~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

White House Faith-Based Office Now Online
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On November 10th, the website of President Obama's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships went live.  The site features a blog by the Office's executive director, Joshua Dubois; a statement of policy goals; and a list of resources for groups seeking funds and information.  A menu item provides links to (most of) the faith-based centers in federal agencies (each of which has additional resources and information) and links to state faith-based offices and liaison officials. 

A page on the website gives basic information about the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. However, the page does not link to the draft recommendations that six task forces have submitted to the Advisory Council nor provide an e-address for submitting comments.  For the draft recommendations and the e-address, visit the IRFA website.  The task forces are currently revising their recommendations for final submission soon to the Advisory Council.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released on November 16th a report on its most recent survey (conducted with the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press) on faith-based organizations and their partnerships with government. 

A large proportion of the public continues to favor government service partnerships with faith-based organizations, including houses of worship--69% now compared to 75% on 2001.  Democratic support has increased over that period from 70% to 77%.  More people believe that religious organizations best serve the needy (37%) than rank non-religious organizations (28%) or government agencies (25%) the highest.  Interestingly, when asked if they had received help from some group, minorities and people with low incomes were more likely than other people to say they had been helped by a religious organization.

The report notes that most people oppose "allowing groups that encourage religious conversion to apply for federal funds to assist the needy."  But the actual question was this:  did the respondent favor or oppose a group applying for government funds to provide social services--if the group was one that "encourage[s] religious conversion as part of the services" it provides.   But of course, except in the small set of government programs that uses vouchers so that individuals have a free choice of provider, evangelization cannot be part of the federally funded services-that's been from the beginning a rule of the faith-based initiative itself.

The report also notes that most people oppose religious hiring by government-funded faith-based organizations (73% of respondents now, compared to 78% in 2001, said that religious groups that use government funds to provide social services should not be allowed "to ONLY hire people who share their religious beliefs").  What to make of this?  Asking the question at all implies that the issue is a matter of popular preference and suggests that religious hiring is a practice initiated by the Bush faith-based initiative.  Instead, the freedom for government-funded faith-based organizations to hire on a religious basis is a matter of law and constitution and the basic rules for the freedom were set before the Bush faith-based initiative. 

And what to make of this?  Respondents gave the following as important reasons why religious organizations ought to be in partnership with government to serve the needy:  the power of religion to change people's lives--59 percent; those providing the services are more caring and compassionate--68%; people needing help should have a variety of choices--78%.  If so, then the public, and the government, should be careful to protect the religious identity and faith-shaped practices of those faith-based groups that agree to help out the government . . . including protecting their freedom to make their own best judgments about which job applicants will best support their mission and services.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Manhattan Declaration:  A Call of Christian Conscience, released November 20, is an ecumenical statement about the imperative for Christian communities to defend in public policy the rights of the unborn, elderly, and disabled; marriage as historically structured; and the freedom of religious individuals and institutions to follow their religious convictions, even when these conflict with contemporary views.  The strong statement about the importance of religious freedom for religious institutions is noteworthy.  Christian and other religious groups advocate on behalf of a range of public policy issues; this Declaration is a reminder that some matters are particularly important because they are foundational.

See also:
Tobin Grant, "What Does the Manhattan Declaration Really Mean?"  Christianity Today online (Nov. 24).

Jonathan Merritt, "Manhattan Declaration unlikely to inspire young Christians," Washington Post OnFaith blog (Nov. 24).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Under the heading "A Demand for Freedom" in the current issue of First Things, editor Joseph Bottum surveys a long list of negative religious freedom incidents and trends and calls upon people of faith to resist.  It is a disheartening, though instructive, list.  But it includes an error.  Bottum says, "The president allows a diminished form of funding for faith-based institutions to continue, but only if these religious organizations stop hiring on the basis of their religion."  No such new restriction on religious hiring has been imposed by this administration.  The equal treatment faith-based rules crafted during the Clinton and Bush administrations remain intact. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bekrompen Amsterdam kan een voorbeeld nemen aan Obama," a commentary in the Dutch Protestant newspaper Trouw, Nov. 26, takes to task the secularist Amsterdam city council for proposing to exclude from government partnerships faith-based organizations that require their employees to adhere to the respective organization's mission.  The newspaper says that Amsterdam should follow the example of President Obama and focus instead on the social good performed by faith-based organizations.  (Hat tip to Albert Hengelaar.)

Faith in Good Governance is a publication of the Charity Commission, the regulator of charities in England and Wales.  It is intended to provide guidance to faith-based organizations about best practices and legal requirements "whilst recognizing that maintenance of their faith-identity, core aims and mission is key."  (Hat tip to Stephen Lazarus.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Same-sex marriage and religious freedom in Washington, DC:

Nathan Diament, "Will D.C. Bill protect religious freedom?" Washington Jewish Week online

Terry Mattingly, "Banned in Boston, DC style," GetReligion blog (Nov. 12)

Gaylen Carey, "Bravo to the Bishops," Washington Post OnFaith blog (Nov. 19))

New book on the faith-based initiative and its philosophical and religious underpinnings:  Lew Daly, God's Economy: Faith-Based Initiatives & the Caring State (Univ. of Chicago Press, 2009).  Read Daly's new book to see the Christian and public-policy underpinnings of the federal initiative that has now been pursued in three administrations.  Daly looks at the big trends and issues as well as the details, the theological and philosophical issues as well as the political and partisan disputes.  The book is thought-provoking and instructive, too, on the broader themes of government and civil society, religion and public life.