Neither the political drama in the House of Representatives over whether Republican moderates would toe the party line on President Bush’s “faith- based initiative” nor the histrionics that may now unfold in the Senate should distract Americans from what’s really at stake in the battle over government funding for religious work. The fact is that the Bush administration wants to use tax dollars to fund churches and faith groups offering social services to some, but not all, Americans. And as the recent flap over the Salvation Army demonstrates, Republicans have no problem giving a green light to antigay discrimination to promote this agenda.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s recent case against the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children clearly demonstrates the dangers of the “faith-based initiative” and why why lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people need to be deeply concerned. The Baptist Homes is the largest provider of services to teens in trouble in Kentucky and receives most of its budget from the state. It’s also openly antigay. The agency’s official employment policy says it won’t hire gay people, even though the state pays the salaries of Baptist Homes’ employees, because homosexuality is inconsistent with the agency’s version of Christianity. And while significant numbers of at-risk teens are gay youths whom professionals agree should be treated with respect rather than moralizing, the head of the Baptist Homes is on record with his view that homosexuality is an illness that can be cured through prayer and spiritual counseling. With the court’s ruling in the Kentucky Baptist case this past week that antigay employment discrimination by a publicly funded religious organization is legal, the stakes for gay people have been raised considerably.

Proponents of the “faith-based initiative,” such as Congressmen J.C. Watts and Tony Hall, like to talk about all the good works that religious groups perform. Nobody disputes that. But while religious groups may be very good at providing services to some people, should they be allowed to use tax dollars to pay for discrimination? And how will they serve people whose lives don’t conform to the groups’ religious views?

For example, just two months ago the Administration was forced to reverse course after the press got wind that the federal Department of Health and Human Services was planning on making $4 million in HIV prevention money for minority communities available exclusively to churches and religious groups. Before the HIV church program was pulled in response to political protests, an HHS spokesperson defended it with the rationale that religious groups “have access to the young people we are trying to reach.” Yet at the same time this statement was made, the federal government was announcing that a third of young black men who have sex with men are HIV-positive and that the infection rate among these young people is nearly 15% annually.

The reality is that churches in African-American communities for the most part have not risen to the challenge of providing nonjudgmental, effective HIV education to young black gay men. There is an inherent conflict between many churches’ disapproval of homosexuality on the one hand and talking openly about safer ways for men to have sex with men on the other. Even churches that adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach rather than overt condemnation aren’t well-positioned to provide frank HIV prevention education. Given these conflicts, churches are unlikely to effectively reach one very important subgroup of young African-Americans, a subgroup that Republicans appear willing to sacrifice because its members are gay. The problem is at least as serious among predominantly white churches and religious groups like the Salvation Army, many of which do not have the civil- rights consciousness of their African-American counterparts--as the Baptist Homes case illustrates.

Of course, it’s not just gay people who have to be worried about discrimination by religious groups supported by tax dollars. This is a civil rights issue for all Americans, which is why the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus oppose the Administration’s plan.

Republicans and the Bush administration must confront the real-world dilemmas that the “faith-based initiative” presents rather than sweeping them under the rug to win a vote for the president. Any new initiative to give tax dollars to religious groups must require those groups to pledge not to use their religious beliefs to discriminate against either employees or clients. In addition, publicly funded religious groups must be willing to provide appropriate services to all people.

Unless the Administration requires publicly funded religious groups to live by these rules, such a program does not deserve the support of the American people.