| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
Jan. 3, 2013
Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Access Past Issues of the eNews
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE. |
|
The Fiscal Cliff and Faith-Based Organizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ While the nation did not hurtle over the so-called fiscal cliff (the combination of mandatory budget cuts and tax increases), thanks to last minute action by Congress and the President, it is fair to say we've all slouched over the cliff. Little has been resolved and so big fights over taxes and spending will recur, starting in just a few months. With so little positive action resulting from so much fighting, economic activity may remain stalled, and there will be continued great need for social services coupled with low government income and declining charitable donations to pay for those needed services. The good news: despite a great deal of talk about a variety of means to cut back the federal tax break for charitable donations, only relatively small changes in charitable giving incentives were made (limits on deductions by higher-income taxpayers). And private school advocates say that hidden in this "complex and dense law" are two helpful small measures for schools. But let's not celebrate. What else is hidden in the many pages that law-makers hardly had time to read before they voted? Moreover, because federal spending continues to far outstrip federal revenues, Congress and the administration will continue to look longingly at the additional revenue the Treasury might reap if the charitable giving deduction was restricted or eliminated. A much better solution than weakening this federal incentive to people to give their own money to charities: the federal government should cut back the services it provides and finances. Some services can better be provided by private organizations that are funded by private donations. Reversing the trend to ever-more government-provided and government-funded services is one important way to protect religious freedom and to enlarge diversity in our society, for the more the government is involved, the more uniform and secular the services must become. Read more: Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability: "Charitable Deduction Survives 'Fiscal Cliff' Negotiations." Alliance for Charitable Reform: "Legislative Update: Fiscal Cliff Deal Reached."
|
The Next Four Years of the Obama Faith-Based Initiative
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Brookings Institution organized a discussion on Dec. 17, "Four More Years for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships." Many were surprised when, in July, 2008, candidate Barack Obama announced that he would maintain the federal faith-based initiative, one of President Bush's signature initiatives. Four years later, the Obama initiative has a track record and will soon be launching into its second four years. How should it be evaluated? How should it be changed? The federal faith-based initiative is important to all faith-based organization, whether or not they receives federal dollars. That's because the initiative helps to determine how the federal government relates generally to faith-based and other private organizations, e.g., when it regulates private organizations. And it is broadly important also because the federal rules for funding faith-based organizations follow federal dollars to state and local governments, where those federal dollars pay for many of the grants and contracts awarded by state and local government agencies. The Brookings discussion featured two panels. One was headlined by Joshua DuBois, executive director of the White House faith-based office, and several of his colleagues. A second panel of discussants was headed by John DiIulio, first head of the White House office under President Bush. The others on the second panel were Richard Foltin of the American Jewish Committee, Sr. Norma Pimentel of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, and your eNews editor. Some notes on my comments: I thanked the President for maintaining the faith-based initiative; for adopting as his own, with minor modifications, the level-playing field rules that had been developed before him; and for resisting fierce pressure and keeping the existing rules about religious hiring by faith-based organizations that get federal funds. I noted some positive developments of the Obama effort, but pointed to two troubling trends. (1) The Obama faith-based initiative tends to look to faith-based and community organizations to become advocates for administration policies and programs, rather than seeing its main focus as support for those organizations' own initiatives. (2) By downplaying on websites and in publications a clear statement and explanations of the level-playing field rules, the initiative is allowing conventional federal grant and contract practice to become dominant again--a preference for larger private organizations, for state and local government agencies, and for secular values and partners. In my conclusion, I recommended two things the Obama administration could do to draw more attention to the faith-based initiative-attention that is vital for the sake of transparency and oversight. Like President Bush, President Obama could make it a practice to visit exemplary faith-based organizations--the reporters and photographers who would follow would necessarily report on how the federal government relates to faith-based and secular private groups. And like President Bush, President Obama could adopt some policy positions that, while exactly right, are controversial with the media--thus winning plenty of publicity! I recommended to President Obama two such policy positions: (1) having spoken up in favor of gay marriage, the President now should speak up in favor of practical steps to protect the religious freedom of the many faith-based organizations who will be affected by marriage redefinition, including adoption and foster-care agencies and organizations with spousal-benefit and employee-conduct policies; (2) the President should backtrack on the HHS contraceptives mandate and broaden the religious employer exemption to cover every kind of faith-based organization--not only churches but also parachurch service organizations. I told the faith-based office and center staff that they would draw plenty of attention and-more important-do much good if they made it a priority to argue within the administration on behalf of religious freedom every time other officials act to elevate reproductive and LGBT rights. "That means," I said, "that in the second four years of the Obama faith-based initiative, special attention needs to be paid to appropriately protecting the religious freedom of faith-based services." You can listen to the event here. My comments run from 2:19:40 to 2:31:04.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Like" IRFA's Facebook page! Keep up with important developments; connect with others who also care about the freedom of faith-based services.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
ECFA Report to Sen. Grassley: Enhance Accountability
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Dec. 4, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations, organized by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, delivered the first of two reports to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA). Sen. Grassley, who has conducted hearings on nonprofit-sector missteps and was rebuffed by several Christian mega-media ministries when he sought information about their use of donations, asked the EFCA in 2011 to consider how to strengthen the accountability of religious and other charities to the public and to donors. The Commission's report, "Enhancing Accountability for the Religious and Broader Nonprofit Sector," is the outcome of extensive research and deliberations by a 14-member ECFA commission, which was advised by a multi-faith Panel of Religious Sector Representatives, a diverse Panel of Nonprofit Sector Representatives, and a Panel of [notable] Legal Experts.
Major topics included: limiting excessive compensation of executives, enhancing the accountability of houses of worship to their donors, fair tax treatment of "love offerings," and the clergy housing allowance. A theme throughout: promoting greater accountability and transparency for the financial activities of religious organizations without violating their constitutional rights nor subjecting them to unnecessary new legal requirements.
In general, consistent with that theme and with the genius of the ECFA itself (which was created in 1979 as a way for Christian ministries to demonstrate their accountable use of resources following growing public concern about questionable nonprofit fundraising practices) the Commission advocates better enforcement of existing laws and regulations, more informative materials from the IRS about existing requirements, and greater engagement by donors with those organizations they support. One important recommendation: secular nonprofit organizations and religious nonprofits that do not fit within the ECFA's mission to work with evangelical organizations should consider setting up their own counterparts of the ECFA, thus promoting broader and more effective self-regulation in the nonprofit world.
The Commission's report has been criticized as proposing feeble solutions to the real problems uncovered by Sen. Grassley. Some seem to think there need to be new laws, additional legal requirements. Yet if, as the critics admit, the IRS already is understaffed and underfunded-and has already been given a huge new regulatory responsibility with respect to the health reform law-it is hard to see how adding new laws and regulations will be effective. Government rules do not enforce themselves.
Some have proposed that houses of worship, which currently automatically have 501(c)(3) status, should be required to apply for that status from the IRS and then be required annually file a 990 or other financial report to government. Yet the IRS already is unable adequately to monitor 990 reports or give much scrutiny to 501(c)(3) application. More important, in protecting a zone of privacy around houses of worship, the government honors the First Amendment's religious freedom requirements. Churches and religions are diverse and necessarily have diverse ways of relating to adherents and donors and diverse ways of maintaining accountability. The 990 reports, even if not necessarily adequately monitored by the IRS, are routinely publicized by charity watchdog websites--providing a form of public accountability, but potentially also a means to subject unpopular and misunderstood houses of worship and religions to public opprobrium.
Transparency is not a miracle tool. The Commission's report proposes that the IRS should permit nonprofit organizations that file annual 990 information forms to set apart from public view certain details of their operations. Currently the names of donors, while reported to the IRS, need not be revealed in public copies of the 990 form. Organizations should be permitted also to shield from public view other sensitive information, such as overseas activities that might be disapproved by certain foreign governments or the addresses of shelters for victims of domestic violence.
Are the Commission's accountability recommendations adequate? The Commission is right not to expect overburdened government officials to miraculously assert better oversight if they just have more rules to administer. And it is right to strongly defend the legitimate sphere of religious freedom against the many contemporary pressures to squeeze it for one good cause and another. It is right to call on religious organizations to be more accountable to their constituencies and to ask donors to be more diligent in learning about organizations they might decide to support.
If so, the most important recommendation is that other sectors of the nonprofit world follow the lead of evangelical ministries and create their own versions of the Evangelical Council for Financial Responsibility. Without robust new accountability organizations, it is hard to see how donors can do a much better job of assessing organizations or how the nonprofits can better demonstrate to potential donors that they are accountable users of funds and providers of services.
|
Papal Guidelines for Catholic Service Organizations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The National Catholic Register headlined, "Pope to Bishops: Keep Church Charities Catholic." The reference is to a papal directive, dated Nov. 11 but released Dec. 1, "De Caritate ministranda," or "The service of charity." These are new guidelines on how the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations are to carry out their missions of charity.
The guidelines stress that charity is a core church mission and that if that mission is to be exercised well, then the charitable work of Catholics must be well organized. The guidelines refer to charitable work carried out by the Catholic church itself and also to charitable works carried out by lay organizations inspired by their Catholic faith.
The guidelines call for accountability-to church authorities and to the "legitimate" norms asserted by government.
Most striking: To be authentically "Catholic" charitable activities, the initiatives must "follow Catholic principles in their activity" and not accept commitments (e.g., strings on donations, partnership obligations) that might "in any way affect the observance of those principles." A lay agency may only use the name "Catholic" with the written consent of the relevant Church authority. Bishops, while ensuring that charitable institutions under their supervision follow "legitimate civil legislation," must also "ensure that the Church enjoys the right to carry out charitable activities."
And this: "To ensure an evangelical witness in the service of charity, the diocesan Bishop is to take care that those who work in the Church's charitable apostolate, along with due professional competence, give an example of Christian life and witness to a formation of heart which testifies to a faith working through charity. To this end, he is also to provide for their theological and pastoral formation, through specific curricula agreed upon by the officers of various agencies and through suitable aids to the spiritual life."
Since Catholic charity is more than the delivery of goods and services but is also a witness to the Gospel and should convey a personal commitment of care, employees of Catholic charitable organizations should be more than professionally competent and ethically upright. Does this portend a refinement of the hiring practices of Catholic institutions?
|
|
|
|
FEMA, Sandy Recovery, and Houses of Worship
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Along with every other kind of structure, many houses of worship were badly damaged by superstorm Sandy. But are those houses of worship eligible for federal aid via FEMA's Public Assistance program, which provides federal funds for restoring or replacing government facilities and the facilities of certain nonprofit and tribal organizations? To be eligible, the nonprofit facilities have to be "open to the public" and "provide certain services otherwise performed by a government agency." Those "certain services" are defined pretty broadly: education, communications, residential care, low-income housing, substance-abuse treatment, transportation to medical care, etc.
So do damaged houses of worship, including orthodox Jewish institutions, fit the criteria because of services they provide to the community? The Orthodox Union and Agudath Israel have been in discussion with FEMA and the Obama administration to clarify the rules and to advocate for broad eligibility.
Beyond the issue of the specific eligibility criteria for the Public Assistance program is a broader question: may the federal government legitimately "aid" religious organizations, and even houses of worship? After the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Congress acted to make houses of worship eligible for rebuilding assistance (see I. Lupu and R. Tuttle, "Historic Preservation Grants to Houses of Worship"). During the George W. Bush administration, based on changes in US Supreme Court interpretations of the religion clauses of the First Amendment, reconstruction aid was approved for a Jewish school damaged in an earthquake and historic preservation funds were approved for a Boston church building (see I. Lupu and R. Tuttle, "New Federal Policies on Grants for Disaster Relief or Historic Preservation at Houses of Worship and Places of Religious Instruction").
Considering all of this, we ought to rephrase the broad question. Instead of asking whether the government may legitimately aid houses of worship, we should ask this: when, if ever, is it right for the government to exclude just houses of worship and other religious organizations from its broad programs to restore damaged property? After all, the citizens and structures involved in worship or other religious activities are engaged in perfectly legitimate--and constitutionally protected--activities. In coming to their aid, the government is merely extending equal protection to all.
|
HHS Contraceptives Mandate Developments
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, the Little Sisters of the Poor are not about to be driven out of the United States because they object to contraceptives and abortifacients, cannot afford to be assessed the federal penalties for not offering health insurance or for offering health insurance that does not cover all legal contraceptives, and, not being a church, are not exempt from the mandate.
But that is only because they are being currently shielded from the mandate by the one-year "temporary enforcement safe harbor" that the federal government has instituted while it figures out what to do about the very many non-church religious organizations that have a deep objection to the requirement that the health insurance they offer to their employees must cover "all FDA-approved contraceptive services." If the accommodation that finally is announced by the administration does not adequately protect the religious freedom of the Little Sisters, they may have to leave the USA, just as they have had to leave other countries that have not respected religious freedom. Imagine the headlines!
Or not! It is amazing how little coverage most media outlets are giving to this huge religious freedom story that continues to unfold, thanks to the ill-designed contraceptives mandate. For example, if you did not read specialized news sources or regularly consult the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty webpage on the HHS contraceptives mandate, would you know:
* Yes, Hobby Lobby was turned down by the 10th Circuit appeals court in its attempt to get a preliminary injunction, and Supreme Court Justice Sotomayer turned down its request for the US Supreme Court to step in. However, rulings have now been issued in a dozen cases brought by for-profit businesses, and 9 of the businesses have won injunctive relief from the mandate.
* Yes, as the press has reported, many Catholic religious nonprofits and Catholic-owned businesses have sued the federal government--but so have Baptist and other Protestant colleges, and also a Mennonite-owned business.
* Far from taking the federal government at its word that it will fix the religious-freedom problems it has created, the federal courts are holding the government's feet to the fire. One federal court is requiring regular reports from the administration, and in the recent Belmont Abbey College/Wheaton College decision from the DC Circuit appeals court, the administration was forced to make legally binding promises to forge a religious-freedom solution for non-church religious organizations before the end of the first quarter of 2013 and to finalize the accommodation before August 1, 2013.
Of course, even good accommodation language may not be good enough. It won't be good enough if in effect non-church organizations continue to be treated as not having as good a religious freedom claim as churches. And it won't be good enough if it protects religious nonprofit organizations but gives no religious freedom relief to companies whose owners desire to operate their companies consistent with their religious convictions.
|
Free to be Distinctive?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* In mid-December, Eastern Michigan University agreed to pay Julea Ward $75,000 to settle her case against the university for expelling her from the counseling program after she referred a client desiring counsel to improve his homosexual relationship. She was willing to counsel him on any other matter but, as taught in the counseling program, sought to refer him to another counselor when he asked for help she could not in good conscience give. The university says that the settlement leaves its policies, curriculum, and counseling program requirements intact. But then Ward's case was exactly that the counseling program violated its own stated policies in not accepting her request to refer the client.
* The 9th Circuit appeals court in San Francisco on Dec. 21 put on hold California's ban on "reparative" or "conversion" therapy, which was to come into effect on Jan. 1, while a panel of judges will decide whether the ban violates the religious freedom of counselors, parents, and persons struggling with unwanted homosexual inclinations.
* The 9th Circuit appeals court on December 20 ruled that "[e]ven through the Boy Scouts of American bars atheists and gays, the city of San Diego is allowed to lease the group public property at nominal rates without running afoul of the state and federal constitutions." The opinion notes, "There is no evidence that the city's purpose in leasing the subject properties to the Boy Scouts was to advance religion, and there is abundant evidence that its purpose was to provide facilities and services for youth activities."
|
Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Daniel Philpott, "Why Christians Cannot Just 'Lighten Up' Over the HHS Mandate," Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, & World Affairs at Georgetown University:
"The debate over cooperation with evil, however, misses what is most at stake for Christians organizations in the HHS mandate, which is much the same as what has been most at stake for the Christian church in its relationship with the state over many centuries, which in turn is what is most at stake for the church in religious freedom: their right to give witness to the truths that they believe. . . .
"The freedom of religious organizations to live their faith and to communicate their message is violated when they are required to enable behaviors they believe to be immoral, even if this enabling is somewhat indirect. What they are being required to do is to perform a contradiction by associating themselves in their actions closely with deeds that undermine what they aim to profess."
Gabe Lyons, "My Take: Let's protect religious counselors amid 'conversion therapy' debate," CNN Belief Blog:
"Few of these therapists promise that gay and lesbian patients will emerge from their programs 'straight.' Rather, they seek to provide guidance, counsel and tools to help reframe desire, its nature and its ends. Such therapy exists to help clients understand the place of their sexuality in the broader conception of who they are.
"For example, some Christian therapists might help a client who believes that they are made in the image of God explore what role sexuality ought to play in understanding their full identity: Is it everything, nothing or a piece of the greater whole? These conversations may lead a client to decide how dominant of a role sexual desire will play in their life. Others might counsel a client to abstain entirely from sexual relations. But in doing so, the therapist would seek to help the client find fulfillment, identity and purpose outside of romantic or sexual relationships. There is a long tradition of Christians - from priests to nuns to laypeople - who have chosen celibacy as a higher calling toward spiritual fulfillment.
"Whether you like conversion therapy - or these particular outcomes - isn't the point. Protecting the religious rights of providers who help patients make sense of their sexuality in light of faith is fundamental."
|
| Support IRFA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Help support this electronic resource! You can donate securely online here. Thank you.
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
|
|
|
|
