AdvanceUSA Blog - Faith-Based Initiatives

“Bush Aides Say Religious Hiring Doesn’t Bar Aid”

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:57:30 GMT

The New York Times reports on this important development for the religious hiring rights of faith-based organizations.

AdvanceUSA Interview with Stanley Carlson-Thies

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:47:49 GMT

Daniel Herbster reporting

Faith-based organizations across the country are doing great work providing social services far more effectively and often more efficiently than the government. In order for faith-based groups to continue this crucial work, their religious liberties must be protected. Requiring Catholic adoption agencies to place children in the homes of homosexual couples or prohibiting religious organizations from hiring people of like-minded faith in order to receive funding are a few of the threats to religious liberty that faith based groups face. One organization seeking to advocate for religious liberty and the effectiveness of faith-based organizations is the Center for Public Justice. AdvanceUSA was able to interview Stanley Carlson-Thies about his work at CFPJ and the effort to protect crucial religious liberties.

DH: Stanley, I have great memories of attending Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom meetings with you when I was in DC, and I really appreciate the intellectual firepower you brought to the fight for religious freedom and the work CFPJ does to stand up for faith-based organizations. Tell our readers briefly what the Center for Public Justice does? What is its mission?

SC: The Center for Public Justice (CPJ) is a Christian “think tank” that works to educate Christians and others about public policy and citizenship, helps to develop Christian leaders in public affairs, and acts in coalition with others who are serious about religious freedom to influence public debates in favor of a robust public role for faith and faith-based organizations. We speak and write about a wide range of issues—national security and the Iraq war, different ways that various American Christian groups articulate a Christian perspective in politics (see the important book by James Skillen, Scattered Voice), a defense of historic marriage, and so on. We have been particularly active in the areas of school choice as a fundamental school reform, welfare reform, and the faith-based initiative. A major interest is understanding and showing how government and private organizations can best be related to each other. We offer a one-week intensive summer course in the Christian faith and public affairs, called the Civitas program.

DH: Could you explain to our readers the concept of “religious hiring rights” and why it is so important for faith-based organizations especially?

SC: Since the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and similar state and local laws), it has been illegal for employers, except for very small ones, to discriminate in hiring on the bases of race, color, national, origin, sex, or religion. People shouldn’t be excluded from jobs for irrelevant reasons—that’s just bias. But convictions and a certain standard of behavior are very important to most faith-based organizations—to churches and other houses of worship, and also to religious social-service and educational institutions. Imagine trying to maintain an evangelical drug treatment ministry if you couldn’t insist that new employees be Christians! Most people accept the need for this kind of religious hiring freedom. But many think this freedom ought to be given up if the organization agrees to help the government serve the needy by accepting a government grant to provide some service. How can it be right that the government would support religious job discrimination, they say. But, of course, it is not illegal discrimination for religious organizations to hire on the basis of religion (but they can’t exclude people for reasons of race, etc.). And it is just as important to a faith-based organization to be able to have a staff committed to its beliefs and standards when it is working with government as when it is using only private money.

DH: What are some of the chief threats to religious hiring rights in our nation today?

SC: There is that unworthy argument that the government must not support discrimination, so it must insist that faith-based organizations have to abandon religious staffing when government funds come in the door—but this argument rests on the wrong and harmful notion that when a faith-based organization insists that its staff be of a particular faith, it is engaging in illegal and irrational discrimination. But that just not true. An important and fast-growing threat comes from the many and powerful voices advancing the anti-discrimination agenda: pushing for expanded civil rights for homosexual persons. Sadly, too often those behind this push are unwilling to accommodate religious freedom, to see that religious persons and organizations have a constitutionally-based right to maintain their standards, such as employment standards, even when these conflict with the supposed right of a gay person to get hired wherever he wants. The other major threat, I think, comes from the growth of a casual, and yet powerful, sentiment against religion, against “sectarian” religion. Many people are glad that faith-based organizations rush to serve hurricane victims, work on skid row, don’t give up on drug addicts. But they don’t like “all that religion” and that “nasty discrimination” of keeping out some potential employees, and that “judgmentalism” in holding to certain moral standards. This kind of “can’t we all just get along” attitude can lead people to object to strong measures to protect the distinctive practices and standards of faith-based organizations, including the religious staffing freedom.

DH: Both major presidential candidates have spoken about supporting faith-based and community initiatives. In your opinion, what differences do you see in the candidates’ stances on this issue and do you have concerns with aspects of their plans or statements?

SC: I am sure we will see further development in the candidates’ positions. And that is important. John McCain has said he’ll continue the Bush faith-based initiative, and has particularly emphasized his support for the religious hiring freedom. But he has not said much about these matters, and, having worked as part of initial staff of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, I am quite convinced that it takes vigilance and smartness and plans and much energy to get the federal government to maintain a level playing field where faith groups have a fair chance of competing for federal support. Sen. Obama has spoken out very strongly in favor of maintaining and expanding the federal faith-based initiative (many states have their own versions)—this is a surprising and very welcome commitment, because it would certainly have been easier for him to say the initiative was just a Bush effort (though the initial legislative changes were signed into law by President Bill Clinton) and to go along with the many national Democratic critics of the initiative. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama’s plans, so far, have accentuated how groups have to be strictly secular if they want to work with government, and he has proposed a stringent new limitation on religious hiring by groups that get federal money. He does not seem to want to exclude faith groups, though, so there may be a further development in his views. Yet, we have to acknowledge that most of the critics of the faith-based initiative over the past dozen years have been from the Democratic Party, and many powerful Democratic interest groups are very much against religious hiring. Sen. Obama will have a big fight on his hands if he works to maintain the religious hiring freedom and the existing federal level playing field.

DH: Some conservatives are critical of the concept of faith-based initiatives because they see it as another way to grow government’s size. How would you reconcile the campaign for “compassion” through faith-based and community initiatives with the core conservative tenant of limited government?

SC: The question of the appropriate size of the government is obviously key—although we need to pay attention not only to size as such but also to appropriate size, which I think can change, depending on challenges and the area of policy we are concerned about. Still, it is a very important issue whether it is a good idea for faith-based groups to receive government money. I don’t think this is so much a size question—the government has already decided to spend all that money for social services, so the actual question is which private groups are eligible to receive the money, and what are the strings that are attached. More than a concern about government getting so large as a consequence of the faith-based initiative, I worry about faith-based groups becoming dependent on government money and losing their independence, and also losing their dependence on their donors and prayer partners and God. So faith leaders and donors and other supporters should pay close attention when a faith-based organization considers receiving government funds to provide some service. What are the strings? What about dependency? How will the group be wise enough and strong enough to walk away if the strings get too extensive? But I think this is a debate and fight that the faith groups themselves ought to have. I don’t think it is right for the government to exclude faith-based organizations from the funding program because the government has an unconstitutional bias against religion and for secularism!

DH: What are some other threats to religious freedom that you see on the horizon (or facing us today)?

SC: Many of the threats now arising aren’t coming because the faith group is seeking or receiving government funds (harmful strings attached to government money). They are coming in the form of overly restrictive licensing and accreditation requirements, professional and good practice standards, and employment and public accommodation rules. For example, in both New York State and California, the legislatures passed laws, upheld by the courts, that forbid Catholic Charities from declining to include contraceptive services as part of the health benefits they offer employees. An effort supported by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State sought to persuade Congress that when an accrediting agency accredits religious colleges and universities, it should use secular standards, despite the religious missions of these colleges and universities, and forbid them from hiring only Calvinists or Baptists or Jewish faculty. Fortunately that odd and damaging proposal was stopped. In a half-dozen states, it is officially illegal for any adoption agency, Christian or not, to regard the best home for a child to be a mother-father family and thus refuse to send a child to a gay couple. Of course, the creation of single-sex marriage will also pose great problems.

DH: How can our readers stay informed on these issues?

SC:I have two suggestions. The Alliance Defense Fund offers a daily e-mail notice of key news items in the areas of religious freedom, marriage, and life issues. Ask to be put on their list: http://www.alliancealert.org/. On behalf of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, a multifaith alliance of education, social service, and religious freedom groups, I send out an electronic newsletter focusing on key issues, ideas, and court decisions. This comes out every several weeks. Sign up by e-mailing me, stanley@cpjustice.org, putting “CPRF eNews” in the subject line.

DH: How could our readers take action in their neighborhoods, states, and in their country to protect religious liberty?

SC: Keep up with the news. Ask your pastor and parachurch leaders about the pressures they are under or are worried about. Notice the stories about threats to the freedom of faith-based organizations that appear in sources like World magazine, Christianity Today, and Citizen Magazine (Focus on the Family). Contact your state, federal, county, or city officials when the issue is important, reminding them of their responsibility to safeguard religious freedom. That’s not the only freedom, but it is fundamental. Officials need to find ways to uphold it even as they respond to other pressures and other rights. And if you are a lawyer, I hope you will consider how you can assist parachurch groups—faith-based service organizations—to understand and safely navigate the difficult waters of government funding and government regulation.

Because the threats are increasing but faith-based groups often are only active in a defensive and episodic way, I am organizing a new effort, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, as a coordinating and catalyzing organization to help equip and mobilize the groups, their associations, lawyers, and friends in government. People interested in this can contact me: stanley@cpjustice.org.

DH: Stanley, thanks for taking the time to speak to our readers and thanks for your work defending religious freedom. Please keep us updated on religious liberty issues in the future.

Note: The views of any interviewee do not necessarily reflect the views of AdvanceUSA.

Information on Presidential Candidate Forum

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:39:40 GMT

Saturday night’s presidential forum at Rick Warren’s church provided a clear distinction between the major candidates on various issues, especially on social conservative issues such as abortion, judges, and the rights of faith-based organizations. To read a transcript of the event click here. To view the entire broadcast via online video click here.

Special Report: The Crossing Alternative School

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:13:52 GMT

Yesterday morning I had the privilege to meet with Rob Staley of The Crossing. The Crossing is an amazing alternative school program that is helping kids with behavioral or developmental challenges that require a unique learning environment. The Crossing is not an alternative to public education but rather comes along side public school systems and helps meet the needs of at-risk kids while helping the school system financially and academically. An essential part of the success of The Crossing is its strong faith-based core values.

With the serious challenges facing the American educational system, more outside-the-box faith-based organizations like The Crossing will be needed. With a little school choice legislation, these kinds of programs could greatly expand, meeting the needs of at-risk kids and saving tax-payer dollars.

Find out more about The Crossing at www.crossingeducation.com.

Daniel Herbster reporting

White House Forum on Faith-Based Inner City Schools

AdvanceUSA — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:34:55 GMT

The While House held a forum on the troubling trend of faith-based schools in the inner city having to close their doors. President Bush spoke at the event and you can read his speech here. Hopefully the forum will help get out the message that greater school choice for parents and greater protections for faith-based education are important elements in reforming American education.

“New [Religious Freedom] Threat to Charitable Choice”

AdvanceUSA — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:05:39 GMT

One would expect that Catholic organizations should be able to hire only Catholics or that religious ministries (a church soup kitchen for example) should be able to fire or refuse to hire people who violate that religion’s moral teachings on sexuality. These common sense assumptions could be in danger if “charitable choice” is not protected in the upcoming SAMSHA vote in the Senate.

Charitable choice is what allows religious charities to accept federal funding while taking religious/moral beliefs into consideration when hiring employees. Without these protections religious charities would be forced to compromise their most cherished beliefs in order to continue to minister effectively. Allowing Catholic charities to only hire Catholics or to refuse to hire someone who is an openly practicing homosexual are examples of charitable choice protection.

The Center blog reports on the latest efforts to restrict this important religious liberty in the statutory provisions governing the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Senators should be urged to support charitable choice in SAMHSA.

Excerpt from Washington Post story:

Under the Civil Rights Act, religious groups are allowed to only hire people of their particular faith. The battle erupts over what should happen when these groups accept federal dollars.

Supporters of charitable choice said before it was in place many faith-based groups were treated poorly by government agencies and shied away from applying for federal money, fearing they would have to change their religious nature. Many of these groups are highly effective in helping the addicted and mentally ill, supporters said, and without charitable choice, many of them won't apply for federal aid, perhaps dropping out.

State of the Union 2008

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:34:40 GMT

Last night President Bush delivered his final State of the Union address to a combined gathering of both houses of Congress. His speech touched on a number of important pro-life, pro-family, and religious liberty issues.

The president threw down the gauntlet on stem cell research, telling Congress that we must continue to fund ethical research because human life must be respected. He highlighted the recent breakthrough in obtaining pluripotent stem cells from skin cells as proof that unethical research was unnecessary. The President championed the role of faith-based organizations in providing services and changing lives far more effectively than government alone can do. He called on Congress to allow more flexibility and local control for schools under the No Child Left Behind Act. He also encouraged Congress to maintain “charitable choice” provisions in federal law which protect the religious hiring rights of faith-based organizations (ex: allowing a Catholic charity to hire only Catholics who share that organization’s mission and standards).

The White House website has provided the text of the president’s address along with video links that allow you to watch the address. To read a helpful fact sheet provided by the administration about the agenda outlined in the president’s speech click here. To read helpful summaries of the various topics see below:

ECONOMY: Keeping Our Economy Healthy

BUDGET: Staying On Track To A Balanced Budget By 2012

NATIONAL SECURITY: Giving Our National Security Professionals Tools They Need To Protect America

IRAQ : Continued Progress In Iraq Allows "Return On Success"

GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR: Keeping America Safe By Fostering The Freedom Agenda

VETERANS: Supporting Our Nation's Troops And Their Families

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: Expanding Opportunity Under No Child Left Behind

EDUCATION: Empowering Parents With More Choices For Their Children's Education

FREE TRADE: Opening New Markets And Expanding Opportunities Through Free Trade

ENERGY: Increasing Our Energy Security And Confronting Climate Change

HEALTH CARE: Empowering Americans With Affordable Options For Health Care

STEM CELL RESEARCH: Increasing Federal Support For Ethical Stem Cell Research

FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES: Helping Those In Need Through The Faith-Based And Community Initiative

IMMIGRATION: Improving Border Security And Immigration

COMPASSION: Advancing An Agenda Of Compassion Worldwide

AdvanceUSA Attends White House Briefing on Improving Education Through Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

AdvanceUSA — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:57:30 GMT

Tuesday afternoon AdvanceUSA, along with educators, community leaders, and education advocates, attended the “Compassion in Action Roundtable” sponsored by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The topic of the roundtable was “Real Choices for Educational Improvement: How Faith-Based and Community Organizations Help Bridge the Achievement Gap.”

A number of government, church, educational, and community leaders shared success stories of rising test scores and parental satisfaction because of the intervention of faith-based and community organizations. Among the speakers were Bishop William Lori who spoke about the dramatic improvements in inner city schools in Bridgeport , Connecticut as well as Sally Sachar, Virginia Walden-For, and Chris Kelly who highlighted the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program which benefits low income families in the nation’s capital.

AdvanceUSA was pleased to hear several speakers emphasize the need for school choice. Two general categories of school choice were discussed.

Vouchers are direct payments by the government to parents or schools in order to provide for students’ private or public education thus providing more options than just the local school district.

Tax Credits allow parents to deduct some or all of their tuition payments from their taxes, or they give individuals or businesses a tax credit for contributing to a non-public school scholarship fund. Some school choice advocates prefer this method as it minimizes government involvement in private school affairs.

The U.S. Department of Education’s new report entitled “Education Options in the States: State Programs that Provide Financial Assistance for Attendance at Private Elementary or Secondary Schools” was also highlighted at the event and can be read online here.

AdvanceUSA hopes this interesting and inspiring meeting will help advance the cause of school choice for parents and further improve the state of education in America through the efforts of faith-based and community initiatives.

For more information on school choice ideas check the AdvanceUSA pro-family page.

Faith-Based Groups Helping Poor to Work

AdvanceUSA — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:13:42 GMT

CitizenLink reports that faith-based organizations are doing great work training the underprivileged to complete their education and enter the workforce. In many ways, faith-based organizations can do work cheaper than other organizations and can also solve problems government alone could never address.

Faith Based Groups Protected From Frivolous Lawsuits by Supreme Court

AdvanceUSA — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:47:21 GMT

The Supreme Court today ruled that a tax-paying citizen with a grudge against religion cannot bring a faith-based organization to court without just cause. This is a great victory for faith-based organizations. Hopefully this will overcome a barrier to effective faith-based ministry, allowing such groups to flourish and benefit our nation in ways only they can.

To read the Court’s decision click here.