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

Advancing LGBT Rights Overseas
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Religion Clause blogpost had this headline:  "Secy. State Clinton Says Religious Objections Do Not Trump LGBT Human Rights." Sounds like an Obama administration thumb put firmly on the scales to elevate gay rights over religious freedom.  Indeed, there could be dangers, but not necessarily.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day" were delivered December 6 in Geneva, Switzerland.  She spoke about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a United Nations statement adopted Dec. 10, 1948, that affirms, in her words, that "All humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights," and those "rights are not conferred by government."  In light of those fundamental principles, she said that governments around the world, including the US government, should do much more to protect the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.  

So just which LGBT rights does the Secretary believe take precedence over "religious objections"?  Secretary Clinton said that "religious or cultural values" and "traditions" cannot validly be used as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens."  "[N]o practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.  And this holds true for inflicting violence on LGBT people, criminalizing their status or behavior, expelling them from their families and communities, or tacitly or explicitly accepting their killing."  

But, of course, to say that religion does not validate wanton killing or the abridgement of the rights of gay persons is not the same as asserting that gay rights should triumph over religious freedom.  Still, given actual conflicting claims, Secretary Clinton should have been more forceful in emphasizing respect for religious freedom.  After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states firmly, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance" (Art. 18).  

More clarity is needed, too, in the "Presidential Memorandum--International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons" that was released by the White House the same day.  In this directive to the executive branch, the President orders "all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons."  The departments of State and Defense and USAID--but also Treasury, HHS, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and other federal entities--are to work on their own and with foreign governments and multilateral agencies to combat discrimination against and mistreatment of LGBT persons and to ensure quick responses to "serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBT persons abroad."

Yet there are troubling phrases--troubling given how LGBT rights are often pitted against religious freedom.  The US agencies are to "combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct."  Not only federal officials but also their "key partners" have to "effectively address the protection of LGBT refugees and asylum seekers."  And in their efforts to "build respect for the human rights of LGBT persons" the US agencies are to be engaged with not only foreign governments but also with "citizens, civil society, and the private sector."

The problem isn't that the US agencies are directed is to vigorously pursue justice and to work with other governments to ensure fair treatment of everyone.  Rather, the problem is that persons and organizations exercising their faith convictions about appropriate conduct may wrongfully be tagged as homophobic and intolerant.  And there might be another problem.  Zealous officials might misread the President's memo as requiring a bias against faith-based organizations here and abroad that have reservations about sexual conduct that isn't in accord with religious traditions.  Such organizations might find themselves excluded from federal grants.

Unless care is taken, gay rights and religious freedom can clash.  So it is, at the least, disappointing that neither Secretary Clinton nor President Obama bothered to affirm a commitment to respect the whole range of human rights, including religious freedom.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Clinton years, with Charitable Choice language added to four federal programs, and the Bush years, with Equal Treatment regulations adopted across federal spending to extend Charitable Choice-like principles to the other federal programs, are notable for high-profile "faith-based initiative" action.  The Obama administration, though with less controversy (notwithstanding the efforts of CARD--see the first story above!), has maintained the principles developed during those two previous administrations.  President Obama, in November, 2010, issued his own Executive Order 13559, "Fundamental Principles and Policymaking Criteria for Partnerships With Faith-Based and Other Neighborhood Organizations," which slightly adapts, but mainly confirms, those principles.

And the Obama administration has also moved ahead in the details of regulations.  The Working Group charged by the President's Executive Order with recommending regulatory changes has yet to report.  And some of the regulatory activity has been troubling to many faith-based organizations--note, for instance, the widespread concern about the health insurance regulation that requires plans to cover contraceptives, including two drugs regarded by many to be abortifacients, with only a minor exemption for churches.  

Yet there have also been positive regulatory developments.  Note these two instances:

The Dept. of Housing and Urban Development recently announced interim regulations for the Emergency Solutions Grants program, a revision of previous programs, as required by the HEARTH Act of 2009.  The regulations specifically provide for participation on an equal basis by faith-based organizations while protecting their religious identity and voluntary religious activities.  The regulations also set out how costs are to be allocated if a facility is used both for ESG-funded activities and for inherently religious activities. 76 Fed. Reg. 75988 (Dec. 5, 2011).

The Economic Development Administration of the Dept. of Commerce has amended a regulation which had required that when an organization bought property with federal funds, that property could never be used for religious activities like worship, even though the organization's participation in the federal program had ended decades before.  The restriction was due to an old Supreme Court interpretation of the First Amendment.  However, the courts and the federal government have revised their interpretation of the Amendment's Establishment Clause.  Accordingly, the amended regulation removes that "forever" ban, which, the government says, likely discouraged faith-based organizations from taking part in the federal program because of the ban's restriction on future uses of property.  76 Fed. Reg. 76518 (Dec. 7, 2011).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Boise Rescue Mission had been sued by two people because it required them to take part in religious activities.  The Mission is privately funded and, not incidentally, devoted to witnessing to the Bible as it serves the homeless.  Neither of the two people who complained were required to be at the Mission, although one of them had agreed to participate in the Mission's discipleship-oriented drug treatment program after a judge had given her the choice of seeking treatment or going to the county jail.  The Ninth Circuit federal appeals court in September upheld a lower federal court's ruling that the lawsuit was groundless and the Mission could not be required to give up its Gospel activities.  The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty defended the Boise Rescue Mission.

Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Most Sacred of All Property:  Religious Freedom and the People of Maryland.  A Statement from the Catholic Bishops of Maryland"

* "Religious freedom is not merely a civil right afforded us by our government, but, more fundamentally, it is a natural right due each person because of his or her human dignity."

* "Religious freedom is so fundamental to our nature that not only does it uphold individual human dignity, but it is also integral to the establishment of a good and just society."

* "Americans are blessed to enjoy freedoms for which many in our world can only hope, and for that we should be truly grateful. But in recent years there has been a subtle promotion of the idea that religious liberty should be restricted to Sunday morning worship."

* "The separation of church and state we so cherish here in America is as much about protecting religious bodies from government interference as it is the other way around. And rightly so: We cannot freely worship (or choose not to worship) God if government officials have the power to tell us how to do so. Sadly, there has been a growing trend of government intrusion into the institutional and administrative life of the Church."

IRFA Needs YOU!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep the eNews for Faith-Based Organizations and IRFA afloat!  

IRFA depends in large part on donations from people like you, who care about faith-based services and about religious freedom.  Will you come to the aid of IRFA in this season of giving? Thank you very much.

You can donate securely on-line here:  http://irfalliance.org/donate.html.

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

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

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