Faith-Based Discrimination

President Obama promised in his campaign to preserve President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative aimed at helping social service programs sponsored by religious organizations win federal grants and contracts. He also promised a vitally important change: groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to hire employees on the basis of their religion.

 The idea was to prevent discrimination and preserve the boundary between church and state. But Mr. Obama has not made good on the promise. His February executive order revamping the White House office for religion-based and neighborhood programs left untouched a 2002 presidential directive authorizing religious-oriented programs that receive federal financing to hire and fire on religious grounds.

Also left untouched was a constitutionally suspect 2007 memo concluding that the government cannot order religious groups not to discriminate as a condition of federal financing--even in programs like Head Start, where religious discrimination is outlawed. The memo, based on a far-fetched interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. That is the same outfit that wrote the memos authorizing torture.

A coalition of 58 religious, educational and civil liberties groups is now seeking to reverse the 2007 memo. A group letter last month to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. asked him to direct the current Office of Legal Counsel to review and withdraw the memo. Mr. Holder should do so, and Mr. Obama should revise his February executive order to include the anti-discrimination language that he omitted the first time around.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama drew the right line. Effective social service programs should not be ineligible for federal dollars just because they have a religious affiliation. But they should be required to abide by the same anti-discrimination laws as everyone else. Public money should not be used to pay for discrimination.

The following response has been submitted to the Editor of the New York Times:

Dear Editor:

Your "Faith-Based Discrimination" editorial condemned as discriminatory faith-based groups that hire persons of the same beliefs. This is not a useful characterization.  Discrimination refers to prejudiced decisions.  When Planned Parenthood doesn't hire a pro-life activist or Republican Senators reject Democrat applicants, no one yells "discrimination."  Of course not.  These are rational decisions about selecting the best personnel.

When a Jewish organization skips over Muslim candidates for executive director, or a Christian organization favors a Christian over a militant secularist, they are merely seeking to maintain their character and mission.  The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not regard religious hiring by religious organizations to be discrimination.  Nor do most federal programs--but not due to the Bush administration.  This is long-standing practice.  That may be why the President ignores your advice.  If he prohibits religious hiring, many of the government's partners will have to withdraw-disrupting federal services and harming many needy people.

Stanley Carlson-Thies

President, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance

One response, of course, is to point out that the grant rules specifically permit the faith-based organization and its staff members to talk about religious matters and to invite people who have come for help to take part in religious activities--as long as the participation is voluntary and occurs separately from the government-funded services.  Not too many faith-based organizations would want staff members who aren't committed to the organization's religious beliefs to take part in those religious discussions and activities!

And a widely cited, (if probably apocryphal) quotation from St. Francis of Assisi provides another very important reason why so many faith-based organizations prize so highly the freedom to take account of religion when adding people to their staff.

The quotation is this: "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words."  In other words, even if the staff must be silent about their religious convictions while they are performing the government-funded services, they nevertheless are witnesses--silent witnesses--to the love of God that compels them to engage in acts of service to their neighbors.  It is that love of God that the faith-based organization wants to communicate, not--however worthy these are on their own terms--simply humanitarian or professional motives.

�  Cardus, an Ontario, Canada-based Christian think tank, recently released an important study on the decline of charitable giving, volunteering, and civic participation in Canada with suggestions on how to rebuild a "culture of generosity."  The paper was written by Ray Pennings and Michael Van Pelt, with the assistance of Stephen Lazarus.  It can be purchased here.

�  The British government in 2006 created an Office of the Third Sector as part of the Cabinet Office.  The Office of the Third Sector works with the rest of the government "to support the environment for a thriving third sector (voluntary and community groups, social enterprises, charities, cooperatives and mutuals), enabling the sector to campaign for change, deliver public services, promote social enterprise and strengthen communities."  (Hat tip to Stephen Lazarus.)

�  Earlier this year the Dutch government and the association of Dutch municipalities released a handbook for municipalities on how to interact with religious communities and faith-based organizations.  The handbook explains that the separation of church and state does not require banishing religious voices and organizations from the public square.  Rather, it requires government to be evenhanded in relating to the varied faiths and philosophies of the citizens, and to treat equally faith-based organizations along with secular groups.  Among other things, those faith-based organizations should not be required to abandon their faith-based hiring in order to receive government funds to serve the community, the handbook says.  (Hat tip to Albert Hengelaar.)