|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
March 26, 2009
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
April 9 Deadline for Comments to Defend Pro-Life Conscience Regulation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Department of Health and Human Services is only taking comments for the brief period of 30 days on its proposal to withdraw a Bush regulation designed to protect health care institutions and professionals who have a conscientious objection to participating in or supporting abortion. The Federal Register notice details the several ways to submit comments.
The Christian Medical Association, CareNet, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Salvation Army, and other health care, public policy, and legal groups have collaborated on Freedom2Care-a website and campaign to defend the regulation and more generally the vital freedom of medical staff and facilities to exercise their best judgment about health care decisions. The website provides an easy way to communicate your support for conscience protections to the administration, Congress, and the public.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops responded to the HHS request for comments with a noteworthy memo. The comment points out that the administration is not free to make up its own policy on protecting pro-life doctors and hospitals: Congress already has decided that objectors to abortion should be protected-the conscience regulation specifies how three existing laws that protect abortion dissidents should be implemented. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution to require doctors, hospitals, or others to provide, refer for, or fund abortions. A "pro-choice" stance that has integrity will protect doctors and hospitals who object to abortions.
Furthermore, removing conscience protections will diminish health care for those who most need it: (1) many faith-based doctors and health institutions will not perform abortions even if the conscience protection is removed, and thus may be forced to exit the profession; (2) a reduction in faith-based health care will hit the poor hardest-unlike for-profit providers, faith-based professionals are willing to serve the poor in rural areas and inner cities "because they see those patients as having inherent human dignity and human rights"; and (3) forcing objecting doctors out of the profession reduces religious diversity and will be detrimental to the many patients who desire to be served by medical professionals "who do not see the taking of human life as part of a profession devoted to healing."
The USCCB comment also identifies professional associations, advocacy groups, and state and local governments that urge the overriding of conscientious objections to abortion-as if Congress had not passed the three laws the Bush regulation implements. The last issue of this eNewsletter noted that the Center for Law and Religious Freedom (Christian Legal Society) similarly has pointed out, that various opponents of the Bush regulation have demonstrated by their own words in court documents that they have not understood or respected the protections specified in those laws, thus demonstrating themselves the need for the regulation.
|
National Service Bill: Is More of a Good Thing Still a Good Thing?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The House last week passed HR 1388, the GIVE Act, and the Senate this week is considering S 277, the Serve America Act-similar bills that will vastly expand the programs of the Corporation for National and Community Service, increasing the number of federally-supported service positions from the current 75,000 annually to 250,000 annually.
The existing programs, such as AmeriCorps, VISTA, and Senior Corps have been derided by some as oxymoronic paid volunteer positions: college-age students who participate, for instance, have their basic expenses covered plus get an award toward college tuition.
In fact, although some of the participants do serve their time providing direct services, many, after training, serve in nonprofit organizations (faith-based as well a secular) to mobilize community volunteers for service. And many use their talents and training to develop the ability of small groups to better carry out their own missions-a capacity-building role encouraged by the last administration. The Bush administration worked hard, too, to ensure that the rule that Corporation support not be used for inherently religious purposes is not over-extended to exclude faith-based groups or to suppress religious exercise outside of Corporation-supported hours and responsibilities.
So the current program is, at least to a significant degree, an example of government supporting civil society, not replacing it. Does that justify the proposed massive expansion? Four reasons for caution:
� The Corporation, whose programs are an amalgam of Great Society-era ideas and Clinton-administration plans, already confronts many challenges in ensuring that its diverse responsibilities are carried out effectively and efficiently; the proposed massive expansion in the variety of programs and number of participants at best will strain its management capacity.
� The Corporation's programs may not be, in so many words, mere paid volunteerism, but there's no doubt that the federal resources that successful applicant organizations win can enable them to offer a more enticing opportunity than can competing organizations without taxpayer support. Does this federal thumb on the scale improve or distort the deployment of volunteers?
� President Obama and other supporters of expanded national service programs often use terminology such as "expanding public service." But, of course, it isn't necessary to sign up for a federal program to get engaged in serving our society. In fact, most service to "the public" takes place outside federal (or state or local) programs-as when a student at a religious college volunteers to tutor struggling middle school students, community members serve at a food bank or take turns staffing a shelter for domestic-abuse victims, or a faith-based or secular group visits prisoners or mentors ex-prisoners seeking to reintegrate into society. The Corporation for National and Community Service may play a useful role, but massively expanding its programs is hardly the only, or even the best, way to foster increased service to our neighbors.
� Worst of all, some are justifying this vast expansion of federally-supported volunteering as an alternative for young people and others unable to find employment in the current economic crisis. But a temporary economic crisis is no justification at all for suddenly multiplying the size of the Corporation for National and Community Service. And putting pressure on the Corporation and its grantees to take on thousands or tens of thousands of participants not because they have a strong desire to serve the community, but instead because they want to avoid the unemployment line makes no sense at all.
Making the Corporation for National and Community Service more than three times bigger won't multiply community service the same amount: more likely it will crowd out other volunteer opportunities and programs, strengthen the pernicious idea that only government programs offer genuine public service, and overwhelm the ability of the Corporation staff to ensure that the most good possible comes out of the federal expenditures and the volunteers' hopes and energy.
A footnote: Senators Baucus (D-MT) and Grassley (R-IA) have introduced an amendment to add an additional $5 million per year for five years to the Corporation budget to be awarded to larger organizations to help fund expanded capacity-building training for small nonprofits. The stimulus bill already allocated extra millions of dollars beyond past Compassion Capital Fund expenditures for similar capacity-building awards. Rather than just pile on more millions, wouldn't it be better for the Senate to insist that a larger proportion of the Corporation's regular expenditures and participants be used for capacity-building instead of direct service? If the Corporation's programs have a justification in our society-which is already primed for volunteering-surely it is to facilitate greater activism by private organizations, not to substitute for that activism.
|
Eye on the Administration
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In his press conference on Tuesday evening, President Obama defended the plan from his budget outline to decrease the tax incentive for the very wealthy to make charitable contributions. The Washington Post reported that studies from both the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University predict a significant decrease in income to charities if the tax change is made-overall charitable giving would decline from 1.3% (the CBPP estimate) to 2.1% (the CP estimate). The Center on Philanthropy predicts that the wealthiest households would cut their giving by $3.87 billion. The President defended the measure again as a means to equalize tax breaks between the wealthy and other taxpayers; an administration official added that the change ought to be judged in terms of the entire budget-charitable giving might dip but the government's larger tax take would help fund health-care reform. But the income shift is not peanuts, even when the administration and Congress are tossing around tens of billions and even trillions of dollars. It is especially not a minor amount in an era when social needs have expanded and the resources available to charities are shrinking even if the recovery comes as quickly as the budget assumes. As noted in the previous edition of this eNews, President Obama says he doesn't believe in big government; is a pragmatist, not an ideologue; and seeks to foster partnerships between government and private groups so that their particular strengths are fully utilized. How does reducing incentives to give contribute to strengthening civil society's helping institutions? Much better than this budget proposal is an idea from the Poverty Forum: go one better than the Bush administration and enact into law the non-itemizer deduction so that poorer taxpayers have an added incentive to increase their giving to charities. |
Eye on the Obama Faith-Based Initiative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Early in February, President Obama announced his version of the federal faith-based initiative, with a renamed White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and an advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He issued an executive order instituting these organizational changes but leaving intact the current rules that structure the government's relations with faith-based and secular organizations-most important, the Charitable Choice rules adopted during the Clinton administration and the Equal Treatment rules of the Bush administration.
The revised operation is slowly getting underway. Fifteen members of the advisory Council were named with the announcement of the Council; an announcement about the additional members will be made soon. The twelve renamed Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in federal agencies are at various levels of operation and updating. The webpage of the former White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) disappeared with the inauguration of President Obama; a new one is still under construction. Information about the Obama initiative, including the new White House Office and advisory Council, is not yet posted on the White House website.
In the meantime, much information from the Bush initiative remains online-as is suitable, given the many positive changes and outcomes of that initiative, the Obama administration's desire to maintain what has worked, and the decision not to make any immediate changes in policy. The Innovations in Compassion website, for example, is accessible, with its deep archives of studies, stories, and policy developments. Unfortunately, with the deactivation of the former OFBCI webpage, its listing of faith and community offices in 36 states and the District of Columbia disappeared. However, that listing, which hasn't been updated since the end of the Bush administration, is available at the George W. Bush archive website.
|
Unions, Religious Higher Education, and the Positive Value of Church-State Separation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On March 13, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled that the National Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction to require Carroll College to bargain with a lay faculty member's union. The court ruling, which reverses a NLRB finding, is important to leaders of religious higher education who fear that unionization can make it harder for an institution to adhere to its religious mission.
The decision has broader significance, as well. The NLRB had accepted that some religious colleges are entitled to an exemption from collective bargaining. But it argued that Carroll College was not such an exempt organization because it could not pass the NLRB's "substantial religious character" test. Among other things, the Board disqualified the college from the religious exemption on the ground that, although it held itself out as a religious institution, there was little evidence that it succeeded in providing a religious environment or in inculcating religious beliefs. But the DC Circuit Court emphatically rejected the NLRB's approach. It is a violation of the first amendment-of the legitimate and necessary separation between church and state-for government officials to "troll through" the beliefs and activities of religious organizations in an effort to decide whether those convictions and practices are authentic.
Instead, the appeals court told the NLRB to stick to a three-part "bright line" test that requires no such intrusive and unconstitutional inquiry: if the organization (1) represents itself to students, faculty, and the public as a religious educational institution, (2) is organized as a nonprofit, and (3) is connected with or controlled by a church or other religious entity, then the organization is, for the purposes of the national labor relations act, a religious college or university and entitled to the exemption from collective bargaining.
This is an important decision in the current circumstances in which officials, intent on requiring uniformity ("nondiscrimination"), bring increasing pressure on religious organizations that insist on their own standards and practices. The temptation for regulators is to make religious exemptions as narrow as possible-to acknowledge that churches or ministers are exempt but to insist that para-church organizations or "non-ministerial" staff are not. This decision is a reminder that it isn't up to Caesar to decide what is true and authentic religion, or which is a real religious organization entitled to exemptions from otherwise applicable laws.
|
Pressures on the Religious Identity and Practices of Faith-Based Organizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The valuable Center Blog from the Center for Law and Religious Freedom has recent postings on how "nondiscrimination" rules are being used against religious student groups. One post links to the podcast of a discussion by the Center's Casey Mattox and attorney Alan Reinach. The other post quotes David French of the Alliance for Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom about the absurdity of the attacks on associational freedom: "Imagine telling a Baptist church that its search for a new pastor had to include equal consideration of Buddhist or Hindu candidates. Imagine telling a synagogue that they were engaged in unlawful 'discrimination' if they categorically refused to permit imams from functioning as rabbis. How can student [groups] guarantee that they can maintain their distinctive voice if each group essentially has to be open to all students, regardless of those students' beliefs or intentions?" |
April 2 Symposium on the Obama Faith-Based Initiative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Berkley Center at Georgetown University is sponsoring a symposium on April 2, noon to 1:30 pm, "New Challenges for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." Panelists are Stanley Carlson-Thies, E. J. Dionne, Ira C. Lupu, and Melissa Rogers. RSVP required.
|
A Dutch Perspective on the Principles that Undergird the Faith-Based Initiative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The federal faith-based initiative, now in its third version (Clinton, Bush, Obama), is more than a pragmatic (or theocratic!) policy innovation, not simply a random grab for some way, any way, to enlist more faith-based organizations to be partners with the government in providing social services. Although in the non-ideological tradition of American policymaking it is not easy to trace influences, some American observers have noted that the basic principles of the initiative are akin to Catholic social thought's concept of "subsidiarity," which calls on different institutions of society to play their own distinctive roles. Dutch observers (and other analysts aware of the Dutch neo-Calvinist tradition) have pointed to the principle of "sphere sovereignty," most closely associated with Abraham Kuyper, who in the last decades of the 19th century and the first years of the 20th century articulated in the Netherlands a similar concept to distinguish between the appropriate roles of government and civil society institutions. Dutch readers will find interesting a recent story noting the award of a history prize to Albertine Bloemendal for her thesis, "Abraham Kuyper's Road to the White House: How Kuyperian Thought Came to Influence American Welfare Reform." In the course of her studies, Bloemendal spoke extensively with James Skillen, president, and me, then social policy studies director, at the Center for Public Justice. For other studies pointing to this Kuyper connection, see, e.g., Stanley Carlson-Thies, ""Abraham Kuyper in the White House? Why Dordt Isn't So Far from Washington, D.C.," Pro Rege, March 2006. Stanley Carlson-Thies, "Why Should Washington, DC, Listen to Rome and Geneva About Public Policy for Civil Society," in Jeanne Heffernan Schindler, ed., Christianity and Civil Society: Catholic and Neo-Calvinist Perspectives (Lexington Books, 2008). Lew Daly, God and the Welfare State (MIT Press, 2006). See Joseph Knippenberg's review in the Journal of Markets & Morality, Spring 2007. |
|
|
|
|
For further information:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
e-mail: info@IRFAlliance.org
website (under construction): www.IRFAlliance.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
What is IRFA?
The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance works to safeguard the religious identity, faith-based standards and practices, and faith-shaped services of faith-based organizations across the range of service sectors and religions, enabling them to make their distinctive and best contributions to the common good.
|
|
|
|
