|
|
|
Jewish World Review April 21, 2004 / 30 Nissan, 5764 Your institution doesn't deserve government protection, you're religious! By Rick Jervis
Lawmakers, led by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., want to set aside up to $100 million for security-enhancement work for houses of worship. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League are trying to stop them. http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
(KRT) A proposal to use federal funds to help synagogues, churches and other non-profit groups beef up security is being lauded by some as needed relief in the expensive business of preparing against domestic terrorism.
But critics of measure recently introduced in both the Senate and House say the initiative comes uncomfortably close to breaching the First Amendment separation of church and state.
Alarmed by the spate of violence targeted at synagogues and Jewish centers around the world in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, lawmakers say the High-Risk Non-Profit Security Enhancement Act is a responsible response to rising security costs at churches and synagogues. The bill would provide up to $100 million for security-enhancement work, such as installing concrete barriers and hardening windows and doors.
Framers of the bill point to last year's terrorist blasts at synagogues in Casablanca and Istanbul, which killed more than 30 people, as well as the recent firebombing of a Jewish school in Montreal, as evidence that Jewish centers and temples are at risk. No one was hurt in the Montreal incident.
Enter your zip code to contact representatives for your area
* takes you to UJC website The bill proposes distributing the money to pre-approved contractors, who would then do the security work, to avoid constitutional concerns about government funding of any religion.
But the proposal's obvious intent of protecting synagogues and other Jewish centers that could be targeted by terrorists is a veiled attempt at direct federal funding to religious institutions, said Ivan Eland, an analyst with the Independent Institute, a think tank in Oakland.
"It's not only bad for government, it erodes religious freedom," Eland said. "That's why we've kept the amendment."
Officials at the Anti-Defamation League, which has lobbied for more security at Jewish institutions, said they studied the bill extensively before also determining it posed too great a risk to constitutional protections. The bill's intent is akin to President Bush's faith-based initiatives, which give religious organizations access to federal funding and have sparked contentious debate in Congress, said Michael Lieberman, the Anti-Defamation League's Washington counsel.
Lieberman said another concern is the relatively small amount offered, $100 million, compared to the several billion dollars generated and used yearly by non-profits and religious institutions. Determining which institutions would get the funding could cause further divisive debate in Congress, he said.
"We would've chosen a different route," Lieberman said. "Jewish institutions really do have a special need for security. But government should not be involved in their funding. That approach is fraught with peril."
Nadler said the bill would also help non-profit groups, an often-overlooked segment that includes more than religious organizations. The American Red Cross, the YMCA and the American Hospital Association have all endorsed the bill.
Nadler, who opposed Bush's faith-based initiatives and whose district includes Ground Zero, said he was approached by the United Jewish Communities to take on the bill. But he realized he needed to redraft the proposal to expand funding beyond Jewish institutions and avoid directly funding religious groups, he said. The bill also includes loan guarantees for qualifying institutions.
To receive the benefits, groups would need to show they could be a potential target and avoid asking for things, such as burglar alarms, that are not strictly terrorist-related, he said. State homeland security offices would send lists of at-risk institutions to the federal Homeland Security Department, which would make the final selections.
The proposal is no different from providing a police cruiser to guard a mosque or sending a fire engine to a burning synagogue, Nadler said.
"We're not aiding religion," he said. "But the government should help everyone, including (religious institutions)."
Marty Levine, associate general director of the Jewish Community Centers of Chicago, said costs for security items such as new cameras, access systems and security experts at the area's seven centers have grown by more than $1 million since the Sept. 11 attacks. With the ongoing U.S. involvement in Iraq and other battles against terrorism, the costs seem likely to climb, he said.
"Financial assistance for significant additional costs is going to be welcome by the JCC," Levine said.
And non-profit officials note that they are commonly on the front lines at disaster scenes and the site of terrorist attacks but get overlooked when it comes to planning for better security.
"The non-profit sector has been a missing component of the domestic security program," said Paul Light, a professor at New York University. "This bill acknowledges these organizations can be targets in their own right."
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Rick Jervis is a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. Comment by clicking here. © 2004, Chicago Tribune. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services | |||||||||||||||||||||
