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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The decision from the 9th circuit federal appeals court in the case of Spencer v. World Vision finally came down, on August 23rd, and it vindicated World Vision's religious hiring policies.  Former employees, fired because they no longer followed World Vision's religious commitments, had charged the organization with religious job discrimination, claiming that it was not a "religious organization" entitled to the religious hiring exemption of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  

The appeals court, backing up the decision of the Seattle federal court from 2008, firmly disagreed with this novel theory.  An organization can be humanitarian and religious at the same time.  To be entitled to the exemption, it need not be a church nor be controlled by a church nor do only "religious" things.  Rather, to qualify as a religious organization entitled to the religious exemption, an organization needs to show that that it is "organized for a self-identified religious purpose" as manifested in its foundational documents, is "engaged in activity consistent with, and in furtherance of" the religious purpose, and "holds itself out to the public as religious."  

The opinion affirms that, to be fulfilling a "religious purpose," an organization need not confine itself to worship-like activities.  Serving "secular" needs because of a divine calling is a valid religious purpose.  Moreover, it can be a legitimate expression of an organization's religious approach that it serves people of all or no faiths and that it refuses to force its religious views on those it serves.  

In short:  to be an organization legally able to select employees on a religious basis, a nonprofit organization must make clear its religious identity, manifest that identity in the way it operates, and tie its employment practices to its religious commitments.

All that is to the good.  But the decision was 2-1, and the dissenting judge insisted that World Vision must be a secular, not a religious, organization, because it engages in humanitarian work and not in worship or religious teaching.  That's a cramped view of religion, of course:  in Christian terms, as if Jesus had commanded his followers only to love God entirely--without adding that love for neighbors is equally important.  Supporters of faith-based service in the world will have to keep making their case to the rest of society.

For further information:

9th circuit opinion: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/23/08-35532.pdf

IRFA resources on religious hiring: http://irfalliance.org/religious-hiring.html

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opponents of religious hiring have been ramping up pressure on the administration and on Congress to put a stop to what they call "religious job discrimination" when federal money is involved.  Given the few legislative days left and the desire of many Democratic members of the House to steer away from any action that could be controversial, it seems unlikely that the opponents' wishes will result in any action before the November elections.

But news stories have suggested interest by some prominent Democrats in holding votes on controversial matters after the election and before January--during the lame duck session when members who were voted out still hold office and their newly elected replacements have not yet been seated.  No one knows yet what will be attempted, nor whether enough re-elected Democrats would want to go along with such a controversial process.

Faith-based organizations that want to preserve their freedom to take part in federally funded programs without first giving up their faith-based hiring practices might want to consider two lines of action:
 
(1) tell their elected representatives (who are "back home" until after Labor Day) how important religious hiring is to them and the good work that they do; and
(2) tell the same thing to each of the candidates running for the House and Senate seats for their area.  

Remind the politicians that the opponents of religious hiring are simply wrong.  According to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is not illegal discrimination when a faith-based organization considers religion when deciding who to hire.  There is no general ban on religious hiring by federal grantees, although some federal programs do impose that condition.  But even in that case the faith-based organization can appeal to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in order to take part in the program without giving up its religious hiring practices.

If they say that they simply are against discrimination and that's the end of the story, ask them how many members of the opposition party they hire for all those federally funded jobs in their office in Washington DC and in the multiple offices in their home state or district.  If they say "That's different, because politics is relevant when I'm hiring," ask them why they think religion is irrelevant to employers and potential employees of religious organizations.  And ask them why they think it would be legitimate for the government to substitute its judgment about the relevance of religion for the judgment of the religious organization itself.

On the growing pressure in Washington to restrict religious hiring, see this story: http://irfalliance.org/component/content/article/40-signs-of-the-times-rising-washington-tide-against-religious-hiring.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congresswoman Betty McCollum has proposed the "Nonprofit Sector and Community Solutions Act," HR 5533, to boost the federal government's understanding of and support for nonprofit organizations.  There would be a new advisory council mainly of experts and a new interagency working group of federal officials.  These new groups would consider how the federal government can better work with nonprofits, such as ideas for streamlining the federal grants process, expanding federal initiatives to build the capacity of nonprofit organizations, improving the government's relationships with organizations it partners with to provide services, and expanding funding for those partners.  The federal government would fund more research on the sector.  And it would collect more information from those nonprofit organizations.  Some have likened all this to a "Small Business Administration for Nonprofits" and laud an enlarged federal role. Diana Aviv, head of the Independent Sector, the lobby for large, mainly secular, nonprofits, says, "To be even more effective, nonprofits need to be able to utilize government resources much in the way business does."

So is this bill a good idea?  Given how vital nonprofit organizations are in so many sectors of our nation's life, and how extensive a role they play in delivering government-funded services, knowing more about what they do and how they do it, and devising better ways for the government to interact with them and support them, seems all to the good.  

Yet the government's helping hand can be less than helpful.  While the bill is well-intentioned, it also is troubling.  Several commentators have noted that it contemplates a big increase in the data gathered from nonprofits--without noting that the IRS already recently began gathering much new data and that much of the data already flowing into government apparently is simply ignored.  The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability points out that, as it stands, the bill does not include an exemption for churches and church-related entities, although these currently are exempt from filing the 990 form with the IRS.  

And, except for one brief mention, the bill ignores the federal government's existing mechanism to improve its support for the nonprofit sector:  the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and its counterpart Centers in a dozen federal departments and agencies.  (Ironically, some of the ideas in this bill were recommended by the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships--but there the stress was on including faith-based and grassroots organizations.)  

And while the bill rightly notes that nonprofits benefit our society by their work in "religion, faith, and spirituality" as well as in providing health, educational, cultural, and other services, it is strikingly silent on the reality that many of the nonprofits in every area of service are themselves faith-based with an identity and practices that differ from their secular counterparts.  Sarah Seitz of the Congressional Prayer Caucus notes that the original "Community Solutions Act," HR 7, introduced in 2001, was specifically designed to protect the ability of faith-based organizations to participate in federally funded programs without suppressing their religious identity, by extending Charitable Choice rules to a wide range of federal programs.  Alas, Congresswoman McCollum was against that measure because of Charitable Choice.

One blogger said this about Congresswoman McCollum's bill:  "The nonprofit sector is enormously diverse.  It is difficult to see how this proposal will lead to a more vibrant nonprofit community as a whole.  Rather, it seems directed primarily at entrenching the relationship between the federal government and large nonprofit organizations."   Make that: "large secular nonprofit organizations."  If needed at all, the bill should first get major work before being considered.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The British government has been busy for several years rigorously implementing an Equality law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation, with virtually no accommodation for institutions or individuals committed to upholding traditional sexual morality.  A predictable conflict was with adoption agencies that, because of their religiously based convictions about how children flourish, have a policy of placing children with mother-father families.  

When the policy began to be enforced in the adoption field, there were a dozen Catholic adoption agencies in England and Wales.  Eleven of them quickly either secularized themselves, cutting their link with the Church and changing their adoption policy, or maintained their link with the Church and stopped assisting with adoptions.  One agency protested, fighting the application of the Equality law.  

That last Catholic adoption agency, Catholic Care, has now lost.  The Charity Commission, which had the power to exempt the agency from the requirement to disregard sexual orientation, instead ruled that Catholic Care must submit to it.  

Catholic Care pointed out that, besides violating its convictions about how best to help orphan children, being forced to change its adoption policy would harm its support from Catholic donors and reduce the flow of Catholic parents who were drawn to it to become adoptive parents.

None of that mattered to the Charity Commission.  According to the BBC's account, the Charity Commission ruled that "gay people were suitable parents" and that "ending the charity's adoption work would not harm the interests of children."  QED.  Big Brother knows best.  So much for the nearly 150 years that this Catholic agency has labored to find homes for children who have lost their own.  

(Hat tip to Sarah Pulliam Bailey at Get Religion: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=41384)

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Find these analyses helpful?  See the need for forward-acting initiatives to maintain a public square that is hospitable to faith-based services?  There are many good causes that claim your support.  Will you make IRFA one of them?  You can donate securely on-line here: http://irfalliance.org/donate.html.  

IRFA is a 501(c)(3) organization that depends on the support of those who understand that opposition to faith-based services is growing.  That opposition requires a positive response that goes beyond courtroom defenses.   Thank you.