On January 17, 2020, the Trump administration proposed significant changes to the federal Equal Treatment regulations in major federal agencies. These regulations are designed to create an equal opportunity for faith-based organizations to compete for federal funding without minimizing their religious character. Several of the proposed changes further this aim, but others unnecessarily undermine the broad consensus in support of the regulations that has developed over two decades. Comments on the various NPRM are due no later than February 18, 2020, and can be easily submitted via http://www.regulations.gov. Consult each specific NPRM to find out how to make a comment on it.
The Fairness for All Act (FAA) introduced into the House of Representatives on December 6, 2019, is intended to resolve ongoing conflicts between LGBT civil rights advocates and religious freedom advocates. FFA will add protections for LGBT people to federal civil rights laws while simultaneously strengthening protections for religious freedom and other rights. Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies explains why FFA takes a pluralist approach and how that aligns with the Institutional Freedom Alliance.
**STATEMENT** The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance Endorses the Fairness for All Bill December 6, 2019 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance supports the…
In his book Pluralism and Freedom, Stephen V. Monsma challenges an individualistic, Enlightenment-shaped perspective that interprets our constitutional right to religion as a private matter. Such an understanding dictates that religious behavior does not belong in the public square. Andrea Rice compares and contrasts Monsma’s arguments with a public justice framework. She concludes that a vision of religious freedom that encompasses the contributions of faith-based organizations, institutions and community groups must be included in our definition of freedom and human rights.
Seven Baskets, a faith-based nonprofit focused on community development in Columbus, Ohio, collaborates with the public sector to transform the lives of Ohio’s urban residents. Providing tutoring, extracurricular programs, meals, discipleship, and workforce development, this faith-based organization exemplifies the meaning of community renewal through its collaboration with other faith-based organizations, as well as through creative government partnerships. In this interview with Seven Baskets CEO JeffMansel, Sacred Sector Director Chelsea Langston Bombino identifies the ways Seven Baskets has uniquely partnered with the government to help nourish the Columbus, Ohio residents it serves.
This article will discuss organizational best practices for Michigan churches and faith-based organizations (FBOs) that receive, or are considering receiving, government grants or contracts. It emphasizes how an organization can maintain its faith-based mission and identity even if the organization is considering partnering with government. This resource will help an FBO consider guidelines for accepting government and private funds in a way that aligns with its sacred mission.
An August 15th Trump administration proposal to clarify the religious hiring rights of religious employers in federal contracting is being labeled a “license to discriminate” against LGBT job seekers. Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies suggests an alternative framework for understanding this proposed rulemaking: it is a much-needed effort to affirm the religious staffing freedom that exists in the federal contracting rules and that was left untouched when President Obama added protections for LGBT people. There are not many religious organizations that contract with the federal government (in distinction from receiving federal grants). Still, the proposed changes are important protections for their religious rights and important also for ensuring that such organizations—who may be the best providers of goods and services—are not excluded from eligibility.
By Dr. Stanley Carlson-Thies Editor’s Note: In the wake of an agreement between President Trump and bipartisan congressional leaders on a two-year budget framework, the…
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has allowed courts to neutrally balance compelling government interests with religious beliefs ever since it was enacted in 1993 by a bipartisan Congress. Now, Democratic members of the House and Senate have reintroduced the Do No Harm Act, a bill that would disallow religious objections to key government actions, including LGBT inclusion and reproductive health. On June 25, 2019, the House Committee on Education and Labor held a hearing on the Do No Harm Act. Representative Joseph Kennedy, who introduced the Do No Harm Act in 2017 and has now reintroduced it, expressed his concern that RFRA “has morphed from a shield of protection to a sword of infringement.” Yet RFRA does not guarantee a victory for religious actors, only a fair weighing of their claims. To adequately protect religious freedom, RFRA should not be modified.
The passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created the so-called “church parking tax,” a burdensome provision for nonprofits that has elicited strong protests from the sacred sector. The IRS has issued interpretive guidelines, and efforts in Congress are ongoing to eliminate the tax entirely, yet fixes are slow in coming. Given the Trump administration’s professions of support for religious freedom and the many congressional voices in favor of the work of charitable organizations, it is surprising that this provision was adopted in the first place and troubling that it has not yet been eliminated. Faith-based organizations need to be aware of this issue and understand how it affects them.