IRFA Logo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eNews for Faith-Based Organizations
June 5, 2013

Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
Join Our Mailing List
In this issue
Progressive Arguments For Religious Organizational Freedom
Civil Rights and Religious Freedom
Undermining Civil Society By Misinterpreting Charity
So Foster Care Agencies Aren't Actually Interchangeable?
Support IRFA
Access Past Issues of the eNews 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An archive of current and past eNews for FBOs can be accessed HERE.  
Progressive Arguments for Religious Organizational Freedom
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's the title of an important new paper by Thomas Berg of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. As he says, religious liberty will not continue to be a fundamental element of our constitutional tradition if progressives become skeptical of it and choose to minimize it. He notes that "traditionalist religions" have not been perfect defenders themselves of religious liberty, and yet the big danger currently is the "increasingly strong impulse, especially on the left, to limit the free exercise of religous institutions to the narrow confines of the house of worship."

 

Berg uses the controversy over the HHS contraceptives mandate to demonstrate why politically progressive people ought to support the religious freedom of faith-based organizations even though they sometimes act in ways progressives deplore. Here's Berg:  

 

"I argue that there are sharp ironies when progressives exclude faith-based service organizations from religious-freedom protection. Service to others lies at the core of religious exercise; progressives more than anyone should affirm this; and accommodating such organizations vigorously both preserves civil liberty and recognizes the overall contributions they make to progressive social goals, even if they conflict with progressive positions on some deeply-felt issues."

 

Faith-based service organizations are dedicated to, well, service! And that service will be undermined if the religious freedom of the organizations is constricted. Berg says: "Following religious belief and maintaining religious identity is crucial for religious organizations, not just for individuals. The same features of identity-definition and comprehensiveness that mark religion in serious individual believers-the same web of belief and conduct-applies for organizations founded on religious principles. Organizations, like individuals, can suffer serious and pervasive harm when their participation in some aspect of life requires that they violate tenets that inspire and ground that participation in the first place."

 

And also: "[E]ffects on organizations also affect individuals themselves. Organizations serve as the means for aggregating and representing individual interests. An organization's identity, its overall mission, motivates many people to give to it, others to work or volunteer for it, and still others to choose to receive services from it. If organizations are forced to contradict their identity and change their character, many of these individuals will see their own religious freedom constricted."

Civil Rights and Religious Freedom                

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

Peter Kirsanow, who serves on the US Commission on Civil Rights, recently spoke with National Review Online's Kathryn Jean Lopez about the Commission's March briefing on "reconciling non-discrimination principles with religious liberty." The Commission's report on the briefing and on the comments sent to it is months away, so his insider perspective is particularly valuable.

 

Among other important observations, Kirsanow says this:

 

"In many respects, religious freedom has always been a civil-rights issue. It's perhaps unique among civil-rights issues in that it was the impetus for many of the first American colonists to risk their lives to settle in the New World. That's something that's in our national DNA.  But over the last few decades there's been a creeping erosion of our religious freedoms. The United States is rapidly imitating Western Europe and becoming a more secular society. People with no religious affiliation are now approximately 16 percent of the U.S. population, and the percentage is higher among Millennials. As some commentators have pointed out, it's questionable whether those who have no religious affiliation of their own will prioritize religious liberty. And as we've seen in Western Europe, when a society loses its faith it may not simply become apathetic toward religion, it may become actively hostile toward religion and religious believers. That's what we're seeing with universities, with the HHS mandate, and with the IRS investigations of pro-life organizations. For many secularists, same-sex marriage, abortion, access to free contraception, etc., take priority over conflicting religious beliefs. This conflict is becoming more widespread and heated."

 

His observation needs to be stressed. Our society has enjoyed a very long run of robust religious freedom, which is embodied in many salutary laws, regulations, government practices, and legal understandings. And yet as the foundations of that religious freedom erode at a fast pace, those religious freedoms are being revealed as, in many cases, cut flowers--still beautiful but destined to fade quickly because they have no live roots.

 

A bright spot is that religious communities--and others who also value conscience and respect for the dignity of all persons--are waking up and becoming active to preserve and enliven religious freedom and its foundations. The Commission's briefing and the comments it evoked showed not only the gathering dangers but also the growing positive attention to religious freedom.

 

Here's what Kirsanow says: "We received approximately 160 public comments. Although this wasn't the largest number of public comments the Commission has received in its 56-year history, it's close; and, more important, the quality and length of the comments were unprecedented. Many of the comments were similar to treatises and appellate briefs -- we'd not seen anything like it before."
Undermining Civil Society By Misinterpreting Charity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The "vast majority of charitable giving doesn't go to things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens"; moreover, the largest share of the federal tax deduction for charitable giving is claimed by wealthy Americans--ergo, the charitable tax deduction benefits the rich and not so much the poor, and it can best be eliminated. That's not precisely the argument of a recent blogpost for the Washington Post Wonkblog, but it's close enough. The headline put it this way: "Only a third of charitable contributions go to the poor." A good reason to severely limit or eliminate this tax break, this drain on the federal government's income, as Congress and the administration continue to wrestle to close the huge gap between federal expenditures and income.

 

Not so fast. As Rhett Butler of the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions points out, the data, definitions, and conclusions in the Wonkblog posting are questionable:

 

* The conventional categorization between contributions defined as giving to religion and those defined as giving on behalf of the poor doesn't accurately account for all the giving to religion that in fact is money for religious organizations dedicated to helping the needy;

 

* Much of the giving to religion supports houses of worship that have a positive effect on the community and that also directly serve the poor;

 

* Generous giving supports a flourishing civil society, and a flourishing civil society is a great asset to the needy;

 

* A just and flourishing society can't be adequately measured using data generated by means of a model that has a very narrow "direct-service" idea of assisting the poor;

 

* The best way to increase private giving to the specific causes you think are most valuable is by increasing private giving as a whole;

 

* Effective poverty reduction requires both direct services to the poor and flourishing communities;

 

* Some of the organizations that directly help the needy, such as gospel rescue missions, are extensively dependent on private giving, not government grants, and will be disproportionately harmed if tax law changes undermine private giving.

 

Two things to stress:

 

* The charitable tax deduction is unique: a taxpayer gets this "benefit" only by giving away far more money to organizations that serve others than the value of the deduction to him or herself. It is profoundly misleading to just lump this in with all of the other tax breaks. The mortgage interest tax deduction, for example, would be like the charitable contribution deduction only if a taxpayer could take the mortgage deduction only by paying someone else's mortgage!

 

* Even houses of worship, in distinction from faith-based service organizations such as rescue missions or low-income housing programs, have an enormous social impact to the good of the surrounding community, including its poor. Ram Cnaan, social policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who has studied the topic extensively, estimates that a single church in Philadelphia--in this case, First Baptist Church--adds more than $6 million annually to the community (about ten times its annual budget). That amount includes extremely valuable social impacts such as getting people off drugs and alcohol, preventing divorces, reducing neighborhood crime, assisting ex-prisoners to reenter society, providing good k-12 schooling, helping people get jobs, and so on.    

Since the charitable tax deduction makes miracles like this more likely, surely this is not the place to search for more government funding.    
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
"Like" IRFA's Facebook page!
  Keep up with important developments; connect with others who also care about the freedom of faith-based services. 

Like us on Facebook

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

So Foster Care Agencies Aren't Actually Interchangeable?       

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

A recent Wall Street Journal story says, "New York City is launching a campaign to recruit gay and lesbian foster parents, part of a major push to expand the kinds of families who consider fostering and to find more welcoming homes for children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer."

 

The campaign raises important questions about what family settings best promote child welfare--a complicated topic about which there is less and less agreement in our society.

 

But set aside that important and long-term discussion and consider the push to apply to private agencies nondiscrimination requirements in a way that can cause faith-based foster-care and adoption agencies to close or to lose government contracts.

 

The city's campaign only makes sense if some kinds of outreach, some kinds of agencies, are better than others at reaching particular parts of the population. And yet if it takes a specialized appeal to the LGBT community to gain a longer list of LGBT persons who are willing to be foster parents, doesn't the same logic hold true for other distinct groups in our society? And if so, what rational sense would it make for a city or state to rashly apply broad anti-discrimination rules (no discrimination based on marital status, religion, or sexual orientation) that have the effect of driving out of operation faith-based agencies that are especially trusted by and effective in reaching the majority of people willing to foster or adopt children?

 

The article says, "City officials say they are also hoping to find more diverse homes for children in the foster-care system in general"-beyond LGBT homes. A sensible policy will make explicit legal room in the foster care and adoption system for agencies that work particularly with religious persons and with married mother-father families.
Support IRFA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Help support this electronic resource!  You can donate securely online here.  Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.