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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The races haven't all even been decided yet, and, given the big changes, it will take considerable time for new directions to be settled, so it is far too soon to try to guess how the November 2nd voting will affect national policy.  Just a few quick thoughts:

Two notable changes in Congress to the benefit of institutional religious freedom: 

Dan Coats, who served in the Senate (R-IN) from 1989-1999, was just re-elected to the Senate.  In his earlier service he was a noted champion of faith-based services, proposing (with William Bennett) a range of innovative civil society policies under the name "Project for American Renewal."

Chet Edwards (D-TX), first elected to the House in 1991, was defeated.  Edwards has been one of the fiercest congressional critics of the faith-based initiative and a harsh opponent of what he called "religious job discrimination" by faith-based organizations that receive federal funds.

Leadership of the House changes from Democrat to Republican:

Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), the likely new Speaker of the House, has been a strong supporter of religious freedom for persons and organizations.  In general, the change from an aggressive progressive agenda to a conservative stance in the House will be positive:  less governmental expansion means fewer pressures on organizations committed to historic religious values.  That goes, too, for the "tea party" commitment to reigning in the growth of government spending and the government's impact on life.  Researchers have noted, too, that many tea partiers are strong religious believers.

However, in complex modern societies, religious freedom needs to be protected not only by restraining government intrusion where it doesn't belong but also by making sure that when the government is active it takes positive steps to respect the exercise of religion by individuals and institutions.  How well will the tea party and the resurgent Republicans do on this score?

An area for continual concern:  how the administration will use its administrative discretion, its own ability to steer the government in the absence of congressional action?  The move to abrogate the Bush administration's "conscience" regulations at HHS, the extensive administrative discretion given to the HHS Secretary by the health reform law, and the adminstration's commitment to progressive sexual politics all are reasons to be alert.

What Will the Lame Duck Do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A big mystery looms ahead:  What will the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives do in December before its defeated members give up their power and the party has to turn over control to the Republicans?  One continuing worry:  mischief in the omnibus budget bill that Congress will have to pass to fund the continued operations of the federal government.  There is a real possibility that it will contain language banning religious hiring by any organization that receives the funds, with a phrase that cuts off recourse to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when government funding is involved.  See the earlier eNews stories here and here.  Faith-based organizations and religious freedom advocates need to be ready for immediate action in case such language is planted in the House or Senate bills.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by the ACLU against Arizona's tuition tax credit program.  In that program, taxpayers can direct that a portion of their own money goes to a "school tuition organization" (STO) instead of to the state treasury.  STOs then award scholarships to help students attend private schools.  Most of the schools where the scholarships are used are religious.

At every stage--taxpayer decisions, creation and policies of the STOs, decisions of parents about their children's schooling--the decisions are private decisions, made with multiple alternative choices available.  Still, to the ACLU, the program amounts to "a government spending program that supports religious discrimination"--a violation of the First Amendment. 

For a thorough demolition of that argument, read the amicus brief submitted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the Christian Legal Society, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a Weekly Standard article, Joseph Bottum points out that Catholics in American now pretty much vote the way other Americans do, no longer forming a distinct voting bloc. However, he also points out, important concepts from Catholic social thought are now common coin in American public discourse about moral issues. Whether the politician or thinker is Catholic, Protestant, or of another conviction, he or she will speak of "the sanctity of life," "just-war theory," "natural law," and "dignity of the person." Thanks, American Catholics!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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? A generous donor has agreed to match dollar-for-dollar every new contribution up to $2,500.  Give a gift now and it will be worth twice as much to IRFA.

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.