IRFA Logo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
Nov. 14, 2012

Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
"Like" IRFA's Facebook page!  Keep up with important developments; connect with others who also care about the freedom of faith-based services.  We're aiming for 500 likes by the end of 2012. Just click here!

Like us on Facebook

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
Join Our Mailing List
In this issue
After the Election: The Same, But More Challenging
Opposition to the Contraceptives Mandate: Not Just an Election Ploy?!
The Promised Contraceptives "Accommodation": Judge Says "Show Me!"
Faith-Based Organizations and the Growth of the "Nones"
Report on the Freedom of Christians in the UK
Say What?
Worth Reading
IRFA Needs You
Join IRFA
Access Past Issues of the eNews 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.  

After the Election:  The Same, But More Challenging       

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

There's not much visible change in Washington DC following the election: Democrats retain the initiative--a second term for President Obama, Democrats still in control of the Senate, Republicans with blocking power with their House majority. Legislative gridlock remains likely, at least on most issues, but also likely is continued and perhaps even increased decisionmaking by the executive branch, accomplishing by presidential authority what Congress can't or won't do.

 

Sadly, trends in the Democratic Party are not encouraging for proponents of religious freedom. Judging from the election campaign, the party convention and platform, and voting trends, the party has become even less hospitable to religious freedom, including institutional religious freedom. It has become even more committed to marriage redefinition, "reproductive freedom," and expanded gay rights. There's good reason for faith-based organizations committed to counter-cultural convictions and conduct to be troubled and on the alert.

 

And voting trends are also worrisome. It should bother everyone that, according to a Pew Forum preliminary analysis of the exit polls, the Democratic and Republican parties are becoming the homes of the unchurched and the churched, respectively: about 60% of voters who never attend a house of worship voted for the President while about the same proportion of voters who attend worship services at least once a week voted for the Republican challenger. Religious freedom needs allies on both sides of the aisle. And it is troubling that the proportion of voters who have no religious affiliation has grown to one in five-these are voters very skeptical of religion's public influence (Pew Forum, "'Nones' On the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation," Oct. 9, 2012).

 

Organizations and advocates who want to protect religious freedom so that faith-based services can continue to make their uncommon contributions to the common good have a lot of work to do:

 

* persuading more Democratic officeholders and voters to stand for religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity-even while they are committed to other freedoms and rights;

 

* persuading more millennials that preserving religious freedom is a key way to foster the common good and is not a underhanded way to promote a dominant church;

 

* persuading more conservative supporters of religious freedom that it is a practical principle to guide how people with differing convictions can live together and not just an argument for why new rights claims should to be denied.

Opposition to the Contraceptives Mandate:  Not Just an Election Ploy?!  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many in the media and the commentariat have tried to undermine the many protests against the HHS contraceptives mandate by claiming that campaigns, statements, and lawsuits against it were really just veiled attempts to knock down the President and get the favored Republican into the White House.

 

That would explain why the many religious organizations and believer-owned businesses that have sued the federal government now have dropped their lawsuits. After all, the election is over, the effort to throw out Barack Obama failed, and so there no good reason to keep spending money and time on the failed electoral strategy.

 

But wait. The Becket Fund webpage that lists the lawsuits still today--a week after the election--shows 40 cases with over 140 plaintiffs.

 

Maybe the press and the pundits weren't exactly right about the motivation for the cases and the criticism?
The Promised Contraceptives "Accommodation":  Judge Says "Show Me!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The 40 cases filed against the HHS contraceptives mandate are in various stages of consideration or awaiting action or appeal. The plaintiffs are not eligible for the exemption because they are not churches.

 

But many of them--the nonprofit organizations, such as colleges--are currently shielded from the mandate because of the "temporary enforcement safe harbor": the federal government's promise not to prosecute them during the year lasting to the end of July, 2013.  

 

The government has promised during this year to come up with a new "accommodation"--not the full religious freedom protection of the exemption the churches have but some kind of arrangement that is supposed to offer non-church organizations some balm for their aggrieved consciences. The courts have said that the cases brought by nonprofit organizations are not ripe for consideration, because of the one-year reprieve.

 

On the other hand, for-profit companies, no matter the conscience claims of their religious owners, are by definition not eligible for the one-year reprieve but instead must comply with the mandate when their new plan year begins on or after August 1, 2012. Judges have to decide now whether these owners have a legitimate claim that might trump the government's mandate.

 

So, in the case Legatus v. Kathleen Sebelius, the judge ruled against a preliminary injunction for Legatus, a nonprofit organization--it has the temporary reprieve. But he did award a preliminary injunction to the other plaintiff, Weingartz Supply Co., a Catholic-owned business--it has no temporary reprieve.

 

And the judge told the federal government: Show me you are actually taking steps to develop an "accommodation" for non-exempt organizations that object to the contraceptives mandate. Judge Cleland said: "The Government is DIRECTED to file a brief statement describing the status of the amendment process for final regulations occurring under the temporary enforcement safe harbor not later than the first Monday of each month."

 

Assuming the federal government actually complies, at long last non-exempt organizations might learn whether the promised "accommodation" is actually in the works.

 

Of course, whatever the "accommodation" turns out to be, it will not be good enough. Religious organizations and religious communities will still be faced with this reality: the federal government has decided that it can and should define two classes of religious organizations, two kinds of religion, and two degrees of religious freedom. Churches, being inwardly oriented, get an exemption-full protection for their odd convictions and practices. All other religious organizations, being oriented outward in service and not only worship, are not exercising pure religion and thus only merit a lesser degree of religious freedom, only an "accommodation."  This deeply mistaken conception is the biggest problem caused by the contraceptives mandate.    

Faith-Based Organizations and the Growth of the "Nones"        

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

An October Pew Forum report, "'Nones' on the Rise: One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation," explores the views of the growing number of Americans who are agnostic, atheist, or without any particular religious affiliation (though they may have some spiritual or religious convictions). The "nones" don't know that much about organized religion and are either not very sympathetic to organized religion or are actively opposed. They are an increasingly important part of the electorate, and an increasingly important part of the Democratic Party's base.

 

The "nones" are, in the careful words of the report, "not uniformly hostile toward religious institutions." In fact, a majority of them "clearly think that religion can be a force for good in society," because religious organizations "bring people together and help strengthen community bonds" and "play an important role in helping the poor and needy."

 

Will the "nones" help defend the religious freedom of these organizations they say they value, protecting them against government rules that press them to follow uniform secular norms rather than the counter-cultural values of their respective religious faiths? The Pew Forum report does not specifically examine this critical issue. But its findings give no reason to be overly hopeful.

 

Protecting religious freedom as government grows, commitment to religion wanes, and the culture becomes more secular requires strong action--engagement with politics, concern with the details of laws and regulations, and pushing--not for unilateral advantage but pushing nevertheless for our nation to continue to honor the First Freedom.

 

Yet the Pew Forum report says that the "nones" "are much more likely than the public overall to say that churches and other religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules, and too involved in politics."

 

But religious freedom won't defend itself. A serious appreciation for the positive role of religious organizations in serving the needy and strengthening the community ought to lead to support for the powerful political action that is needed to uphold religious freedom.
Report on the Freedom of Christians in the UK
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The religious freedom news out of the UK has not been encouraging the past few years. Stories of some positive recognition by the government of the vital role that faith organizations play in society, leading to added support, have been far outweighed by news about the closure of Catholic adoption agencies, persecution of the Christian owners of a B and B, the insistence of activists that religious conceptions (e.g., about what marriage is and means) are not only wrong but cannot legitimately be advanced in public debate, and so on.

 

If these are some of the trees, what does the UK forest look like? A useful look at a large part of the forest was published back in February by Christians in Parliament, "Clearing the Ground inquiry: Preliminary report into the freedom of Christians in the UK." Among the important points:

 

* "Christians in the UK are not persecuted. To suggest that they are is to minimise the suffering of Christians in many parts of the world who face repression, imprisonment and death if they worship, preach or convert."

 

* "However, the frequency and nature of the [court] cases indicates a narrowing of the space for the articulation, expression and demonstration of Christian belief."

 

* One major reason for wrongful restrictions on religious expression is "a high level of religious illiteracy which has led to many situations where religious belief is misunderstood."

 

* Government regulations and court decisions have created a "hierarchy of rights" in which religious freedom is routinely subordinated to gay rights.

 

* A possible solution to the rights conflicts would be the introduction of a "reasonable accommodation" standard which would promote respect for all views in a diverse society with its diverse service providers instead of requiring the suppression of religious standards.

 

* "Christians have, and will always, experience tensions between their beliefs and the shifting values of the societies that they live in. To some extent the present tensions should be seen as an encouragement of faithful witnesses."

 

* "Ahead of bringing cases to court, Christians need to consider the potential impact their actions might have on politics, public opinion and the confidence of other Christians in their mission."

 

* "Now, too often the Church is defined by what it opposes rather than what it stands for. It is essential that Christians once again provide hope and a vision for society that goes beyond defending their own interests and includes the good of all."
Say What?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Refusing to serve potential customers because of their sexual orientation, whatever it is, is wrong and illegal--that's the firm consensus these days, everyone knows.

 

Then there was this passage in a story in Monday's Washington Post:

 

"Alissa Hall Perine, founder of Lovebus, an events planning company catering exclusively to same-sex couples, has decided to dissolve her business just days after [Maryland voters decided to ratify the same-sex marriage law] . . . . Though the [Maryland] decision would have potentially increased her market, Perine said she found it impossible to sustain her business with so few clients, many of whom were on very small budgets. Instead of expanding the scope of her business to include heterosexual couples, Perine has opted to leave the wedding planning industry altogether."

 

Hmm. What was that about every entity having to serve every potential customer without regard to . . .

Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Bradley Miller, "Same-Sex Marriage Ten Years On: Lessons from Canada," Public Discourse, Nov. 5, 2012.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/


* Douglas Laycock, Anthony Picarello, Jr., and Robin Fretwell Wilson, eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty:  Emerging Conflicts (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008). 
IRFA Needs You!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you rely on the eNews to keep you up to date on the latest trends in Washington?  

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
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.

For details and forms, go to:  http://irfalliance.org/membership.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For further information:
e-mail: [email protected]
website: www.IRFAlliance.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Join Our Mailing List

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.