Sign up for Weekday J and get the latest on what's happening in the Jewish Bay Area.

There may be nothing wrong with a social service that asks people to pray to God or accept Jesus.

"But there is something wrong," said Fred Blum, "when the government funds it."

Blum, who volunteers as a lawyer for the S.F.-based American Jewish Congress chapter, is not alone in his sentiments. Several Bay Area Jewish leaders have come out against President Bush's recent faith-based initiative, which would shift federal funds for social services to providers from the religious sector.

Bush signed two executive orders last week, establishing a federal office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and centers in five federal agencies to ensure their cooperation with religious and secular groups.

The Bush administration defended the initiatives, saying its aim is to fund faith-based social services, not the religious approaches of the providers.

Still, some fear the launch of such programs will tear down the wall between church and state.

"For people who believe that the security of all America is preserved by the separation of church and state, this is not good news," said John Rothmann, a talk-show host for KGO-Radio and a former adviser to President Nixon.

Others fear something quite different: Regulations that accompany government funding could dilute the religious component of existing and future faith-based programming.

"The integrity of the religious experience will have to be compromised, one way or another, because of the separation of church and state," said Rabbi Jacob Traub of Adath Israel, an Orthodox San Francisco congregation.

Either way, we lose, said Blum. Not only does "government money come with government restrictions," he said, but, "by its very nature, charitable choice excludes those who don't believe in Jesus or even a Western God."

Some, however, note that funding faith-based programs is not a new phenomenon. Local faith-based groups, including Jewish organizations, already receive government funding to provide a number of social services.

In addition, "there are hundreds of billions of dollars being distributed right now to faith-based institutions through tax breaks," said Tad Taube, president of the Koret Foundation.

Although Traub disagrees with the Bush plan, many Jews in the Orthodox community have lauded the idea of charitable choice, provided it protects minority religions. The Jewish Community Relations Council shares a similar viewpoint.

"Charitable choice may open up the potential for a faith-based institution to make serious contributions in addressing major social issues," said Doug Kahn, executive director of the S.F.-based JCRC. "But, if not accompanied with significant safeguards, it does pose a serious danger of eroding the separation of church and state."

The JCRC is in the process of drafting a policy to request the following safeguards to charitable choice:

* The state should provide and notify beneficiaries of non-religious alternatives equivalent in quality and accessibility to religious ones.

* Religious institutions should have a separate account for government funds. Ideally, they should create a separate entity for services funded by the government.

* Providers should be prohibited from discrimination based on religion, belief or practice.

* Beneficiaries should not be required or pressured to participate in worship activities and religious indoctrination must be strictly prohibited.

The safeguards are similar to those formulated by the statewide lobbying arm of the JCRCs, the Jewish Public Affairs Committee. JPAC will use the safeguards as guidelines when lobbying state legislators.

However, Rothmann remains skeptical that charitable choice has a silver lining.

Aside from breaching the separation of church and state, he said there is no guarantee government funds won't be misused for proselytizing or for religious programming.

But Taube said it's possible funds may already be misused. And furthermore, "virtually every synagogue and church is subsidized through the United States government with tax relief."

"I don't see people agonizing over whether these tax dollars are uniformly distributed among religious institutions or concerned that that money is being improperly used," he said.

Moreover, Taube said, the Jewish community should find comfort in knowing that former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, a key player in the new faith-based initiative office, is himself a Jew.

Goldsmith is a "very conservative Republican" Jew, warned Rothmann, saying the ex-mayor was "firmly committed to this type of program" during his failed re-election campaign.

"Bush's whole history shows that he is going to project his faith in everything he does," Rothmann added. "You've got a team of people who believe very strongly and are going to push this program and programs like this."

Blum agreed with Rothmann.

"Just look at the inauguration," said Blum, referring to the highly publicized reference to Jesus Christ during the benediction. "Is that the type of country Bush wants? Is that his idea of charitable choice?

"And if I have a choice of being a drug addict unless I say, 'Jesus is my savior,' what real choice do I have?"

Coincidentally, Blum is currently representing the AJCongress in its suit against the California Employment Development Department for allegedly soliciting proposals for $5 million in funding for programs restricted to faith-based providers.

"I'm hoping by winning this one we can create a legal environment in California that says…we won't single out and give religious groups a preference," he said.

As for the legal environment in the rest of the country, Rothmann succinctly answered: "Be nervous."

Taube just as succinctly disagreed.

"It's a non-issue," he said.