Nonprofit Law Prof Blog

DC – Catholic Church Threatens to Pull Social Services Over Gay Rights

The Washington Post reports that the Catholic Church is threatening to end a wide range of service programs in the District of Columbia pending the passage of a same-sex marriage bill by the DC Council next month.  The bill has language that requires, among other things, prohibiting discrimination against gay men and women by religious organizations. 

A spokeswoman for the church stated that "the city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."  The church says that it will be forced to abandon its contracts with the city including those that provide social services to the community.  Specifically, the church points to the $10 million it contributes to city social services to illustrate the impact of the bill.  The DC government has responded that the church is not “an indispensable component of [the city’s] social services infrastructure.”  Peter Rosenstein of the Campaign for All D.C. Families states that “the issue here is that they are using public funds, and to allow people to discriminate with public money is unacceptable.” 

The DC Council is expected to pass the bill next month.  Council members state that they are baffled by the church’s position, but that they are willing to find another partner to provide social services who will be able to make use of the $8.2 million in city contracts that currently goes to the church.

SS

Coming Soon to Aceh, Indonesia: Death by Stoning for Adulterers

Today's New York Times reports that under a new Islamic Criminal Code that goes into effect this month, the Shariah police in Aceh, Indonesia, will be wielding a new and more potent threat to the province's citizens and residents: death by stoning for adulterers.

Although most of Indonesia still lives up to its reputation for a moderate, easygoing brand of Islam, Aceh has gone from basic Islamic law to what many observers see as extremism.  According to the Times:

Though extreme, Aceh is not an isolated case. In recent years, as part of a decentralization of power away from the capital, Jakarta, at least 50 local governments have used their new authority to pass Shariah-based regulations regarding conduct and dress, though none have gone as far as Aceh to deal with criminal matters.

The Times continues:

Most experts and human rights advocates believe the regulations discriminate against non-Muslim minorities and contravene the country’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion. But the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono — a moderate former general whose Muslim credentials have often been questioned by political opponents — has not challenged them. In fact, Mr. Yudhoyono has backed morality-based laws that pleased Muslim conservative allies but angered advocates of human rights.

The president has yet to comment on the stoning provision, leaving it to his aides to quietly criticize it and clearly hoping that the Aceh Parliament will repeal it. Aceh’s governor has said he will refuse to carry out any stonings, and even supporters acknowledge that the punishment will be extremely hard to apply for practical and theological reasons. Nevertheless, because the governor lacks veto power, stoning could remain on the books.

VEJ

   

French Court Convicts Church of Scientology of Fraud

Earlier today, a French court convicted the French branch of the Church of Scientology of fraud and fined the organization almost $900,000.  However, the court stopped short of granting the prosecution's demand to ban the church entirely.  The church said it would appeal.

The verdict was among the most important in several years to involve the group, which is registered as a religion in the United States but has no similar legal protection in France where it is considered a sect.  Today's court decision marks the first time that the church itself -- and not individual church members -- had been tried and convicted.

According to the New York Times:

The case was brought by two former members who said they were pushed into paying large sums of money in the 1990s, pressed to sign up for expensive “purification courses” and harassed to buy a variety of vitamins and other forms of pharmaceuticals, plus electronic tests to measure spiritual progress. One woman said she had been pressured into spending more than $30,000.

The major fines were rendered against the Scientology Celebrity Center in Paris and a Scientology bookstore. Six group leaders were convicted of fraud, with four given suspended sentences of 10 months to two years. One of them, the group’s leader in France, Alain Rosenberg, was given a two-year suspended sentence and fined $44,700. Two others were given only fines, of $1,490 and $2,980.

Olivier Morice, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, applauded the tribunal's decision, saying: “This is an historic decision. It’s the first time in France that the entity of the Church of Scientology is condemned for fraud as an organized gang.”  Meanwhile, Agnès Bron, a spokeswoman for the church, called the verdict "an Inquisition for modern times.”

The Church of Scientology is based in Los Angeles. It was founded in 1954 by the writer L. Ron Hubbard. The State Department has in the past criticized Belgium, Germany, and other European countries for labeling Scientology a cult or sect and enacting laws to restrict its operations.

VEJ

Potential Changes to Funding Available to Religious Charities

The Washington Post reported that nearly 60 groups concerned with civil rights, labor, health and education urged Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last Thursday to renounce a Bush-era memo allowing religious charities that receive federal grant money to discriminate in hiring.

The 2007 memo by the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel permits the government to bypass laws against giving taxpayer money to groups that refuse to employ people of other faiths.  The Bush administration had first asked Congress to change the anti-discrimination restrictions as part of its so-called “faith-based” initiative.  The memo was published in response to Congressional pushback.

The New York Times reports that the memo said government officials could choose to disregard such restrictions because of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That Act permits some exceptions to federal laws if obeying them would impose a “substantial burden” on people’s ability to freely exercise their religion. The memo argues that the Act can override statutes that require recipients of taxpayer aid not to discriminate with that money.  In accordance with the memo, for example, the Christian charity, WorldVision to receive a $1.5 million grant to prevent juvenile delinquency.  The civil rights groups argue that the memo jeopardizes civil rights and religious liberty.  WorldVision responds that interference with its hiring practices will damage its identity and its mission. 

SS

Judge Rules U.S. Seizure of Charity's Assets Unlawful

According to a report published in today's Toledo Blade, a federal judge in Toledo, Ohio, on Tuesday  ruled that the U.S. government violated the constitutional rights of a Muslim charity when it froze the charity's assets in 2005 and prevented it from adequately defending itself against allegations of ties to terrorism.  

Judge James Carr (Northern District of Ohio) released a 100-page order late Tuesday in KindHearts for Charitable Development, Inc. v. Geithner in which he agreed with the charity's assertions that it had been denied due process and was subjected to the unlawful seizure of its property. According to the Blade, KindHearts, founded in 2002, was targeted in 2006 by federal agents, who in turn froze the charity's financial assets.  Court documents revealed that "the organization was under investigation by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury De-partment and would potentially be labeled as a 'specially designated global terrorist.'" 

Earlier this year, Judge Carr ordered the government to produce copies of all materials seized in 2006 from KindHearts' headquarters and the home of its president.

The organization's attorneys had argued that without access to the information, it could not defend itself against charges of terrorism by showing where its money was spent. The government countered that opening access could compromise its investigation.

The organization's attorneys also argued that the government violated search-and-seizure laws when it froze KindHearts' assets without showing probable cause and without obtaining a warrant.

In the order released on Tuesday, Judge Carr wrote:

KindHearts is indisputably one of 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment. If the Constitution affords KindHearts no protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, whom among 'the people' does it protect and who among the people can be certain of its protection?

Judge Carr also noted that finding the Fourth Amendment inapplicable to the government's "block actions" would disregard its "role as a bulwark against the abuses and excesses of unchecked governmental power." 

In responding to the ruling, Charles Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division said that his office will analyze the lengthy opinion so that it is wholly understood.  He declined further comment.

Of course, the government can appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit.  The Blade reports that "At a May 1 court appearance before the judge in which both sides argued their cases, the government indicated if the judge ruled the freeze of assets lifted, it would request a stay until the appellate court hears the case."

Time will tell what happens next.

VEJ

ACLU Report: War on Terror Undercuts Liberty of Muslim Donors

Yesterday, we blogged about French President Sarkozy's pledge to outlaw the burqa.  This post prompted two of our readers to send me a report recently issued by the ACLU which concludes that the United States' fight against terrorism has dealt a harsh blow to Muslim charities and interfered with their donors’ religious freedom.   Although we blogged about this report just ten days ago, I shall submit another post about this interesting development.

According to the ACLU report, the government's actions have "created a climate of fear that chills American Muslims’ free and full exercise of their religion through charitable giving, or Zakat, one of the 'five pillars' of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims."  

The report is based on interviews with more than 100 Muslim community leaders as well as experts on antiterrorism laws and regulations. Although it does not estimate the total decline in donations to Muslim groups, it says a total of nine Islamic charities have closed as a result of government action against them since the Sept. 11 attacks.

A recent New York Times story quoted Maja Freij, chief financial officer at the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, a large Arab-American social services group based in Dearborn, Michigan, as saying, "It’s absolute madness how this policy has been put together and practiced.  It makes you guilty by association, offers no due process and lacks checks and balances.”

Meanwhile, Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, told The Times, “American Muslims with U.S. passports are returning from abroad and being asked about their charitable donations by customs and immigration agents.”

VEJ

Pastor to Flock: Bring Guns to Church

Today's New York Times reports that Ken Pagano, pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville, Kentucky, has invited members of his congregation to wear or carry their firearms into the sanctuary tomorrow night to "celebrate our rights as Americans."  The event will form part of Bring-Your-Gun-to-Church Day, which will include a $1 raffle of a handgun, firearms safety lessons and a picnic. 

Pastor Pagano has for some time been a passionate advocate of gun rights.  Two weeks ago, he preached a sermon entitled "God, Guns, Gospel and Geometry."  The Times also reports him as saying, "God and guns were part of the foundation of this country." He also opined that "Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”  

In Pastor Pagano's church in Louisville, a large wooden cross hangs over the altar; two American flags jut out of side walls.       

Commenting on Pastor Pagano's invitation to his flock, Pam Gersh, a Louisville public relations consultant who helped organize a rally in that city to coincide with the Million Mom March against guns in Washington, said, "This pastor is obviously crossing a line here and saying ‘I can even take my guns to church, and there is nothing you can do about it.’ ”

Pastor Pagano disagrees:

When someone from within the church tells me that being a Christian and having firearms are contradictions, that they’re incompatible with the Gospel — baloney. As soon as you start saying that it’s not something that Christians do, well, guns are just the foil. The issue now is the Gospel. So in a sense, it does become a crusade. Now the Gospel is at stake.

VEJ

Sarkozy Would Outlaw the Burqa

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that in an address to the French parliament on Monday, French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, gave a withering critique of burqas as an unacceptable symbol of "enslavement."  According to Mr. Sarkozy, there is no room in the French republic for burqas, garments some Muslim women wear to cover their bodies and faces.  

Said Mr. Sarkozy:

The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity,  The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women.

To enthusiastic applause, Mr. Sarkozy stated: “I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”

I note that France has the largest Muslim population in Western Europe.  Current estimates are that there are approximately five million Muslims living in France.  Yet, traditional Islamic garments have been a divisive issue in that country for several years.  In 2004, for example, France passed legislation prohibiting the wearing of head scarves and conspicuous religious symbols at public schools.  

Meanwhile, Mr. Sarkozy appears to have spoken from both sides of his mouth.  On the one hand, he stated that in France, "the Muslim religion must be respected like other religions."  Yet, he also stated that "the burqa is not welcome in France.  We cannot accept in our country women imprisoned behind bars, cut off from social life, deprived of identity.”

He also gave his support to a cross-party initiative by about 60 legislators who proposed that a parliamentary commission study the burqa and methods to combat its spread.

It would seem that Mr. Sarkozy is likening the wearing of the burqa to "women being imprisoned behind bars, cut off from social life, [and] deprived of identity."  Yet, in my work as a member of the Board of Experts of the International Religious Liberty Association, I have come across many Islamic women in many countries who willingly and gladly wear their burqas.  Sure, the burqa is something some western minds do not understand; but why should the government of France -- or any government, for that matter -- outlaw its use?  What next will President Sarkozy do -- call for Roman Catholic nuns to stop wearing their habits or for ministers of religion like myself to stop wearing our clerical collars or clerical robes in public?    

VEJ

  

Politics in the Pulpit 2008 AND 2009

The Alliance Defense Fund, which brought you Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2008, and the Federalist Society recently teamed up to host a panel discussion at the National Press Club on the constitutionality and wisdom of the Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) prohibition as applied to pastors speaking from their pulpits.  The speakers included Professors Doug Laycock (Michigan) and Donald Tobin (The Ohio State University), as well as Rev. Barry Lynn from Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Benjamin Bull of ADF.  I finally had a chance to listen to the debate, and regardless of your views on this issue it is very informative about the various positions.

One interesting additional note.  The Alliance Defense Fund is apparently already gearing up for Pulpit Freedom Sunday 2009, for which it will recruit churches both to comment on current government officials and to comment on candidates for office.

LHM

President Obama to Host Seder at White House

The JTA is reporting that President Obama will host a Passover seder at the White House this evening. 

The JTA report states in part:

William Daroff, vice president for public policy and director of the United Jewish Communities Washington office, said the seder was scheduled on the second night so as not to disrupt first night family seders and is "a testament to how far we have come as a Jewish people in America.

"Jews are a vital component in the mosaic that is American culture and society," he said. "Our welcome through the front door, and the dining room door, of the White House speaks to the inclusiveness of today's America and of President Obama. This night is indeed different from all other nights."

We rejoice with our Jewish friends at this development.

Be patient with me as I digress and rejoice about another matter: the appointment of my friend and colleague, David A. Brennen, as dean of the University of Kentucky College of Law.  David was one of my tax law professors (I actually took three classes with him) when I was a law student at Syracuse University College of Law many, many years ago.  I learned much from David, both in and out of the classroom, and for many years after I had graduated from law school.  I rejoice with him, and wish him well in this new endeavor.

VEJ      

Government Cutbacks Hurt Faith-Based Charities

Here is another story on the effect of the economic downturn on the nonprofit sector.  This time, we take a look at faith-based charities.

Today's Washington Post is reporting that faith based charities are facing unprecedented cutbacks from one of their biggest funders: the government.  These cutbacks will naturally affect the charities' ability to maintain the wide array of private social services they currently provide to the nation's sick, elderly and poor.

The current economic downturn has led local and state government agencies across the nation to reduce contracts and grants or delay payments to the groups.  This, in turn, has forced many groups to eliminate programs and lay off staff.  For example, reports the Post, in the Washington, D.C., area, faith-based charities such as Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington and the Salvation Army are freezing job vacancies, postponing initiatives, and rallying their members to dig deeper into their pockets. 

Government leaders, meanwhile, are urging the charities to increase their fundraising.  Yet, the current economic situation is causing deep cuts in private giving. 

The road ahead surely looks bleak for faith-based charities. 

VEJ

Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning, President Obama announced that he will sign an executive order today, creating the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The executive order will require the office to seek assistance from the Attorney General on constitutional issues, including religious hiring. Obama says that the office will not favor one religion over another or religious groups over secular groups. Rather, the goal will be "to work on behalf of organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line our founders wisely drew between church and state."

Joshua Dubois will serve as director of the new office.

Obama will also announce today members of the Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the body that will help determine how funds in the stimulus package will be spent by religious organizations.

The washingtonpost.com posted the story this morning.

sng

People Turn to Religion as Economy Worsens

Today's New York Times (Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches) reports that since September, evangelical pastors nationwide say they have seen such a burst of new interest in church-going that they find themselves contending with powerful conflicting emotions — deep empathy and quiet excitement — as they re-encounter an old piece of religious lore:

Bad times are good for evangelical churches.

“It’s a wonderful time, a great evangelistic opportunity for us,” says the Rev. A. R. Bernard, founder and senior pastor of the Christian Cultural Center in Brooklyn, New York’s largest evangelical congregation, where regulars are arriving earlier to get a seat. “When people are shaken to the core, it can open doors.”

Seizing the opportunity, congregations large and small around the nation are presenting programs of practical advice for people in fiscal straits — from a homegrown series on “Financial Peace” at a Midtown Manhattan church called the Journey, to the “Good Sense” program developed at the 20,000-member Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., and now offered at churches all over the country.

Many ministers have for the moment abandoned standard sermons on marriage and the Beatitudes to preach instead about the theological meaning of the downturn.

But evangelicals are not the only ones enjoying this increased attendance at church services.  Some large Roman Catholic parishes and mainline Protestant churches around the nation are also experiencing attendance increases -- although these increases are not as striking as those reported by congregations describing themselves as evangelical, a term generally applied to churches that stress the literal authority of Scripture and the importance of personal conversion, or being “born again.”

VEJ

NoMobVeto.org ad in NYT condemning "violence and intimidation" against Mormons

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (a nonprofit public interest law firm "protecting the free expression of all religious traditions") sponsored a full-page ad in the New York Times deploring "The violence and intimidation being directed against the LDS [Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] or 'Mormon' church, and other religious organizations-and even against individual believers-simply because they supported Proposition 8," California's ballot initiative that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. It passed with 52.3% of the vote. The alleged intimidation includes a number of incidents reported in the UK's The Independent (see "Mormons Under Seige").  The ad was published in the name of "No Mob Veto," a Becket Fund project.  Signatories include Professors Douglas Laycock (University of Michigan Law School), and a dozen or so religious leaders, lawyers, civil rights activists, and theologians.

The LDS contributed only relatively small sums in support of "Prop 8."  (The State of California's Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating an allegation that the LSD church did not disclose the value of non-monetary campaign activities such as phone banking.)  Individuals members of the LDS church contributed up to 40 percent of the more than $40 million raised to support Prop 8.  Also, The New York Times reported that "the Mormon leadership in Salt Lake City issued a four-paragraph decree to be read to congregations, saying 'the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,' and urging members to become involved with the cause." It has been estimated "that Mormons made up 80 percent to 90 percent of the early volunteers who walked door-to-door in election precincts."

A few editorials (including a posting by Mario Ruiz on The Huffington Post) have called for the revocation of the LDS Church's tax-exempt status, on grounds that it violated a condition of tax-exempt status under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code - that no substantial part of its activities may consist of attempting to influence legislation.

rak

LDS Church, Proposition 8, and the Lobbying Limitation

The past election cycle brought a lot of attention (see prior blog posts here and here) to the issue of churches intervening in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office . . .," what we in the tax-exemption world call the political campaign prohibition. But it appears that the passage of Proposition 8 in California (making same-sex marriage illegal in the state) has caused some folks in the blogosphere to rediscover the other limitation on political activity in Code Section 501(c)(3): the requirement that "no substantial part" of the activities of an exempt organization can be for the purpose of "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation . . ." (what we call the lobbying limitation).

Some bloggers and web sites (see here, here and here for a representative sample) have pointed out that the Church of Latter Day Saints expended a lot of money and effort in support of Proposition 8, and believe that LDS should be stripped of its exempt status under the "no substantial part" test for lobbying. But this argument misapprehends the law in this area. First of all, there is no specific standard for what constitutes a "substantial part" of an organization's activities. For example, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Christian Echoes National Ministry v. United States, 470 F.2d 849 (1972) refused to adopt a bright-line mathematical test for "substantiality," instead focusing on the centrality of lobbying to the overall mission of the organization in question:

The political activities of an organization must be balanced in the context of the objectives and circumstances of the organization to determine whether a substantial part of its activities was to influence or attempt to influence legislation. A percentage test to determine whether the activities were substantial obscures the complexity of balancing the organization's activities in relation to its objectives and circumstances. An essential part of the program of Christian Echoes was to promote desirable governmental policies consistent with its objectives through legislation. The activities of Christian Echoes in influencing or attempting to influence legislation were not incidental, but were substantial and continuous. The hundreds of exhibits demonstrate this.

470 F.2d at 855-56. Note the court's reference to the lobbying activities of Christian Echoes as "substantial and continuous" and the "hundreds of exhibits." I think it is fair to say that based on the case record, virtually the entire message of Christian Echoes had lobbying overtones. In contrast, the major denominational churches in the U.S., such as the Catholic Church and LDS, do many, many other things than lobby. Each would undoubtedly take the position that their primary purpose is to spread their religious message, and that this is what they do on a daily basis (along with programs to help the poor, promote social justice and so forth). And in fact, such a statement is true. LDS's (and the Catholic Church's) involvement with Proposition 8 in "the context of [its] objectives and circumstances" was simply a small, incidental part of their ministry, particularly when compared to the record in Christian Echoes.

Second, even though the 10th Circuit declined to adopt any kind of mathematical test, it is almost certainly the case that the amount of time, money, and other resources spent on lobbying at least would be probative of the "substantiality" of lobbying to the overall mission of the organization in question. And again, on this front whatever efforts were expended by the LDS on Proposition 8 pale in comparison to the size of their overall operation. Aside from the fact that the time frame for this activity was limited, one blogger reports that the Church spent $5 million on efforts to pass Proposition 8. Financially, that's probably a rounding error for LDS. While churches do not have to file a Form 990 with the IRS (a travesty that should be corrected by Congress), and thus there is no public record of the assets or income of LDS, there are some informed estimates. For example, a 1997 Time Magazine article estimated the assets of LDS as between $25-35 billion. Richard Ostling's book Mormon America, which grew out of the Time article and was published in 1999, estimated LDS revenues at $5.9 billion annually. And all this was over a decade ago. So . . . some friendly advice for those folks who think they've got a legitimate shot at getting the IRS to revoke LDS's exemption based on its Proposition 8 activities: find a more productive use of your time.

Of course, all this begs more serious legal and policy questions, which are (1) whether we should have political restrictions on charities at all and (2) if so, why do the rules permit some ("insubstantial") lobbying but absolutely prohibit political campaign activity. My own view is that if one of the reasons we grant tax-exemption to charities is because of their role in promoting a pluralistic society (a common explanation for exemption, which I don't necessarily adhere to entirely), I can't understand why we would remove from them the main method by which a minority (I'm using this term in its broadest sense to mean any political minority) can influence policy: petitioning their government. But I understand that this is an issue on which reasonable people (and many unreasonable ones) differ.

JDC

DOJ Legal Opinion Supports Charitable Preferences Based on Religion, But Refuses to Address Prefences Based on Race or Gender

The October 18, 2008, issue of the New York Times contains an article that discusses the recent release of a Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion letter which supports the granting of federal money to a faith-based organization that hires Christians only and refuses to hire non-Christians.  As the NYT article reflects, the analysis in the legal opinion is quite extension.  However, the religious freedom law experts quoted in the article describe the analysis as, at worst, completely wrong, or at best, an overly aggressive application of "substantial burden" religous freedom legal doctrine.  Here is an excerpt from the NYT article:

Christopher E. Anders, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, said he was alarmed by the 2007 memorandum’s conclusion that the government does not have a “compelling interest” in enforcing a federal civil rights statute.

“It’s really the church-state equivalent of the torture memos,” Mr. Anders said. “It takes a view of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that allows religious organizations to get federal funds without complying with anything.”

Professor Lupu did not go that far, but said the opinion made “an aggressive reading of ‘substantial burden’ in a way that is not consistent with what courts and other agencies have done in the past, and it is designed to serve the president’s political agenda.”

In reviewing the legal opinion, it appears to me that the analysis used in order to reach the conclusion that religious preferences by social service organizations are appropriate, the Bush administration officials used arguments eerily similar to those used to advance the cause of race and gender affirmative action advocates.  Here is an excerpt from the DOJ legal opinion:

In addition, the exemption that World Vision is seeking is not one directed at allowing it to exclude people from a particular religion from employment. Rather, it is directed at allowing it to hire only coreligionists. There is nothing to suggest that its wish for such an exemption is driven by animus towards people of different religions, rather than by a desire to remain an organization of coreligionists and to expand an activity that it already engages in with coreligionists and that is consistent with the kind of charitable activities that religious organizations traditionally have engaged in with coreligionists in this country. Moreover, World Vision’s representations that it can remain true to its religious mission only if it is able to limit employment to coreligionists is borne out by its apparently consistent hiring practice since its founding, and we are aware of no information to indicate that its hiring practices reflect invidious discrimination. We need not resolve whether the Government would have a compelling interest in enforcing the Safe Streets Act’s nondiscrimination provision with respect to a differently situated grant applicant—perhaps one without such a history to authenticate its claim that homogeneity of belief is essential to its mission, or whose hiring practices implicate compelling government interests in eradicating racial or sex discrimination. In such a case, the Government might well have a compelling interest in requiring strict adherence with the Safe Streets Act’s nondiscrimination requirements. Cf. Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1552-53 (8th Cir. 1996) ("The Religious Freedom Restoration Act . . . establishe[s] one standard for testing claims of Government infringement on religious practices. This single test, however, should be interpreted with regard to the relevant circumstances in each case.") (quoting S. Rep. No. 111, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 9 (1993), reprinted in 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1892, 1898). This, however, is not such a case.

For the entire text of the article entitled "Bush Aides Say Religious Hiring Doesn’t Bar Aid", see the October 18, 2008, issue of the New York Times.  For the entire text of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel legal opinion on religious freedom preferences, see http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2007/worldvision.pdf or click Download worldvision.pdf to dowload a copy.

DAB

New Global Protestant Body to Seek to Overcome Past Separation

According to a report posted on the Presbyterian Outlook, plans to form a new global grouping representing 80 million Reformed Christians worldwide in 2010 took a step forward following discussions at a meeting in the Dutch city of Utrecht that ended yesterday, October 10.

Clifton Kirkpatrick, president of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, is quoted as stating that the new group will be the result of a union between his group and the Reformed Ecumenical Council.  The October 6-10 meeting in Utrecht was the first joint session of the governing bodies of the two organizations.

The Utrecht meeting finalized a draft constitution and by-laws for the new organization. The draft texts will be presented to the member churches of both organizations, which will have twelve months in which to comment. Approval of the final draft is scheduled for the new body's inaugural general council in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in June 2010.

VEJ

Preaching Politics From Tax-Exempt Pulpits

There was lots of talk last week about the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit protest and we posted more than a few items on the topic.  Most of the discussion, ironically, omitted pastors.  NPR engaged a few pastors in an interesting 30 minute discussion of the topic.  I admit that I agree with the minister's legal point even as I find this group's universal endorsement of McCain to be damaging of their credibility.  Still, I am quite sure that the opposite endorsement is occuring just as equally in places of worship with a little more color.

dkj

Stanley Fish on Tax Exemption for Political Pastoring

In on-line piece for the NYT entitled Politics and the Pulpit (Once Again) (October 5, 2008), Stanley Fish examines the question of whether the prohibition on electioneering by tax-exempt charitable nonprofits, as applied to pulpit speech, preserves or violates the separation of church and state.  Ones answer to the question turns on whether (1) one agrees with Locke's view, articulated in A Letter Concerning Toleration, that (in Fish's words) "religion as a private matter, as a relationship between one’s soul and one’s God, and therefore as a practice exercised in the church or synagogue or mosque rather than in the arena of political action;" or (2)  ones "religious beliefs take a more robust form than Locke’s and require that you labor to bring the world into conformity with God’s word and will..."

rak

More on Faith and Politics

The Washington Post also reports on the church protest.  The Post article focuses on Rev. Ron Johnson, Jr. of Crown Point, Indiana.  During his Sunday service Rev. Johnson discussed the candidates' views on abortion and gay marriage, showing slides explaining the candidates' views on the issues.  When asked why he felt it necessary to identify the candidates by name in describing their views, he explained that he was not sure that all members of his congregation could make the connections on their own.  (And these people get to vote?)

The article notes that the Interfaith Alliance, a group dedicated to the separation of faith and politics, has gathered 180 pledges from members of the clergy who agree not to endorse a candidate on behalf of their houses of worship.  To see the Sept. 18 press release announcing the pledge, go here.

sng