[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.(2) Limited audit. If such organization segregates Federal funds provided under such programs intoseparate accounts, then only the financial assistance provided with such funds shall be subject to audit.(i) Compliance. Any party which seeks to enforce its rights under this section may assert a civil action forinjunctive relief exclusively in an appropriate State court against the entity or agency that allegedly commitssuch violation.(j) Limitations on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes. No funds provided directly to institutions ororganizations to provide services and administer programs under subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be expended forsectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.(k) Preemption. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of a State constitutionor State statute that prohibits or restricts the expenditure of State funds in or by religious organizations.Approved August 22, 1996.NOTES1.Other examples of financial aid to recipients who have the choice of how to use the assistance, includingusing it with sectarian organizations, are the Federal Pell Grant program, 20 U.S.C.§ 107a et.seq., the GIBill, 68 U.S.C.§§ 3201 3243, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§§9858 9858q, which permits parents to use financial certificates for child care at sectarian child centers.2.Congress has actually enacted legislation in the past that directly affects religious organizations, althoughin a different context.For example, Section 702 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amendedexempts religious organizations from the prohibition of employment discrimination based on religion, towhich other organizations are subject, along with race, sex, color, and national origin.3. Charitable choice has become the name for statutory provisions that allow faith-based organizations toreceive federal funding.The term came into vogue when Senator John Ashcroft (R-MO), now attorneygeneral of the United States, Page 195introduced various pieces of legislation beginning with Section 104 in 1996 that contained such provisions.An example of other enactments that include a charitable choice provision is the 1998 amendment to theCommunity Services Block Grant Act, which requires states that participate in the Community Services BlockGrant program to furnish an assurance that the State and eligible entities in the State will, to the maximumextent possible, coordinate programs with and form partnerships with other organizations serving low-incomeresidents of the communities and members of the groups served by the State, including religiousorganizations, charitable groups, and community organizations. On January 29, 2001, President George W.Bush issued two Executive Orders that established a White House Office of Faith-Based and CommunityInitiatives to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Federal Government s comprehensive effortto enlist, enable, equip, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations, and five Executive Department Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the Departments ofHealth and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Education, and Labor to eliminateregulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and othercommunity organizations in the provision of social services. 4.An earlier enactment had provided much the same thing as Section 104 on a smaller scale.The AdolescentFamily Life Act of 1981 authorized direct financial grants to public or nonprofit private organizations forservices and research in the area of premarital adolescent sexual relations and pregnancy.It required thatthe counseling and educational services should promote the involvement of religious organizations (alongwith other charitable and voluntary organizations).Moreover, grant applicants were required to describe howthey would involve such nongovernmental organizations.The Adolescent Family Life Act was upheld againstan Establishment Clause attack in Bowen v.Kendrick (1988). Page 196BOTH CLAUSES SIMULTANEOUSLYTHE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1978 AS AMENDED IN 1994Although we have examined various landmark statutes and some associated judicial decisions regarding theFree Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause as two rather distinct provisions, it is well to bear in mindthat they are also opposite sides of the same coin, and as such can create very interesting situations.Whilethe Free Exercise Clause is usually drawn into play when Congress enacts a law that restricts a religiouspractice, and the Establishment Clause is drawn into play when Congress enacts a law that promotes areligious practice, a law can also seek to protect a religious practice that is otherwise being restricted whilebecoming entangled with the Establishment Clause.The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of1978 and its 1994 amendment, which exempted members of the Native American Church from beingprosecuted under the Drug Abuse Control Act for using peyote, is a good example of the symbioticrelationship of the two sides.The relationship of freedom of religion and the use of peyote by members of the Native American Church hasa long and colorful history.Peyote is a spineless, dome-shaped cactus (Lophophora williamsii) native toMexico and the southwest United States, having buttonlike tubercles that are chewed fresh or dry as ahallucinogenic drug by certain Native American peoples.Its use is one of the oldest religious traditions in theWestern Hemisphere.Members of fifty Native American tribes use peyote as a sacrament in religiousceremonies, believing that it is a medicine, a protector, and a teacher that gives one an awareness of God.1In 1965 Congress enacted the Drug Abuse Control Act Amendments, which prohibited the use of many then-popular psychedelic drugs (now called Schedule I drugs).Schedule I drugs generate hallucinations,distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and conditions that resemble a psychosis.2 AlthoughCongress included peyote in the list of Schedule I drugs, there was concern that the prohibition should notinclude the ceremonial use of pe- Page 197yote by members of the Native American Church.3 The Native American Church did not become an officiallyincorporated organization until 1918 (in Oklahoma), but it is one of the oldest religious traditions in NorthAmerica
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]