“[Employees] are expected to act in ways that promote the best interest of our faith and church.”

Take a guess at where this sentence is from. Looking at it out of context, I’d assume it’s part of some type of employment paperwork or memo to a house of worship’s administrative staff, probably in a mainstream Christian church. Nothing unexpected or objectionable, in that scenario.

Unfortunately, that scenario isn’t accurate. This statement is from language recently added to a hiring letter used by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, the local branch of the Catholic Church’s charitable organization. Catholic Charities, including the Washington, DC branch, is a privately-run non-profit, which means they can set whatever guidelines they deem necessary for their employees. Except that Catholic Charities accepts government funding for their work ($22 million from the city of Washington), and are thus using taxpayer funds to discriminate against potential employees on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Catholic Charities has specified that this statement only applies to employees while they are on the job, but there are some major problems with that. Promoting “the best interest” of the Catholic faith in a way that does “not violate the principles or tenets of [that] faith” implies that the charity and its employees will not provide services to people who don’t adhere to their church’s teachings, among which are the convictions that homosexuality and divorce are sins, and that the sole reason for romantic relationships between men and women is procreation.

So is Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington going to conduct extensive interviews with the immigrants, refugees, homeless and other people their programs seek to help on the values they possess? Will anyone who is divorced, a former convict, living with a significant other out of wedlock, using birth control or part of the LGBT community be denied a helping hand?

And where will the line be drawn for employees? Someone who is divorced is still divorced when they arrive at the office. Will their employer continue to regard them as married, despite their legal status? Will human resources require some additional, euphemistic reason to remove the employee’s former spouse from his or her health insurance coverage? Will LGBT employees be required to not discuss or refer to any aspect of their personal lives that allude to the fact that they’re gay? If the discrimination inherent in this language was being promoted on the Catholic church’s own dime, it wouldn’t be an issue as it would be their choice, but the government is a major source of Catholic Charities’ funding and using tax dollars to discriminate or proselytize is not okay.

This isn’t Catholic Charities’ first incident entangling religion and government in the Washington, DC area in recent weeks; on Monday, March 1st, an announcement was made that new employees would not have the option of adding spouses to their health insurance, nor would current employees whose spouses were not already covered. A month prior, the non-profit transferred its foster-care program to a private Baptist charity, The National Center for Children and Families, rather than license same-sex couples as foster parents, as they would have been required to do under the new DC law that began allowing same-sex marriage on March 3rd. Neither of these things is illegal, but it calls into question both Catholic Charities’ concern for their employees’ health and well-being and their dedication to charitable work for its own sake, rather than for the sake of an audience to which to proselytize.

Catholic Charities has a decision to make: is promoting Catholicism the main purpose of their charitable work, or is extending a helping hand to anyone who needs it? If the latter is the answer, they need to accept that we live in a diverse society and that the secular government that funds their work demands equal treatment for all of its citizens – treatment they need to reflect as a government-funded entity. If the answer is the former, they need to stop accepting government funds. Period.

Share on Facebook

A spate of recent articles examine the potential overlap between the goals of the Religious Right and those of the Tea Party movement and all three of these pieces add another layer of nuance to the question about whether the tax protest group that advocates “a return to the Constitution” plans to some how merge with religious conservatives who advocate a return to “the Christian roots” of our country.  Writing in The New York Times, journalist Kate Zernike points out that the Tea Party movement has purposely avoided hot-button social issues, sticking instead to its anti-tax and anti-big government message.  Zernike quotes surveys in which Tea Party leaders consistently choose the budget and the economy as the most important issues facing our country. None select social issues and this is no accidental oversight.  Tea Party-ers seem to want to avoid the distraction of the James Dobson crowd and Zernike provides this particularly telling quote: “Every social issue you bring in, you’re adding planks to your mission,” said Frank Anderson, a founder of the Independence Caucus, based in Utah. “And planks become splinters.”

Although the Tea Party might not want them and their splinters, the Religious Right appears eager to join.  Los Angeles Times reporter Kathleen Hennessey interviewed many conservative religious figures for her recent article and many of them argue in favor of joining the Tea Party ranks. Hennessey has her own telling exchange:

“Ken Blackwell, a research fellow at the Family Research Council who has also been active in the tea party movement in Ohio, is among those who see tea partyers as the “younger siblings” in the movement.

Social conservatives are happy to embrace the economic message and those carrying it under the tea party banner “as long as they don’t start advocating against traditional marriage or for abortion,” Blackwell said, putting the tea parties in their place.

“The sibling is not now the parent,” he said.”

And our good friend Sarah Posner over at Religion Dispatches has a great post on a new non-profit started by the former Christian Coalition head, Ralph Reed.  Reed, as head of the newly formed Faith and Freedom Coalition, is actively trying to bridge the gap between conservative social issues and conservative economics.  Read her analysis here and check out Sarah’s recent interview with Welton on this very topic.

So what do you think? Who has the upper hand here and what does the future hold for these two groups – Tea Party and Religious Right? Tell us.

Share on Facebook

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Today, the Texas State Board of Education voted on a variety of amendments to the state social studies and U.S. government curricula.  Get ready to be appalled at the outcomes.  As reported by the Texas Freedom Network, the Board voted to

1)      remove Thomas Jefferson from world history curriculum on the impact of Enlightenment thinkers

2)      include discussion of the right to bear arms in curriculum on First Amendment rights and free expression

3)      strike down an amendment that would have required students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.”

What is most unbelievable and emblematic of the Board’s far-right majority’s (lack of) understanding of the separation between religion and government in America is the third item in this litany of woes.  According to Cynthia Dunbar (one of the more prominent conservatives on the Board), the separation of religion and government wasn’t actually the Founders’ intent— they wanted to promote religion.  Therefore, said Dunbar, the proposed amendment was “not historically accurate.”

While (luckily), Thomas Jefferson isn’t out of Texas education curricula as a whole, there is no doubt that he is one of the preeminent American scholars of the Enlightenment era and it is a shame students will not learn that.  Also, last time I checked, the right to bear arms had its own section of the Bill of Rights, you know, the Second Amendment.

What’s more unfortunate is that such a narrow minded group of individuals have such power over what children learn across the country, that these are “guidelines that will affect students around the country, from kindergarten to 12th grade, for the next 10 years.”  Why? Because the state of Texas buys or distributes “a staggering 48 million textbooks annually,” which leads “educational publishers to tailor their products to fit the standards dictated by the Lone Star State.”

To quote our friends at the Texas Freedom Network: “Let the word go out here: The Texas State Board of Education today refused to require that students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others. They voted to lie to students by omission.”

Share on Facebook

“Did you accomplish anything this week?” That question, posed to me every weekend by one or more people, raced through my head repeatedly as I spent most of Tuesday in a meeting in an office of the White House.  Often the answer to that query is “yes.” Tuesday’s response was “Yes, taking one small step.”  However, that small step involved far more than a single day. It required an investment of focused attention, persistent action, research, commentary, and advocacy that stretched from 1999 to the present moment.  And still more steps are required.

About a year ago I was asked to serve on President Obama’s Task Force on Reform of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  The assignment of the task force was to recommend steps for bringing that office more in line with the Constitution.

I had opposed the establishment of such an office since 1999 when presidential candidates in both major political parties voiced support for allowing government funds to flow into religious organizations to support faith-based social ministries.  This new initiative within the executive branch of our government posed an unprecedented threat to our nation’s fidelity to the religious freedom clauses in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Obama Administration knew they were inviting a critic on to this task force.  Indeed, U.S. News and World Report carried a story on my acceptance of the invitation on its blog.  Immediately after the presidential election I had met with the Obama Transition Team to request that they abolish the faith-based office in the White House.

Today the recommendations of our task force are being presented to cabinet members and other leaders in the Administration who will engage the president in conversations about the issues we have raised. Getting to this moment took time.  Members of the task force are incredibly diverse–racially, politically, professionally, religiously, economically, and ideologically.  Some members wanted a relaxation of emphasis on church-state separation while others, like me, were interested in strengthening the constitutional guarantees that have saved our nation from an entanglement of religion and government that has caused problems in other nations.

Our recommendations span several concerns—transparency, public postings of recipients of government money and for what purposes, attentiveness to religious freedom issues, and more.  From the first time we met, however, one question had loomed larger than all of the rest—whether or not to mandate or only suggest that religious recipients of government funds form a separate legal entity into which to receive that money in order to protect the integrity of the religious organization and prevent a merger of taxpayers’ money and tithes and contributions from offering plates.  For a year, the debate went on—passionate but civil.  In the end, the vote on the recommendation endorsed the mandatory position—by a majority of one.  Such is the divide on the meaning of religious freedom in our nation as well.

As I sat in a White House office, I wonder if all of the time and work were worth it to assure such a small step, to win what some would consider a minimal victory for religious liberty.  Yes is the answer that resounds inside me.  The fate of the big issues in our time are decided by hundreds of small steps taken, minor victories won, and the Constitution defended word by word one issue at a time.  At least for this moment, a slide toward government-subsidized religion has been stopped.

This small step, this minor victory, likely will go virtually unnoticed.  But, without it, the news would be big—journalists reporting a sea-change, a major shift, in which legal and religious leaders endorsed a position contrary to the United States Constitution.  So goes the work of a lifetime—tracked one step at a time.

Share on Facebook

But not necessarily for the beaches…

According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, Jamaica is adding a new attraction to draw tourists: its Jewish history.  The  island’s tourism board hopes to draw more visitors by highlighting the history and cultural impact of 17th-century Jewish immigrants who fled to Jamaica to escape the Inquisition.   And, equally fascinating are the Jewish pirates (like Moses Cohen Henriques) who trolled the Caribbean attacking Spanish ships carrying silver.  I may have to add Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean to the State of Belief reading list, but in the meantime, check out the article for some info (and travel tips like the island’s sand-floor synagogue).

Share on Facebook

The Washington Post/Newsweek On Faith forum this week asked if U.S. foreign policy should get religion? Rev. Gaddy responds in part by saying:

Respecting religion abroad is as critical in U.S. foreign policy as respecting religion domestically; entanglement between any agency of our government and any religious entity at home or abroad is a mistake moving toward a crisis.

Read his entire response here.

Share on Facebook

On Bill Moyers tonight (2/26/2010) an interesting discussion on the debate over same gender marriage that brought together a well known liberal and  conservative.

“We’re not advocating any recognition of a new right. The right to marry is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s recognized that over and over again. We’re talking about whether two individuals should be treated equally, under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.”
- Ted Olson

This week on BILL MOYERS JOURNAL (check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/airdates.html)
They battled it out as legal adversaries in 2000 before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. But what’s got these two prominent lawyers – one conservative and one liberal – working together in court now? Theodore Olson, one of the nation’s premier appellate and United States Supreme Court advocates and David Boies, one of the country’s preeminent trial lawyers, argued opposite sides for the fate of the 2000 election but are now teamed up in the fight to overturn California’s Proposition 8 ballot measure outlawing same-sex marriage. The unexpected pair discusses why they’ve taken on the hot-button issue – even as some gay rights activists objected – and why they don’t believe that same-sex marriage is a right or left issue.

Share on Facebook

New York Times contributor Russell Shorto asks – “How Christian Were the Founders?” -  in a recent article about the controversy heating up in Texas over Christianity, public schools, and what should be included in text books.  Did you read this Sunday’s NYT Magazine cover story? What do you think of the claim that ours is a “Christian nation” and of the Texas State Board of Education’s attempt to make Christianity part of the social studies curriculum?

Share on Facebook

This morning, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. His remarks highlighted the need for a return to civility in our national dialogue. Civility has been an ongoing theme of Interfaith Alliance’s work since its founding, equally important as its work as been protecting the boundaries between religion and government.

The New York Times has an interesting article about the organization – known as “The Family” – behind the prayer breakfast. The president can and should engage with the faith community, and is free to speak about his personal faith. However, enough legitimate questions have been raised about The Family and their secretive nature and connection to right-wing causes, that the president should think twice about participating in the future.

A group of  progressive organizations have come together this year to offer an alternative forum called the “American Prayer Hour.” It will be interesting to see if their efforts gain any traction.

Share on Facebook

When I read the headline “Religious leaders worry that Obama’s faith council is for show” in The Washington Post this morning, I imagined the story might have something to do with how concerned people are that the faith council may not be able to convince Josh DuBois to rein in the activities of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Partnerships, an office with both a title and an agenda tweaked only slightly from the disastrous Bush Administration office of similar name.

Upon reading the full text, however, I discovered that the article’s focus was, instead, on those who think the faith-based partnership isn’t doing enough to entwine our domestic agenda and our country’s religious organizations.

Apparently, “critics” are concerned about the fact that the council hasn’t been allowed to weigh in on issues like religious hiring and abortion. They’d really like the council to be able to tackle those, because they want religious organizations that receive federal funding to be able to turn away job applicants on the basis of their religious beliefs, and because they want to influence the president’s reproductive health agenda with their religious views on abortion.

That’s all well and good, but the article all but skipped over the other half of the “critics,” whose concern stems from a very different point of view.

Faith plays a very important role in our country and is a large part of the diversity that makes us so unique, but it often plays a disproportionate role in public debate. People of faith have every right to speak out on the issues that are important to them, but a line is crossed when we put religious concerns about political issues before all else.

It may be impolitic to say so, but my concern with the role of faith in the Obama Administration is not whether or not faith leaders are being listened to. It’s the fact that the faith-based office is still operating under the rules of the Bush Administration, which are deeply flawed and of questionable constitutionality. We all need to keep in mind that, since the government accepts taxes from and represents every person in the country, whatever their beliefs, it is not free to create policies or pass laws that favor any one, or several, belief system or systems. That would be the establishment of religion, prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Which, guess what?, exists to protect religion as much as it does the government.

Share on Facebook