|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
July 22, 2009
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
Access Past Issues of the E-News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
Faith-Based Advisory Council Meeting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On July 8-9, the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships met to hear its taskforces report on the research and recommendations they will be preparing for the full Council. Recommendations approved by the full Advisory Council will go to the President next February.
The taskforce on reforming the faith-based office will work on recommendations concerning the "church-state" rules that apply to federal funds, ways to improve the federal government's collaboration with and support of community groups, and suggestions for improving how the federal faith-based office works with the federal faith-based centers and with state, city, and county agencies and faith/community liaisons.
A transcript or notes on the Advisory Council meeting are due to be published soon.
|
|
Health Care Reform and Conscience Protections
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The health care debates in the House and the Senate have focused on a series of key issues: extending insurance coverage to all, controlling excessive costs, whether or not there will be a government option that competes with private insurance plans, how to pay for the changes, promoting quality care. Unfortunately, a matter that is at least as important as these has not been nearly as prominent in congressional deliberations or press coverage: whether the restructured health care and insurance systems will respect the pro-life convictions of many doctors, hospitals, and taxpayers.
This marginalization of conscience protections and religious freedom concerns in the health care debate is deeply troubling. It is also very puzzling, given the significant role played in health care by faith-based health facilities and religious doctors and nurses; the many contested health care issues, from abortion and IVF to end-of-life care and genetic screening; and the controversial actions the administration and Congress have already taken (relaxing the rules on embryonic stem cell research, changing the rules about public funding of abortion, the likely withdrawal of the HHS conscience regulations).
It's not that valiant efforts haven't been made to raise these issues inside and outside of Congress (note, e.g., Marjorie Dannenfelser's article and the web briefing that a wide range of anti-abortion leaders and organizations will conduct this Thursday evening). Yet, when a determined effort is being made to radically change the health care and insurance systems, especially by elevating the role of government--with its bias toward uniformity and secularism--then religious freedom, religious health care institutions, and conscience protections ought to be at the very heart of the discussion.
|
"Hate Crimes" Bills and Religious Freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Many religious freedom advocates have been concerned that the "hate crimes" bills Congress is working on could lead to legal trouble for pastors and religious institutions who simply teach the traditional views of most religions about sexuality. In response, when the Senate debated its bill last week, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) proposed and won approval for an amendment designed to ensure protection for religious views, speech, and organizations, as long as there is no intent to foster physical violence against persons due to their sexual orientation. Still, Chris Anders of the ACLU--not a noted Religious Right organization-- warned that the Senate provision offers inadequate protection for speech and freedom of association. The ACLU argues that the House version of the legislation, passed in April, includes stronger protections. Does the House bill provide sufficient protection? As it happens, adequately protecting personal and institutional religious freedom when legislators and activist groups are determined to enforce sweeping anti-discrimination measures is very difficult. Where are the lawyers and legislators who will ensure that religious freedom is fully safeguarded if Congress insists on passing this legislation? |
Resources
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Opportunities and conditions for faith-based participation in stimulus spending:
Stanley Carlson-Thies, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Faith-Based Organizations," Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups, 10, no. 2 (July 2009), 121-126.
Advice to the administration on reorganizing the faith-based initiative:
Josh Good, Brent Orrell, and Jeanette M. Hercik, "Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - Learning from the Past, Building on the Promise," ICF International Presidential Transition series.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
