| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
December 28, 2011
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Access Past Issues of the eNews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.
|
A Penny for our Thoughts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IRFA and the eNews for Faith-Based Organizations are largely funded by donations from readers like you. Subscriptions to the eNews are free . . . but keeping IRFA running requires dollars. Will you support us before 2011 ends and in the new year?
You can donate securely online here: http://www.irfalliance.org/donate.html |
|
Expanding Opposition to Contraceptives Mandate/Narrow Exemption
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pressure has increased on the Obama administration either to drop the mandate in the health insurance regulations that requires health plans to provide free coverage of contraceptives, including abortifacients, or else to devise a much broader religious exemption. Notable recent developments:* More than 60 evangelical and orthodox Jewish leaders sent a letter to the administration on December 21 protesting the narrow mandate. The existing religious exemption is too narrow to protect most faith-based organizations that deeply object to paying for abortifacients as part of the health insurance they offer their employees. The letter specifically rejects as inadequate an alternative exemption that has been offered to the administration. This new exemption would only expand protection to denominationally tied organizations. Many faith-based organizations are not linked to a church or denomination, but are themselves religious. IRFA organized this letter.* Colorado Christian University, an evangelical Protestant institution, is the second higher education institution to sue the federal government to stop the mandate. First to file a lawsuit was Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution. Both schools are represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. CCU President Bill Armstrong says the key question is, "[M]ay a government agency compel support of abortions by those whose religious convictions forbid them from doing so. The law does not permit such compulsion, in our opinion, nor will the conscience of our fellow citizens, whether abortion proponents or opponents."* The Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, which represents more than 100 US Protestant institutions, in addition to joining the Dec. 21 letter, sent its own letter to the White House in opposition to the mandate and narrow exemption. The current exemption is so narrow that most likely none of its member schools would be considered to be a "religious employer" and thus be exempt from the mandate. In addition, the letter points out, the regulations currently require health plans offered to students to provide all of the mandated contraceptive services, with no exemption for schools that teach against abortion or contraception.
|
VA Adoption Regulations Finalized Without Religious Restrictions
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On December 14, the Virginia Board of Social Services gave final approval to new regulations governing private adoption and foster care agencies that preserve the freedom of the agencies to consider religion, family status, and sexual orientation in making adoptive and foster care placements. In proposing revised regulations in 2009, the previous administration had included a new and sweeping non-discrimination requirement that, for the first time, would have forbidden faith-based agencies from specializing in working with families of their own religion or from acting on their conviction that it is best when possible to place children with married couples. After many faith-based agencies protested the draft regulations and the current administration also voiced its opposition to the restriction on faith-based services, the social services board in April rejected the proposed new anti-discrimination provision. Because of criticism of that action, the board solicited public comments on its decision. Some 1600 comments supporting the extensive anti-discrimination requirement were received, along with more than 1100 comments supporting the board's narrower provision. Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, advised the board that it did not have the authority to adopt the broad provision. At the December public meeting, the board voted 5-1 for the new regulations with the narrow definition of illegal discrimination. The new regulations leave intact the existing right of single persons, including gay persons, to adopt. But they will not force private agencies to ignore family status, sexual orientation, or religion when making their decisions. There are 81 private adoption agencies in Virginia, about half of which are faith-based. Many stories about the Virginia developments wrongly portray the board's December decision as a reversal of a state rule that it is illegal discrimination for faith-based agencies to consider marriage, sexual orientation, and religion in placing orphans and foster children. In fact, the idea that such evaluations ought to be illegal was only a proposal. That proposal has, for now, been rejected by the Commonwealth of Virginia. |
Video Now Available: Keep Faith in Faith-Based Education
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On December 9, IRFA and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty organized a briefing for congressional staffers on preserving the religious freedom of faith-based schools and colleges. The concern of many faith-based k-12 and higher education institutions over the contraceptives mandate in the health insurance regulations was one topic. Other issues discussed included the Blaine amendments in some state constitutions that are used to uniquely disqualify faith-based schools from state support, a federal requirement that states must change how they regulate higher education institutions, and federal action to encourage states to boost the quality of pre-kindergarten education that may place new constraints on faith-based schools. The expert panel was comprised of Eric Rassbach of the Becket Fund, Shapri LoMaglio of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and Maureen Van Den Berg of the American Association of Christian Schools. IRFA President Stanley Carlson-Thies was moderator.Video of the briefing is now available at http://vimeo.com/34150792. Check the "free to serve" channel at vimeo.com for the videos of all five briefings. |
|
|
|
Another University Says to Religious Clubs: Pretend Religion Is Irrelevant! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The list keeps getting longer. Now it's the turn of the University of Buffalo, a state institution. The university has suspended the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student club for requiring its officers to sign a statement of beliefs. A lawyer for the university's student association says that student clubs, "even religiously focused clubs" "may not deny membership or participation on the basis of a student not professing a belief in a particular faith advocated by that club." Constitutional law professor Tomas Berg dryly writes that he is "unable to comprehend the argument that a 'religiously focused club' (or any club) should be unable to require that officers 'profess [the] belief[s]" the club advocates.In a related action, a few weeks ago the Alliance Defense Fund petitioned the US Supreme Court to review a case involving two Christian student clubs at San Diego State University. The two clubs were denied student-organization status because by requiring members and leaders to agree with the clubs' religious views they ran afoul of the university's nondiscrimination policy. And yet, as Thomas Messner observes, government should protect religious selectivity by religious organizations. Only in that way can such organizations remain strong, adding to society's diversity of groups and serving as vehicles for religious exercise by those who choose to belong to them. It is right for the law to forbid secular organizations from setting religious criteria for membership and leadership--religion is by definition not a defining characteristic of a secular organization. But it is wrong and bizarre to require a religious group to ignore religious beliefs. And it is unjust to force religious clubs to ignore religious convictions when secular clubs are free to be selective based on secular views.
|
It's Obvious What Counselors Must Do, Isn't It?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on December 16th ruled against Christian counseling student Jennifer Keeton and in favor of Augusta State University. Keeton, who wants to be a secondary school counselor, ran into opposition from the university's counseling program because of her moral and religious objection to homosexuality. The school insisted that, whatever her views, she must treat all clients respectfully, without imposing her convictions, and said she must follow a remediation plan to ensure she would comply with the counselors' code of ethics. She refused, sued, and has now lost in court twice. The university did not single out Keeton because of her religion or even her views. That's the story. It only sought to ensure that she would follow the American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics. If the university program doesn't enforce those standards it will lose its accreditation. Besides, counselors are there not for their own benefit, to assert their own agendas, but rather to help their clients, even if those clients have different goals and views than the counselor. For example, as Lambda Legal says, when "LGBTQ youth are being bullied or thinking about committing suicide," the school counselor they turn to must be someone "who will help them, not harm them." It all makes sense. Mostly. But consider this. Would-be counselors often must have a state-issued license in order to be able to practice. To get the license they need to have graduated from an accredited counseling program. (And to get scholarship aid for their counseling studies, they likely must choose an accredited counseling program.) To be accredited, the counseling program has to follow the guidelines of the professional association--the American Counseling Association. So when the lower federal court, and now the 11th Circuit appeals court, simply backed up Augusta State University, in effect it lent the government's power to the ACA's standards. For at least some jobs and in some places, only people who accept the ACA's standards can practice counseling. Those who hold different views of how best to serve a client can informally advise people perhaps, but might not be able to hold themselves out as actual counselors. So can there be no legitimate question about the ACA's views? Is it impossible to think that perhaps the ACA might not grasp everything perfectly? Apparently perfection eluded it in the past--the Code of Ethics is subject to change. But now it is perfect? Just askin'. Joseph Knippenberg rightly suggests that, just as in medicine and pharmacy, perhaps the counseling profession ought to find some way to accommodate "conscientious objectors." Indeed.
|
It Would Be Entertaining If It Wasn't Serious . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Example 1. The Washington Examiner on December 20 published an editorial that did a good job explaining why a wide range of religious organizations have strongly criticized the contraceptives mandate and the narrow religious exemption in the health insurance regulations. But the editorial ended with these two misplaced paragraphs:
"If a federal court doesn't knock down the HHS rule, the government will be empowered to define what groups receive official certification as 'religious.' The federal government has long funded hundreds of church-linked philanthropic, charitable and social service groups, and now they will either have to sever their religious connections or forego hundreds of millions of tax dollars without which they can't operate.
"This is exactly the dilemma predicted a decade ago by critics of President George W. Bush's 'compassionate conservatism,' with its emphasis on expanding the federal role in funding religiously inspired social service groups. Federal dollars always come with strings. And sooner or later, there will always be a President Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius around who are only too happy to start pulling those strings."
Oops. The health insurance mandate and narrow exemption have nothing to do with federal funding or Bush's "compassionate conservatism." Employers beyond a small size are required to offer health insurance or pay a per-employee penalty. The insurance must include the whole range of "preventive services," like it or not--except for churches and church-like organizations that can fit into the narrow confines of the "religious employer" exemption. Call it a string without any federal dollars.
Example 2. As widely reported, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center has had to reverse itself on a recently announced policy governing visitors to its patients. Carefully setting out a policy to facilitate visits, the Center included this guideline: "No religious items (i.e., Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."
What? Family members visiting an injured soldier can't carry in a Bible or devotional book or leave behind an icon? The policy was outrageous and it was abandoned as soon as the Family Research Council publicized it and members of Congress took interest.
Yet note what Walter Reed spokeswoman Sandy Dean claimed the absurd policy's intent was: to "preserve people's religious rights." How's that? Perhaps the thought went like this: some people are offended by religious talk or when they hear particular religious views. The best way to keep such offenses from happening is just to put all religion off limits. No religion, no offense. That's a view that some activists keep pushing in public policy debates: keep all religion out of places the government controls or funds or regulates. That's the only way to ensure equal treatment for all.
Except that banning religion and religious items privileges secularism or atheism and undermines the rights and freedom of people of faith. That's no solution for the complexities of living in a heterogeneous USA.
|
Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* A new book from church-state expert (and IRFA Board Chair) Stephen Monsma: Pluralism and Freedom: Faith-Based Organizations in a Democratic Society (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012).
"This book describes the challenge religious freedom for all is facing today when faith-based organizations enter the public realm by offering health care, education, and other human services to the public--and when government helps fund these efforts. In it I contend that the ideal of safeguarding the freedom of persons and organizations of all religions and of none can be met. But to do so we need to abandon many of the familiar categories and concepts both the left and the right have brought to the table and seek some new ways of viewing and understanding faith-based organizations and their rightful role in the public square" (from the Preface).
* Thomas Berg, "Other people's freedom," The Christian Century, Century Blogs, Dec. 19.
Religious progressives "should support significant accommodations for religious beliefs--even those with which they disagree. . . . There is some momentum right now to dramatically constrict the scope of religious freedom. Religious progressives should not stand by and watch this happen--even if it's conservatives who are in the vise."
* Chelsea Langston, "The Contraceptive Mandate Violates Religious Freedom," Capital Commentary, Dec. 23.
"Some proponents of the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage cite the fact that there are many religiously affiliated institutions that already offer women employees birth control options as part of their healthcare plan. However, each faith-based organization, like each secular organization, is distinct--with its own unique structure, priorities, and mission. Simply because one historically Catholic institution already provides contraceptive options to its employees as part of its health insurance package does not automatically mean that every Catholic organization should have to take the same measures. Institutional religious freedom does not imply that once one faith-based group makes a decision, or takes a stance on an issue, that every subsequent, seemingly similar, religiously-connected organization will come to the same conclusions."
* Stanley Carlson-Thies, "NYC Churches Forced to Vacate Neighborhoods," Q: ideas for the common good, Dec. 20.
"For congregations to keep asking through the political process to be allowed to use public-school rooms, when the schools allow other groups to use the rooms, surely is appropriate. A positive response--reversing the [New York City] Board of Education's policy--is a great way for the city to accommodate the diverse collection of groups and views that constitute its population and society. It is a simple and fair way for the city to encourage the constructive teaching that Pastor Robert Hall told the court goes on in Bronx Household of Faith worship services: participants are taught 'to love their neighbors as themselves, to defend the weak and disenfranchised, and to help the poor regardless of their particular beliefs.'
"For the same reason, in passing laws and regulations concerning relationships, family formation, and reproduction where there are deep moral controversies, the city and the state ought to make sure that its policies adequately protect the freedom of people and organizations of faith to live and serve as they believe God requires them to do. The rest of society doesn't have to agree with those organizations, but it will be poorer, and the poor will be in even more desperate circumstances, if rigid public policies drive people of faith out of being able to serve their neighbors as they believe God calls them to do."
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
|
|
|
|
