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

Limited Guidance in White House Faith-Based Funding Guide
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships recently published Partnerships for the Common Good (available here).  The guide is subtitled "A Partnership Guide for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Organizations" and is full of suggestions about how faith-based as well as secular organizations can collaborate with federal programs to promote adoptions, strengthen fatherhood, bolster educational outcomes, help ex-prisoners reenter society, and more.  The guide also discusses various federal resources to build the operational and service capacity of nonprofit organizations and suggests sources of information about federal funding.  It notes that much federal money is awarded by state and local agencies and not directly from Washington.  And it includes some pointers on how to win government funding. 

Oddly, though, the guide says only this about the church-state freedoms and restrictions that accompany federal funds:  "financial partnerships with the government must be characterized by their ability to both uphold the free exercise of religion and to prevent the establishment of religion."  Almost identical language is used twice.

But what does it mean to uphold both of those First Amendment requirements?  Thousands of books, articles, and court decisions have wrestled with just that issue!  This is not very useful guidance, to say the least.

Fortunately, although the guide doesn't mention it, all federal funding for services, whether awarded by federal, state, or local agencies, is governed by very specific rules that indeed upholds those twin First Amendment requirements.  The rules consist of Charitable Choice laws (from the Clinton years), Charitable Choice regulations (from the Bush years), and Equal Treatment regulations (from the Bush years).  Those rules have been upheld by President Obama's November 2010 executive order setting out his principles for faith-based partnerships. 

Even though the guide is silent about the rules, and although the rules are now not so easily found on most of the websites of the various Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, they remain in place and they continue to govern the use of federal funds to purchase services from private faith-based and secular organizations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In April, Virginia's State Board of Social Services rejected a proposed new requirement that private adoption and foster-care agencies must not "discriminate" in their services on the bases of religion or sexual orientation.  The regulation had no exemption to protect the freedom of faith-based organizations to place children just with believing mother-father families. 

The Board's vote came after the draft regulation, which was proposed by the administration of the previous Democratic governor, had gone through all the usual steps, including a long period for public comment.  And it came after the Attorney General in the current Republican administration advised that the Board and the social services department do not have the authority needed to make the fundamental change in policy the regulation would impose. 

Nevertheless, advocates of gay adoption, including the ACLU and Equality Virginia, are clamoring for the Board to reopen the public comment process and to reassess its decision.  One of the critics claimed that the Board's decision was made "without any chance for the public to comment on this substantial change"-despite the normal public comment period. 

One news report says that the Virginia ACLU's legal director claims that "while the government should be sensitive to religious freedom, all state-licensed adoption groups are 'engaged in fundamentally a governmental function' and should not discriminate." 

It is an odd, though popular, notion that it is "discrimination" for different private groups to offer varied services that reflect the diverse moral and religious convictions in our society.  But it is an ominous development when an influential activist legal organization claims that the mere acceptance of a government license--without which a private group cannot conduct a service--turns the group into a state agent subject to all the restrictions that apply to government.

How Many Faith-Based Adoption Services Will Remain in Illinois?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Civil Unions law requiring that civil-union partners be treated as married spouses came into effect in Illinois yesterday.  Despite its name--Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act--the law contains minimal religious freedom protection.  It states that "Nothing in this Act shall interfere with or regulate the religious practice of any religious body.  Any religious body . . . is free to choose whether or not to solemnize or officiate a civil union."  Despite that broad first sentence, officials and the media are interpreting the law as only protecting the freedom of clergy not to conduct civil union ceremonies--a freedom they already have. 

Multiple efforts to get the legislature to enact a provision to protect the freedom of faith-based adoption and foster-care agencies to continue to serve mother-father families without being charged with discrimination against gay persons or civil union partners have failed--at least up to now. 

The handful of faith-based agencies that work with the state have until the end of the month to decide if they can comply with the new nondiscrimination requirements and will sign new contracts.  Recently Catholic Charities in Rockford decided that it could not in good conscience continue and, as of yesterday--after more than one hundred years--has ceased providing foster-care and adoption services.  Will the others also have to close their doors?  Will they find a way to stay engaged with the state--while continuing to plead for real religious freedom?

See also:  Sarah Torre, "Civil Union Law Forces Catholic Charities to Drop Adoption Service," The Foundry, June 1. http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/01/civil-union-law-forces-catholic-charities-to-drop-adoption-service/

Are Christian School Graduates World-Changers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's the title of a Capital Commentary by Ray Pennings, research director of Cardus, a Canadian Christian think tank, sketching some of the findings of a large-scale study of alumni of Protestant and Catholic schools.  The study shows that their school experience has shaped the students to be strong contributors to their families and communities, but not necessarily to be world-changers.  Full results will be available in August.  More information is available here: http://www.cardus.ca/research/education/

Who is Shaping Our World?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The recent Cardus survey of Christian school alumni (see story above) shows that "Christian school graduates are uniquely compliant, generous, outwardly-focused individuals who stabilize their communities by their uncommon commitment to their families, their churches, and larger society."  The graduates "donate significantly more money" and "are more generous with their time" than graduates from other schools. 

But the graduates are "less involved in politics than their peers."  That means that Christian schools are not, as some commentators darkly suspect, churning out soldiers for the Religious Right. 

But it also means that the graduates are letting others control public policy.  Many of those others are committed to justice and the common good.  But too many of them care not very much for religious freedom.  If the secularizing graduates get to redesign the political world by their own values, those Christian schools will not flourish and those Christian school graduates will find fewer faith-based outlets for their generosity. 

To make a strong and lasting contribution to the common good, Christian school graduates need to combine political action with their compassionate service.

Worth Reading:  Douglas Laycock Essays on Free Exercise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now available:  Douglas Laycock, Religious Liberty, vol. 2: The Free Exercise Clause (Eerdmans, 2011).  This is the second of four volumes collecting the writings on religious freedom of one of the premier church-state con-law experts . . . or at least those up to the publication dates of the various volumes.  Included are law review articles, amicus briefs, journal and magazine articles, book reviews, and more.  Fortunately, given Prof. Laycock's incisive, clear, influential, and insightful analyses, he is one of the Religion Clause experts who actually believes that religious freedom is an invaluable freedom. 

A series of meaty and illuminating reviews of volume 1, Overviews & History (Eerdmans, 2010), was printed in the Texas Law Review: http://www.texaslrev.com/issues/vol/89/issue/4/laycock

Quotations to Ponder
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
�  Protecting religious freedom in higher education

 "The protection of the religious freedoms of religious scholars, and of institutions that are voluntary communities composed of such scholars, is vital to the integrity of higher education itself if it fashions itself as truly valuing academic freedom, as a true marketplace of ideas. And it would be ironic in the extreme if, in the name of the inalienable right to self definition of individuals (GLBTQ persons) and of communities (of sexual minorities), the same inalienable rights of persons of religious faith to self definition were curtailed. As the respected Yale University philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff has argued, 'It would be a violation of the very idea of a liberal democratic society if a movement arose to prevent or restrict the formation of religiously-based colleges and universities. To prevent or restrict their formation would violate freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.'"

Stanton Jones, provost at Wheaton College, "Do Tell" Inside Higher Ed, May 23, 2011. http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/05/23/essay_defends_the_way_christian_colleges_treat_gay_students (How one evangelical college is responding with integrity to gay students.)

� Enabling faith-based child-serving agencies to continue to serve

"Requiring sexual orientation nondiscrimination in child placements would force many of the best agencies to choose between violating their consciences and discontinuing services.  Several Catholic Charities have already been forced to close, and such policies would force many more agencies out of service, denying thousands of children the opportunity to be adopted. Congress should protect the rights of faith-based organizations to provide adoption, foster care, and child and family services without fear of discrimination because of their religious beliefs."

Thomas Atwood, "Foster Care:  Safety Net or Trap Door?," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, March 25, 2011. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/03/Foster-Care-Safety-Net-or-Trap-Door

� How governments are expanding pluralism in k-12 education

"Scholarship tax credits emerged in the late 1990s as an alternative to controversial school voucher programs. Proponents believed that tax credits would be both more politically palatable than vouchers and more likely to clear state constitutional hurdles, especially the 'Little Blaine' Amendments . . , which today represent the most substantial legal hurdle to school choice.  Over the past three decades, as state legislatures have gradually extended public assistance to students attending private schools on a religion-neutral basis--and courts have come to reject legal challenges to these efforts with some consistency--American education policy finally has begun to embrace authentic educational pluralism."

Nicole Stelle Garnett, "A Winn for Educational Pluralism," Yale Law Journal Online, May 25, 2011, http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/supreme-court/a-winn-for-educational-pluralism/  (Assessment of the recent US Supreme Court decision, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.  The Court denied standing to the critics who claimed that the program, in which Arizona taxpayers get tax credit for making contributions to scholarship funds, must be unconstitutional because so many of the scholarships are used in faith-based schools.) 

� True tolerance doesn't suppress religious freedom

"[T]o create a truly tolerant and inclusive society, the rights and needs of all minorities should be accommodated.  As citizens, we can be expected to respect the legal choices and fundamental freedoms of others.  It is no more offensive to ask same-sex couples to respect the religious freedom of others than it is to ask marriage commissioners to respect the equality rights of homosexuals."

Kevin Boonstra, "Does the Charter Excuse the Government from Accommodating Religious Belief?" LexView 73.0, May 18, 2011, http://www.cardus.ca/lexview/article/2786/.  (Analysis of a Saskatchewan Court of Appeals decision concerning the duty of marriage commissioners to officiate at gay marriage ceremonies. The Court wrongly holds that the equality rights of gay couples completely overbalance the religious freedom rights of commissioners.)

IRFA Needs Your Help
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are these analyses helpful?  Do you see the need for forward-acting initiatives to maintain a public square in which faith-based services can thrive?  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.

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

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

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