The argument on the other side is simple - and misleading: religious institutions are allowed to discriminate in hiring thanks to the Civil Rights Acts (that part is true, particularly for positions that are religious, ministerial in nature), and faith-based institutions are allowed to participate in federally-funded Head Start programs (that part is also true - faith-based groups have run Head Start programs since its inception), therefore, religious institutions should be able to discriminate in hiring Head Start teachers and administrators. That part is not true. Head Start is a federally funded program - one of the best we've found in actually delivering results in early education. Federal funds (plus non-ministerial positions) change the civil rights equation, as they should. The hiring exemption no longer applies - and has not.

In the House's reauthorization of this program, an attempt was made to insert language (as they had passed in the House version in previous years) that would allow religious groups to hire and fire Head Start positions based on religion. The committee rejected this amendment, so proponents tried to recommit the bill to committee with instructive language to accomplish the same thing. Religious groups that favor appropriate church-state separation wrote a letter to Congress arguing against this idea and helped framed the argument that would come.

The debate that follows (my transcriptions below) tracks the mentions of that issue, from Rep. Ehlers' blustering to Rep. Chet Edwards' (D-TX) rousing speech that, literally, brought me out of my chair and had applause on the House floor.

Notice how those supporting the religious right's position misleadingly claim that those who oppose them are the ones who are turning back civil protections and are "anti-religious." And notice how Reps. Edwards (scroll to the bottom to read his) and Scott (D-VA), particularly, fight back. Lots of the Head Start debate was unrelated, of course. I transcribed many of the statements having to do with faith-based organizations and religious discrimination.

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)

I'm...disappointed that the House will not have an opportunity today to vote on an amendment offered yesterday at the Rules Committee by Mr. Fortuno (R-PR) to protect the civil liberties of faith-based providers by clarifying that these institutions are not required to relinquish their Civil Rights Act hiring protections when they participate in the federal Head Start program. These protections already are the law of the land with regard to various federal programs, including those impacting welfare reform and community service block grants. In fact, President Clinton himself signed such language into law.

The Fortuno Amendment also would have ensured religious organizations would not be forced to remove art, icons, Scripture or other symbols in order to receive federal head Start grants. Barring these providers from fully participating in Head Start is not only a disservice to the faith-based proviers but also to the children who depend on the Head Start program and the taxpayers who should know that federal dollars are granted to the best available service providers, faith-based or otherwise.

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)

I would note that we are expecting a Motion to Recommit that would allow faith-based programs to discriminate in hiring based on religion using federal funds. Before supporting this bill by 42-1, the Committee considered and rejected such a policy. Faith-based programs can, and do, participate in Head Start and have done so for many years and I support that strongly. However, the Motion is wrong, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)

I am very pleased that this bi-partisan bill preserves the anti-discrimination history of Head Start, advocated so ardently by the Head Start and religious communities. Federal funds are not meant to support discrimination of any type and I applaud the members of both sides for maintaining this fundamental commitment to justice and fairness in this bill.

Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) (my emphasis)

What has happened in this bill is we basically have reversed the civil rights law which provides that faith-based institutions may discriminate in hiring simply by hiring people of the faith of the institution. If it's a church, for example, they can hire people who are members of their church or their denomination, That is legal under the Civil Rights Act. This bill prevents an institution from doing that. If they wish to operate a Head Start program, then they are not allowed to hire on that basis. So it's actually a reversal of the Civil Rights Act.

Now why is this important? Why do churches need this permission to do that? A perfect example was given last year in the debate on this bill in Committee when Rep. Tom Osborn (R-NE) related an example in his district where a small church which had just a small staff of a pastor and a part-time person, decided to operate a program similar to the Head Start program and they obviously wanted to hire someone who could serve on their staff full-time instead of the part-time person, and also operate the educational program.

There's so much misunderstanding and it really puzzles me because I have very good friends on the other side of the aisle who I know have a deep religious faith but why they are so anti-religious on this subject I do not understand. They seem to believe that they have to prevent anyone with a religious belief from operating within a program of this sort. And I have to keep reminding everyone: this is not a case of churches trying to proselytize by having someone of their own faith running the program and teaching the kids that faith. That's not it. The point is simply that faith-based insitutions, by virtue of their faith, are determined to help people in the community that need help. It doesn't matter whether it's a Head Start program, whether it's a food program as we operate in my church back home - many different programs - but they're doing it as an expression of their faith.

Now, is it wrong? Do we have to say "I'm sorry you can't run this program because you're a member of the church and you might express your faith?" That's not what they're trying to do. So why do we have to go to great lengths in this particular bill to stop people from doing that, to prevent churches and other faith-based institutions from operating Head Start programs unless they hire people from outside their church? That to me is grossly unfair. I think frankly it violates the Constitution and I'm strongly opposed to that practice.

Other than that, I think it's a wonderful bill. I would like to support this  bill. But I'm terribly disappointed by this anti-religious attitude that I have seen manifested here and I hope we can overcome this on this bill.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)

Some members as my friend on the other side of the aisle would like to allow Head Start programs to discriminate by using taxpayer dollars to hire staff based on their religion, which is against everything I believe that the Head Start program stands for. When we already have a shortage of qualified Head Start teachers, we must not allow qualified teachers to be turned away simply because of their religion.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)

This debate today is dealing with one of those basic choices, between two goods. We have one of the big differences with this particular reauthorization of Head Start versus the reauthorization of Head Start that we passed last year - both of them good bills - is the concept of the use of faith-based insitutions within these two bodies. And one of the things that bothered me also as a speech teacher is as we're talking about this issue, sometimes we're talking different angles, kinda going like ships passing in the night without ever discussing the same definition of terms. One side will say faith-based institutions should not be used because of hiring practices, that if this institution decides to hire within their own religious group, a program that is legal both legislatively as well as judicially, then they should not be used as the program for Head Start. It has nothing to do with proselytizing, it has to do with whether they should be used at all. The other side simply says that the value is what is best for kids.

Those are two goods. Now, one is not necessarily bad - the issue is which is more important to us? And I am going to make the argument to you that if we really want to define our society what we have to do is say our highest value for this education program is what is best for kids. If indeed a fath-based institution is the best program to help kids break the cycle of poverty, understand the importance of education as it is: to try to lead a better life and improve their life and their families at the same time, then that has to be our highest value. That must be our highest value.  What we have to do is avoid the biases that we have on any other issue. The question is what best helps kids. And once again if a faith-based institution is the best way of helping a kid, do it. For heaven's sakes do it.

Do not hold kids hostage to our own social dogma. It may not be a bad social dogma, but the question is where is our priority? What are our values? And with these kids who desperately need this help, this assistance, the most important thing is to give them that help so they can move forward and they can break the poverty cycle and they can move on with their lives, help themselves and their families at the same time. And if that is not our goal, if that is not our purpose,  if we're really not talking about how to help kids best, then we are fooling ourselves and making poor choices and kind of demeaning the entire debate and discussion about what the federal government will do in the area of education.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA)

We've just heard the suggestion that some programs might be better if only the program sponsors could discriminate in employment. We haven't heard those arguments for over 40 years before this administration came in.  Let's talk about - when you say "protect civil liberties" what liberties you're protecting. You're protecting somebody's right to tell somebody they can't get a job because of their religion. If you can discriminate against someone because of their religion, racial discrimination laws essentially can not be enforced. So who are you protecting? You are protecting the one trying to discriminate . The victim of discrimination loses all protection. The children of families of unpopular religion will ask their parents why they couldn't get a job in the Head Start program and will have to be told that they're not hiring people of our religion. What kind of Head Start is that?

Proponents are saying that we lose opportunites. We have plenty of opportunites in Head Start. All we have to do is fund it mre and there will be plenty of opportunities for Head Start programs. There's also been the suggestion that you might have to take icons off the wall. If the icons have to be taken down, it's because of a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Consitution. And let me tell you, passing a motion to recommit will not solve a violation of the Establishment Clause.

40 years ago, race and religious discrimination was found to be so reprehensible that we made it illegal even with your private funds. Now we have a plea to protect the people trying to discriminate and not the victims of discrimination. We need to leave the law the way it's been for the last 40 eyars. We can keep the anti-discrimination laws and any program that can get funded with this faith-based initiative amendment could be funded anyway it would just comply with the anti-discrimination laws that have been in effect for the last 40 years. We ought not have to tell our children why certain parents can't get a job in a program because we're failing to protect the civil rights of the victim of discrimination because all of a sudden we're interested in the civil rights of the person trying to discriminate.
...
As we discuss this faith-based amendment I think we need to seriously consider the long-term societal implications allowing discrimination in a Head Start program. Our nation just went through quite a conversation when Don Imus made his remarks. That was just talking. We're actually going to do something in considering whether a program can deny an employment opportunity solely because of religion, and if you happen to go to an all-black or an all-white church, a decision based on religion will deny you based on race as well.  We should have this conversation here on the floor considering what we're doing long-term, similar to the situation we had when Don Imus embarrassed himself. We should not embarrass ourselves here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We need to maintain the civil rights protections for prospective employees that we've had for the last 40 years.

Gotta love anyone who can work Don Imus into a debate over Head Start and faith-based organizations. Finally, Chet Edwards, who was the lead speaker in opposition to the motion to recommit. It's worth remembering here that there was a real danger conservative Democrats could wilt under the pressure from conservative religious groups. The feeling was the reason why this amendment was not allowed to the floor by the Committee was because Democrats would not be able to hold together their opposition. In previous years, that likely would have been true. Rep. Edwards - who is certainly a conservative Democrat, but is very good on church-state separation, said this:

This motion should be called the "Religious Job Discrimination Act." As a person of faith who believes strongly in the good work of faith-based groups, I rise to passionately oppose this ill-advised motion, a motion also opposed by the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the Episcopal Church,  and the NAACP. Our principle is simple, but deeply profound: no American, not one, should ever have to pass another American's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded federal job - not one American. [applause]

I shouldn't have to pass Mr. McKeon's test if I'm applying for a Head Start job, and he should not have to pass my religious test. The fact is that no group in America - which would be possible under this motion - should be able to accept a 1-million-dollar Head Start tax-funded grant and then literally with your tax dollars and mine put up a sign that says "no Jews nor Catholics need apply here" for a federally funded job. To do so is morally wrong. To do so is constitutioanlly wrong. No American, not one, should ever have to choose between being true to his or her private religious faith and having a federally funded, tax-funded job. This motion will harm the Head Start program; it will harm the work of faith-based groups. Vote yes for Head Start and no for this motion to recommit. [applause]

[Original posts at the Baptist Joint Committee blog are here, here and here ]