|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
April 23, 2009
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
NEW! ACCESS PAST ISSUES OF THE E-NEWS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
Eye on the Obama Faith-Based Initiative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
White House Briefing.
Press reports have noted a private White House Briefing on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that was held on April 6-7. Most of the members of the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships attended. Also participating were leaders of faith-based organizations, secular nonprofits, and advocacy organizations, including your editor.
Sessions included an overview of the renamed Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships (OFBNP); comments from Melody Barnes, director of the Domestic Policy Council; and discussions of the administration's policies for reducing domestic and global poverty, addressing climate change and environmental challenges, promoting inter-religious dialogue, and strengthening fatherhood and families.
Briefing Snapshots.
Joshua DuBois, executive director of the White House OFBNP, said that the Office, building on the work of the previous administration to level the playing field for secular and faith-based grassroots groups, would stress reaching substantive goals, such as decreasing poverty and minimizing abortions and unintended pregnancies. He stressed strong patrolling to be sure that restrictions on religious expression and religious activities in government-funded services are respected, and emphasized the administration's commitment to the Constitution's church-state guidelines (it is worth noting: Charitable Choice during the Clinton administration and the Bush faith-based initiative were created in order to bring federal practice into line with the First Amendment). Another speaker was Ben O'Dell, acting director of the HHS Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships-who formerly was deputy director of the Bush HHS Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The session on faith-based organizations and the economic recovery plan featured Candy Hill of Catholic Charities USA, who noted that their website includes resources to help groups track spending, whether to search for funding opportunities or to monitor state and local agencies to make sure funds are spent appropriately. The session on Fatherhood and Healthy Families included presentations from the National Fatherhood Initiative and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy-presentations stressing that poverty's causes include family breakdown and unwise sexual choices.
Advisory Council.
The full 25-person membership of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships was announced on April 6. With regard to safeguarding the religious freedom of faith-based groups, especially encouraging additions to the Council are:
� Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association
� Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
� Anthony Picarello, General Counsel at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
Advisory Council Task Forces.
A Washington Post blogpost notes that six task forces have been set up: reforming the faith-based office and the rules for faith-based participation; strengthening fatherhood; the economic recovery; inter-religious dialogue; global poverty; and climate change and the environment. The members of the Council will be distributed among these task forces, and outside experts will be added to them. The composition of the task forces has not yet been announced. These will be advisory groups, not policymaking bodies.
Religious Hiring
Joshua DuBois, head of the White House OFBNP, recently reiterated that the Obama administration will use a case-by-case approach when considering religious staffing by faith-based organizations that receive federal dollars. During the campaign, Barack Obama had called for banning religious staffing in any service a faith-based group operates with federal funds-the first time there would be a universal suppression of this religious freedom. But when he established his revamped faith-based initiative, President Obama instead left in place the existing rules on hiring and other important church-state matters-many of these rules predate the Bush administration or are required by the courts-while establishing a review process.
The existing rules on religious staffing when a faith-based organization receives federal funds (from a federal, state, or local agency) are these, in brief:
� The basic rule is that faith-based organizations can take account of religion in making employment decisions, for any and all positions in the organization, but are not permitted to discriminate against employees or applicants on the bases of race, ethnicity, sex, nationality, etc.
� A faith-based organization does not lose this religious staffing freedom merely by accepting federal or state or local government funds.
� Some federal programs (e.g., Head Start) forbid religious hiring by all participating groups. (A faith-based organization may appeal to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to have this burden lifted so that it can receive funds despite its policy of religious staffing.)
� Some federal programs include Charitable Choice language that specifically protects religious hiring by faith-based groups.
� Many federal programs are silent about employment requirements, thus leaving intact the religious staffing freedom.
� Some state and local governments that award funds to private groups to provide services require all recipients not to hire by religion, no matter what the federal law for the program says.
Will the Obama case-by-case review of religious staffing by faith-based organizations follow this understanding or develop a different view of the applicable laws?
Equally important: will the fierce critics of religious staffing in Congress, some of them prominent members of the now very large Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, use their new power to change those laws-to add prohibitions on religious staffing where there never have been such restrictions? Restrictions might be added via riders to budget bills, a new provision when a program is reauthorized, or language built into the law for a new social service, health, or education program.
A Witness to Congress. Faith-based organizations that consider religious staffing to be vital to maintaining their religious identity and faith-shaped practices-whether they consider religion for some positions or all positions-should take note of the hostility of many in Congress to this vital religious freedom. They might consider making a statement like the following when talking with their elected representatives about government services and about faith-based partnerships with government:
Religious Identity and Service
Our faith-based organization serves people without regard to religion and does not require participation in explicitly religious activities.
Our employment policy supports our religious identity and mission and our passion for service. Our staff models our beliefs about faith and life to those inside and outside our organization. We consider religion when hiring, as the law permits; this is no different than what political and social organizations do to further their missions.
If changed government rules make it illegal to consider those of like-minded faith when hiring for our service programs, we regrettably will no longer be able to accept government funds to partner to provide those services.
|
Subsidiarity Watch
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Catholic concept of "subsidiarity" expresses the historic Christian understanding that while government plays a legitimate and vital role in human life, so do non-governmental organizations, and that the government must not play God but instead should respect citizens' convictions by upholding religious freedom.
Subsidiarity is often summarized by saying that larger organizations (the federal government, a state agency) should only step in when smaller ones (towns, charities, churches, families) are incapable of doing what is required. An important aspect of subsidiarity (which is stressed in the similar neo-Calvinist concept of sphere sovereignty) is that the government, if it steps in, should if possible support, rather than supplant, the private organizations and that it should relate to those private organizations in ways that respect their distinctive characteristics, including their religious or humanitarian missions.
In subsidiarity perspective, here are four aspects of the unfolding Obama agenda that are of special concern:
1. Specific decisions that are detrimental to faith-based organizations, such as the proposed withdrawal of the HHS regulation protecting hospitals and doctors who object to abortion;
2. The large expansion of government spending and programs, which necessarily encroaches on private organizations and their services;
3. The commitment to an efficient and energetic government-a good principle in itself, but worrisome in the absence of a clear articulation of the limits on what government should attempt;
4. Expanded government social-service, health, and education spending for which civil society groups are eligible to apply-but without a robust and precise commitment to their autonomy, including a principled commitment to institutional religious freedom.
|
Single-Sex Marriage
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Whatever other consequences the legalization of same-sex marriage will have, it is certain there will be extensive conflicts with people and institutions of faith who are committed to marriage as a union of one man and one woman. (Skeptical about clashes? Read Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, edited by Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.) But those clashes can be minimized if a legislature enacts exemptions so that professionals, business owners, and religious organizations who object to the redefinition of marriage can obey their consciences. Several law scholars (Thomas Berg, Robin Fretwell Wilson, Carl Esbeck, and Richard Garnett) recently submitted an extremely important letter to Connecticut state senator Michael McLachlan outlining how the proposed state bill 899 to legalize same-sex marriage should be modified to protect religious exercise. Their letter proposes protecting objecting individuals and institutions from penalty in these areas: employment, housing, and public accommodation law; licensing; government grants and contracts; and tax-exempt status. By contrast, the religious freedom protections proposed in the current Vermont same-sex marriage bill are not nearly extensive enough. Protecting conscientious objectors in this way will not prevent what many fear will be further damage to the institution of marriage and to child wellbeing caused by the redefinition of marriage. But letting judges and legislatures redefine marriage without protecting religious freedom won't prevent those negative consequences, either. Protecting religious freedom has its own importance, separate from the important disputes about what marriage is. |
Respecting Religious Freedom for the Sake of the Needy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Critics of government partnerships with faith-based services often voice the fear that in rural and other areas the needy will not get a full range of services due to those organizations' religious scruples. Officials, indeed, need to take care so that legal services are available. But, as it happens, a sure way to decrease the availability of services to the poor is for the government not to respect the religious freedom-the conscience rights-of religious professionals and organizations:
� "95% of physicians in a national poll agreed: 'I would rather stop practicing medicine altogether than be forced to violate my conscience.' Driving faith-based professionals out of medicine would strand hundreds of thousands of patients, especially in those rural vicinities who rely on only a few doctors in their areas." From "Why keep the conscience rights regulation?"
� Robin Fretwell Wilson's article, "A Matter of Conviction: Moral Clashes over Same-Sex Adoption," BYU Journal of Public Law, vol. 22:2 (Winter 2008), notes numerous instances of faith-based organizations and religious professionals exiting a field of service rather than compromise their deepest convictions.
And there is this other reality about the availability of services: as the US Conference of Catholic Bishops' comment on the proposed withdrawal of the HHS conscience-protection regulation points out, "Many patients want access to physicians and other health care providers who do not see the taking of human life as part of a profession devoted to healing. Those patients will find no like-minded physicians to serve them, if those physicians are driven out of their chosen specialty or even out of medical practice altogether."
|
Policy Briefing for Faith-Based Organizations, May 11
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IRFA has organized a policy briefing for faith-based organizations and leaders intent on preserving the religious identity and faith-shape policies and practices of religious service organizations. This is a closed event-no reporters. Is the environment for faith-based services and schools becoming less welcoming? What are the key policy, legal, and opinion trends in Washington DC and across the country? Date: Monday, May 11, 1-5 pm (sign-in beginning at 12:30). Location: Ebenezers Coffeehouse basement meeting room, 201 F Street, NE, Washington DC (just east of Union Station). For details and directions: http://ebenezerscoffeehouse.com/Cost: $20. Cash or check payable to IRFA. Mail to IRFA, 984 St. Johns Drive, Annapolis, MD 21409 or bring to the event. Space is limited; you must RSVP to attend. RSVP (name and organization) by close of business May 7 to events@irfalliance.orgAgenda12:30 - 1:00 Sign-in; get materials.1:00 - 1:15 Welcome: Stanley Carlson-Thies, IRFA founder and president1:15 - 2:30 The Clash Between the Anti-Discrimination Agenda and Religious Freedom� on ENDA: Greg Baylor, Director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, Christian Legal Society � on pro-life conscience protections: Michael Moses, Associate General Counsel, US Conference of Catholic Bishops � on student religious clubs: Steve Aden, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund 2:30 - 3:15 The Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations to Staff on a Religious Basis: legal developments and best practices for faith-based organizations� Steven McFarland, Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, World Vision 3:15 - 4:00 The Obama Administration's Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership: what does it portend for faith-based organizations?� Jim Wallis, President and CEO of Sojourners and member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships 4:00 - 4:45 Did the 2009 Elections Mark a Decisive Turning Point in American Politics, Culture, and Religion?� Luis Lugo, Director, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life 4:45 - 5:00 Summing Up: Stanley Carlson-Thies |
Persistent Media Myths
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Bush faith-based and community initiative was undermined by the persistent media story that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiative controlled a large stash of "faith-based money" and was authorized to distribute it to favored religious groups. Your editor was once introduced by a member of Congress to a large roomful of resource-poor faith leaders with words like these: "My staff has told me that the White House faith-based office skims 10% off every federal grant and gives the money to faith-based organizations, and here's a speaker who will tell you how to get some of that money!"
Alas, I had to puncture that congressional fantasy. In reality, federal funds are allocated not by any White House office but by officials and award committees in various federal, state, and local government agencies and departments (and by members of Congress who "earmark" funds for favored groups).
But not only Bush officials will be tormented by the urban myth that the White House faith-based office will be deciding how money will be "doled out" (to use the words of Washington Post editorialists). Joshua DuBois, executive director of the Obama office, mentioned at the early-April briefing the persistence of the myth. And Melissa Rodgers, a critic of the Bush initiative who is now on the Obama Advisory Council, has ruefully noted that she has had to compose a form letter to send back to the "scores" of people who get in touch with her in the hope that she can help them get government money. |
Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stanley Carlson-Thies, "The Faith-Based Initiative: Both Cause of Contention and the Solution to an Impasse?" Journal of Ecumenical Studies (Winter 2009), 70-85.
Jennifer Marshall and Katherine Bradley, "The Dirty Dozen: 12 New Policies That Undermine Civil Society," WebMemo no. 2389, April 9, 2009 (Heritage Foundation).
Ryan Messmore, "Proposed Decrease in Charitable Tax Deduction Crowds Out Civil Society," Backgrounder, no. 2258, April 10, 2009 (Heritage Foundation).
Newt Gingrich and Rick Tyler, "Goodbye Charity: Churches and charitable institutions provide services that some politicians feel belong to the federal government," Christianity Today online, April 20, 2009.
Brad Wilcox, "More Government, Less God: What the Obama Revolution Means for Religion in America," Public Discourse, March 2, 2009.
Franklin Foer and Noam Scheiber, "Nudge-ocracy: Barack Obama's new theory of the state," The New Republic, May 6, 2009 (A particular kind of "pragmatism": "[T]he Obamanauts typically have an outcome they want to promote. . . [But] they instinctively recoil from imposing it unilaterally. So, instead, they monkey around with the choices people make, seeking to influence decision-making rather than mandate decisions.") |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
