| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
August 9, 2011
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Access Past Issues of the eNews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
|
Federal Government Proposes Feeble Religious Exemption
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith-based organizations, whatever their views on offering health insurance that pays for contraceptive services, should be deeply concerned about the religious employer exemption announced last week. It seems paradoxical: the Obama administration announced it was protecting religious freedom by creating an exemption for religious employers to the required coverage of certain services that Catholics and others find morally objectionable. But the administration's concept of a "religious employer" is entirely inadequate.
When the government mandates something that persons and organizations regard as deeply objectionable on religious or conscience grounds, the government ought to, if possible, exempt those persons and organizations from having to obey the mandate. So it is right for the Obama administration to write into the health insurance regulations an exemption for religious employers.
But who is a religious employer--an organization that need not cover the disputed services in its insurance plan? According to the administration, to be counted as an exempt employer, the organization must (1) have "the inculcation of religious values as its purpose"; (2) employ primarily "persons who share its religious tenets"; (3) serve primarily "persons who share its religious tenets": and (4) be a nonprofit organization that is regarded by the IRS to be a church, seminary, or other church-like entity.
In short, the administration has decided to protect churches, but not parachurch organizations; to protect the Catholic Church itself but not Catholic Charities.
Recall: the question is, which kind of organization will the government consider to be authentically a religious organization such that it remains free to follow its own conscience in offering health insurance?
And here is what the federal government has decided: an organization that serves people of every and no faith and that tends to their physical or mental needs rather than just preaching at them is not a "religious employer." Such an organization will not be allowed by the government to follow its religious convictions about employee health benefits.
And yet most religious charities regard it to be a religious duty to serve everyone who needs their help, without restricting the help only to people of their own religion. And religious charities would regard it to be a violation of a divine command simply to preach at someone who needs material help.
So the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, World Vision, and innumerable other religious charities, just because they do not confine their help to people of their own faith and limit it to praying for the needy are all regarded now by the federal government not to be "religious employers"-employers with religious convictions that the government must respect.
The administration justifies its narrow exemption by the fact that many states have the identical narrow exemption in their own laws about contraceptive coverage. But the mistake these states have made does not justify the federal government putting into federal law an unacceptable religious exemption.
Religion is not a matter only of worship and religious instruction; it is also a matter of serving others when they have physical or psychological needs. Religious freedom must protect parachurch organizations and not only churches, for it is through parachurch organizations such as religious charities, schools, and hospitals that people of faith put their convictions into action out in the world.
By the way: any faith-based organization that serves only needy people of its own faith would, for that precise reason, be ineligible for government funding. So, the organization can protect its religious practices by serving only its co-religionists, using only private funds; or it can partner with the government and serve a broader range of people--but only at the expense of losing its freedom to maintain its internal standards. Such an either-or is a betrayal of the faith-based initiative.
Worth reading:
Michael Sean Winters,"Conscience Regs Are Totally Inadequate," National Catholic Reporter, August 2.
Thomas Berg, "Minimalist Exemptions and Religious Progressives," Mirror of Justice, August 3.
|
Can Public Universities Ban Job Listings from Religious Employers?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The University of Texas at San Antonio earlier this year refused to post in its career center a job announcement from the Adoption Priorities organization, which sought married, Christian, pro-life house parents. UTSA claimed that it would be wrong for the career center to post this "discriminatory" announcement. But, of course, it is not illegal discrimination for a religious organization such as Adoption Priorities to consider religion when hiring staff. So the university, rather than minimizing discrimination by refusing the job posting, actually was engaging in discrimination itself--excluding from its job listings a perfectly legitimate job announcement from a religious organization. In the process, it harmed its own students--some of whom may well desire to work specifically in a religious organization that shares their deep convictions about life. Fortunately, the San Antonio campus backed down after an intervention by the Alliance Defense Fund. And now ADF, joined by the Justice Foundation and the Liberty Institute, has sent letters to all 136 public colleges and universities in Texas reminding them what the laws on employment discrimination actually require. Hopefully public colleges and universities in other states will get the message without needing to get a similar letter.
|
|
Another Attack on Religious Student Groups
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that the nondiscrimination requirement that San Diego State University applies to all recognized campus groups is constitutional: the university did not violate the rights of two Christian student groups when it required them to admit as members students who do not share their beliefs. The San Diego campus, like other campuses in the California State University system, bans from official student group status any group that "discriminates on the basis of . . . religion . . ." and a long list of other characteristics, though not politics or ideology. This policy is slightly different than the policy at the Hastings law school (University of California) that was upheld last summer by the US Supreme Court. The Hastings policy required every student group, including political and ethnic groups, to accept "all comers" (but Hastings allegedly only imposed the requirement on the Christian Legal Society student group). It didn't bother the Ninth Circuit judges that obviously a ban on religious selectivity in membership specifically undermines religious student groups. That was merely an incidental and unintentional consequence and thus not unconstitutional, according to the judges. But that's just hogwash. In the words of Steve Shiffrin, from the Catholic legal blog, Mirror of Justice, "If the Sierra Club were to exclude Catholics or Jews or Muslims, it would be an outrage. But there is nothing outrageous about a religious organization confining its membership to those who agree with its ideology any more than it is problematic for the Young Democrats to do so. "In response to this, the Ninth Circuit argues that the liberty of the religious organization is not denied. It may still participate on campus without official recognition. But the problem is the inequality in application of the policy. In response to this point, the Circuit says that this inequality was not part of the purpose of the policy. Perhaps so, but that is beside the point. The effect of applying the policy in this way should have been regarded as constitutionally unreasonable." |
| Faith-Based Office Affirms Current Federal Policies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In response to the challenge at a recent town hall meeting to President Obama to call a halt to religious hiring by religious groups that get federal money, Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, last week posted a short item, "Upholding Our Laws and Our Values."
DuBois stresses that, while the President "strongly believes that faith-based organizations play an integral role in providing social services," their collaboration with the government "must be grounded in sound law and policy, and must respect the Constitution."
Does that mean that big changes are ahead, as a working group completes its work to translate into federal practice the principle of the President's November, 2010, Executive Order setting out his principles for faith-based policy? Not so, DuBois says, although "critical issues" remain. Both the President and the faith-based office remain committed to these values: "constitutional separation of church and state, respect for faith-based and secular service providers alike, and commitment to doing the most good for individuals and families in need."
Stick to those principles and faith-based organizations need not fear being excluded from partnerships with government to serve the needy.
|
| What Faith-Shaped Service Means: a Sikh Voice
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Too often, governments and activists these days argue that only church-like entities deserve the religious freedom to operate differently than secular organizations are required to. A current example is the religious exemption proposed by the Obama administration to its requirement that all heath insurance plans must cover contraceptive services: only churches and seminaries fit the definition of an exempt religious employer--only the Catholic Church, but not Catholic Charities, will be free not to offer insurance plans that include a procedure that the Catholic Church objects to. See the first story above.
Another current example is the Boise Rescue Mission, which is defending its freedom, as a privately funded religious organization, to require participants who want its help to kick their addictions to take part in various religious activities. Two people complained, and one judge claimed that the religious exemption in the federal housing law (the law probably doesn't apply at all to a rescue mission!) only allows the rescue mission to require such participation if the mission mainly serves only people of its religion. If it serves folks not of its faith, then it is not the kind of (church-like) organization protected by the religious exemption in the law. That means it was being discriminatory in not treating everyone the same--those who did participate in its religious activities and those who did not want to.
But this can't be right, according to the amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by the Sikh Coalition. "Many religious institutions provide charitable aid to homeless people without regard to the religious faith of the individual requiring assistance," the brief points out. That doesn't mean such charities aren't authentically religious organizations. What is key is not the religious beliefs of the people being served but rather the religious convictions and standards of the organization providing the service.
The brief offers the example of Sikh houses of worship. Anyone can ask for help from a Sikh house of worship, the brief notes--help is not restricted to Sikhs. However, anyone who enters the house of worship must respect the religion's standards: when entering the house of worship to receive assistance, the person "would be expected to conform to Sikh religious customs": removing one's shoes, maintaining a certain level of cleanliness, avoiding alcohol and tobacco, and covering one's head as a sign of respect.
It is these faith-shaped practices that a religious exemption must protect, the brief rightly says. It would be wrong to say that the house of worship is not authentically Sikh because it assists non-Sikhs. And it would be wrong to allow someone to charge the house of worship with illegal discrimination because it serves people who follow its standard of conduct but excludes those who reject those standards.
|
Food for Thought
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Byron Johnson, " Overcoming the Obstacles to Faith-Based Approaches to Crime, " Public Discourse, August 3 "Faith-based groups and approaches are necessary if we are to develop a new crime-fighting strategy that is pro-poor, pro-family, and pro-society by targeting the very communities that are home to crime-related challenges. "Unfortunately, there are formidable obstacles that must be confronted before this can happen. On the one hand, there will be those who will outright reject such a possibility over concerns of proselytizing, violating church-state separation, and the lack of sufficient evidence to support the notion that faith-based approaches really work. . . . "On the other hand, . . . [m]any religious individuals and groups hold biases against secular organizations and the government that both discourage and prevent potential partnerships from forming; many within faith-based organizations little trust government programs or secular agencies. As a result, these faith-based organizations operate in isolation of other faith-based social service providers, and therefore they become insular and remain limited in what they can achieve." Archbishop Charles Chaput, " Catholic Charity in Secular America," First Things, July 19 "Catholic institutions are extensions of the Catholic community and Catholic belief. The state has no right to interfere with their legitimate work, even when it claims to act in the name of individuals unhappy with Catholic teaching. The individual's right to resent the Church or reject her beliefs does not trump the rights of the Catholic community to believe and live according to its faith. . . . . "In the years ahead, we're going to see more and more attempts by civil authority to interfere in the life of believing communities. We'll also see less and less unchallenged space for religious institutions to carry out their work in the public square. It's already happening with Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies, and even in the hiring practices of organizations like Catholic Charities. Right now no one in Catholic social work can afford to be lukewarm about his faith or naive about the environment we now face--at least, if we want Catholic social work to remain Catholic." Archbishop Charles Chaput, " A Principled Charity," First Things, July 14 " . . . Catholic social ministries should always use their training and hiring processes to advance a faithful understanding of Catholic social teaching within their institutional culture--and especially among their employees. We can't give what we don't have. Christian charity is not generic 'do-goodism.' Catholic social work exists to serve others, but not in any random way. It is very specifically an expression of Christ's love for us, our love for Christ, and our fidelity to the Church that Jesus founded. If we don't have these things in our hearts, we have very little worthwhile to share." Thomas Messner, " Same-Sex Marriage and Threats to Religious Freedom: How Nondiscrimination Laws Factor In," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, July 29. "Conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious freedom will often involve some type of previously adopted nondiscrimination law or policy. "Nondiscrimination laws can impose burdens on religious freedom even in jurisdictions that do not legally recognize homosexual unions as marriages. "Neither of these points, however, diminishes the threat that same-sex marriage poses to religious freedom. "Same-sex marriage is likely to trigger a number of conflicts between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom that otherwise would not exist. "Further, threats to religious freedom are no less troubling because they involve nondiscrimination laws and same-sex marriage, not just same-sex marriage." Patrick Parkinson, "Accommodating Religious Belief in a Secular Age: The Issue of Conscientious Objection in the Workplace," UNSW Law Journal, vol. 34(1), 2011. "Religious faith is profoundly important to many people in Australian society, and their right not only to believe but to manifest that belief in how they live is a fundamental human right. Employment is an important part of most people's daily lives and cannot be entirely a faith-free zone. . . . A winner-takes-all approach to the conflict between conservative religious belief and gay and lesbian rights would be a loss for human rights generally. No amount of soothing talk about 'balancing' can disguise when one right is allowed to eradicate another. "Confining freedom of religion to little more than freedom to believe certain things and to worship [by not protecting employees with moral scruples about homosexual conduct] is a particularly narrow view of what religious belief involves. That degree of freedom was given in the communist countries of the old Soviet bloc . . .." |
|
|
|
Support IRFA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
|
Join IRFA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faith-based organizations and associations of faith-based organizations can now support IRFA and institutional religious freedom by signing up for an annual membership. Organizations and individuals engaged in supportive work (leading, consulting with, or defending faith-based organizations, for example) can join as associate members.
For details and forms, go to: http://irfalliance.org/membership.html |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For further information:
e-mail: info@IRFAlliance.org
website: www.IRFAlliance.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
| What is IRFA?
The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance works to safeguard the religious identity, faith-based standards and practices, and faith-shaped services of faith-based organizations across the range of service sectors and religions, enabling them to make their distinctive and best contributions to the common good.
|
|
|
|
