|
FBO leaders to Senate: Don't exclude us from grant programs
On March 9, 2015, a diverse group of leaders of faith-based organizations, religious leaders, and religious freedom experts wrote to the Senate opposing proposed bill language that would hamper or bar faith-based organizations from a large proportion of federally funded service programs.
The clause in S. 262, a bill to reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHYA), is said to be necessary to ensure that LGBT young people are not excluded from, nor mistreated by, services funded by the federal government. Yet the clause in the bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and others, would obstruct participation by many faith-based organizations, not only in this federal program but in all the programs administered by the Administration for Children and Families in the Department of Health and Human Services. That's a very large set of programs. Moreover, the clause wrongly presumes that only organizations that care little about religion and that applaud LGBT conduct can be trusted to serve youth and others in need.
Yet, as the letter says,
"Every day, many faith-based organizations, large and small, here and overseas, serve, in partnership with the federal government, a wide range of persons and families that do not share the convictions and conduct of the organizations. They do it because of, not despite, their religious commitments. The last thing that the Senate should do is discourage their involvement in federal programs."
Organizations joining the letter, which was drafted by IRFA, include:
the National Association of Evangelicals,
Agudath Israel of America,
Esperanza,
National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC/CONELA),
the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability,
Christian Legal Society,
Association of Gospel Rescue Missions,
International Religious Liberty Institute (Seventh Day Adventist),
Bethany Christian Services,
World Vision, and the
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
Church-state experts include Professors Rick Garnett and Dan Philpott of the University of Notre Dame, Carl Esbeck of the University of Missouri, and James Davids of the Regent University School of Law. Ron Sider, President Emeritus of Evangelicals for Social Action also signed.
Utah works to end LGBT discrimination while upholding religious freedom
A bill moving rapidly through the Utah legislature, both houses of which have significant Republicans majorities, is designed to advance protections for LGBT persons while maintaining religious freedom for religious people and organizations. The bill, SB 296, Antidiscrimination and Religious Freedom sets into legislative form the widely-noted consensus-building statements of leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS-Mormons) at a press conference on January 27, 2015.
Many of those in favor of LGBT equality and also many who are committed to upholding historic moral positions on human sexuality are skeptical of statements and legislative efforts like these, arguing that one position or the other will, or should, win at the expense of the other. Yet our national tradition is to advance both equality and freedom, to fight discrimination while respecting dissenting views.
Notable elements of the bill: It prohibits employment and housing discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity but excludes from the prohibitions religious organizations and the Boy Scouts. It specifically protects from firing and harassment an employee who, on the job or off, simply expresses his or her convictions about LGBT and other matters. It requires employers to accommodate the needs of transgender employees while expressly permitting sex-specific restrooms, showers, and dressing rooms.
Not covered in this bill: the hotly disputed topic of religious freedom in the provision of services. Is it wrongful discrimination for a religious wedding planner to decline to plan a lesbian wedding, even though secular planners are not required to assist with religious ceremonies? Should faith-based adoption agencies be free to continue to serve only married mother-father couples while other agencies serve LGBT couples and individuals? What services may doctors and pharmacists legally refuse to perform for which patients and customers?
As American society becomes ever-more diverse, ever-farther from a past (approximate and often shallow) Judeo-Christian moral consensus, the issue of how we can live together despite, and with, our differences, collaborating to serve the common good wherever possible, will become ever-more pressing. The LDS Church and Utah's legislature are taking important steps to forging a path of mutual respect.
Religious freedom bills in Congress
Among the religious freedom bills that Congress may consider in its 114th Session is the Marriage and Religious Freedom Act (HR 3133/S 1808 in the previous session) and the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act (HR 5285/S 2706 in the previous session).
The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act is designed to protect from federal penalties persons and organizations who regard marriage to be a man-woman union. The intent is to make the federal government protect, rather than, penalize those people and organizations, even though the federal government increasingly declares its support for "marriage equality."
When the federal government facilitates in its programs and operations the recognition of same-sex marriage, it should not do so in a way that forces dissenters to act as if they, too, believe that same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are the same kind of relationship. The bill would keep the government from using its authority in areas such as grants, tax status, licensing, and accreditation to elevate supporters of same-sex marriage over adherents of historic marriage.
The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act takes up a specialized issue in the area of LGBT equality and religious freedom. States receive federal dollars to support their adoption and foster care services, which partner with private agencies to help recruit families and make placement decisions.
Some states and cities have written their sexual-orientation and same-sex marriage laws, or their adoption and foster care rules, in such a way that only private agencies that promise to treat all couples and individuals uniformly-LGBT or heterosexual; married or cohabiting-are permitted to provide adoption and foster-care services. A bill that appeared in several previous Congresses would have made this faux-equality a federal requirement accompanying the federal dollars down to state governments.
The proposed inclusion bill would reverse the action: state adoption and foster care departments that receive federal funding (as they all do) must respect the religious freedom of faith-based providers, meaning their freedom to use their religion-shaped assessment about how best to serve children and families. Protecting them protects religious freedom, and also keeps diversity in the child welfare system, because many other agencies are more than glad to help LGBT adoptions.
| 
