The coronavirus pandemic has been especially challenging for child care providers. Child care providers faced lower enrollment with many families out of work or working from home, while at the same time navigating how to keep facilities sanitized while following public health guidance. Expanded child care hours were needed by some essential workers, and governments wanted to be sure that enough daycare programs remained open even if the child counts were low. Congress responded by authorizing, in the CARES Act, $3.5 billion in additional funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant Program, the federal-state program that funds childcare for low-income families. Unfortunately, in providing that needed extra funding, Congress chose a funding method—grants—that can exclude faith-based child care providers from equitable participation. Such exclusion is especially troubling during the ongoing pandemic, as the goal of the funding is to help child care centers remain open to serve the needs of workers and families. As discussed in this article, grant funding comes with religious freedom restrictions that prevent many faith-based providers from participating. During this unprecedented time, an all-hands-on-deck approach is needed to prevent the creation or worsening of child care deserts in places where such providers are most needed.
On Thursday, July 23, Stanley Carlson-Thies, founder and senior director of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, and Chelsea Langston Bombino, director of Sacred Sector, both initiatives of the Center for Public Justice, facilitated a webinar for the Wesleyan Church regarding how recent Supreme Court decisions impact these congregations in terms of their understanding of the legal and public policy implications, their own organizational practices, and their public witness. This webinar covered two major Supreme Court cases this term: Bostock v. Clayton County and Our Lady of Guadalupe School, which both had implications for how faith-based organizations engage in religious staffing. This webinar discussed best practices for engaging in mission-based human resources, as well as for how faith-based employers can advance civic pluralism.
In an article originally published on the FedSoc Blog, Richard W. Garnett posits that the Supreme Court decision in Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue is an important case in religious freedom jurisprudence because the Supreme Court affirmed that governments cannot discriminate against religious institutions and religious practice. Garnett describes how a longstanding misapplication of the principle of separation of church and state has led to both judicial and legislative bodies disadvantaging religious educational institutions. Garnatt notes: “The Espinoza decision should help to remove a longstanding barrier in many states to educational reform and to choice-based programs that enhance educational opportunities, especially for low-income families.”
By Stanley Carlson-Thies In a decision issued on June 15, 2020, and written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it…
Government Should Protect the Civil Rights and Religious Freedom of All The U.S. Supreme Court today extended federal employment protection to LGBT employees in a…
Editor’s Note: This press release was originally published on the Sacred Sector blog in April. CONTACT: Meg Biallas Henry, director of Communications 202.491.8025 meg.henry@cpjustice.org (April…
In this current COVID-19 crisis, local, state and federal governments are taking a wide range actions, some of them unprecedented, that affect the ability of faith-based nonprofits to sustain their basic operations and to provide services. Governments are also adopting new policies that directly influence the quality of life of the employees of faith-based organizations and the well-being of people in the communities those organizations serve. Are these aid programs, expenditures, and prohibitions, positive or do they need refinement? Advocacy and lobbying are activities, protected by law, that faith leaders and faith-based organizations can speak to government and the public about the justice and effectiveness of these and other policies. Advocacy helps the government know what works, and helps organizations affected by government policy seek changes important for their own religious freedom and effectiveness and for the good of the people they serve.
Beyond the Public Gatherings Debate: Religious Freedom for Faith-based Organizations During COVID-19
The national conversation regarding religious freedom right now is largely focused on the question of public, in person gatherings for worship services. This public conversation and its nuances have been relatively well covered. And yet, it is important to recognize that this is not the only element of the institutional religious freedom discussion that needs to be had at the moment. In the weeks to come, this column will take up in detail emerging public policies that impact the freedom of faith-based organizations. This column will focus on making visible the right now largely invisible, untold and often surprising elements and stories of how institutional religious freedom advances human flourishing during COVID-19 and beyond.
The Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program is designed to be accessible to houses of worship and religious charities, along with other nonprofit organizations. IRFA Founder and Senior Director Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies notes two recent changes that should further ease the concerns of faith-based organizations about participating in the program. But he calls for further fine-tuning so that the program will fully acknowledge institutional religious freedom.
Through recently enacted legislation and new guidance, Congress and the Department of Labor have made changes to the unemployment insurance system that affect individuals across…