi-partisan effort to reform welfare policy. In the midst of the welfare reform discussions of the 1990s, John Ashcroft, Senator from Missouri also to be appointed Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, introduced the Individual Accountability Act of 1995, which was the first piece of welfare reform legislation to grant religious organizations access to federally-funded social service grants. Ashcroft’s proposal allowed for faith-based organizations to have complete autonomy over employment, however, they could not deny services to beneficiaries on the grounds of the religious beliefs. When beneficiary’s Ashcroft introduced the bill on the House floor, he made little reference to federal funding for faith-based organizations, a provision referred to as that in matters “charitable choice”. He insisted of social welfare, alone will not solve these that the primary “Government problems”, revealing intention of this bill was to the In order to ameliorate the plight of the poor “reduce bureaucracy”. it should be the work of the and the rather than the federal government. “communities states” Ashcroft advocated both a reduction of the federal government and an approach to poverty assistance which was localized. He is disavowing the centralized, bureaucratic, material approach and suggesting something different from New Deal social democratic conceptions of welfare. He is alluding to the neo-puritan frame to suggest that what poor Americans are in need of is a system
support at public institutions of education, permitting federal funding for abstinence instructions, and supplying public school teachers to work at faith-based institutions. Perhaps, the most dramatic rearrangement of the church-state order came from the decision issued in Mitchell v. Helms which held that the third assertion of the Lemon Test, prohibiting “excessive entanglement between government and religion” was violable under unspecified circumstances. While the validity of such interactions between government and state were upheld by the judiciary, the legislative branch developed faith-based initiatives as a means for religious organizations to receive federal funding in a bi-partisan effort to reform welfare policy. In the midst of the welfare reform discussions of the 1990s, John Ashcroft, Senator from Missouri also to be appointed Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, introduced the Individual Accountability Act of 1995, which was the first piece of welfare reform legislation to grant religious organizations access to federally-funded social service grants. Ashcroft’s proposal allowed for faith-based organizations to have complete autonomy over employment, however, they could not deny services to beneficiaries on the grounds of the beneficiary’s religious beliefs. When Ashcroft introduced the bill on the House floor, he made little reference to federal funding for faith-based organizations, a provision referred to as “charitable choice”. He insisted that in matters of social welfare, “Government alone will not solve these problems”, revealing that the primary intention of this bill was to “reduce the bureaucracy”. In order to ameliorate the plight of the poor it should be the work of the “communities and the states” rather than the federal government. Ashcroft advocated both a reduction of the federal government and an approach to poverty assistance which was localized. He is disavowing the centralized, bureaucratic, material approach and suggesting something different from New Deal social democratic conceptions of welfare. He is alluding to the neo-puritan frame to suggest that what poor Americans are in need of is a system
FromGodlessGovernmentToFaith-BasedState,%20WPSA.docx