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.”
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.
The church parking tax imposed on religious and secular nonprofits as part of the 2017 tax reform law was repealed in December 2019. The repeal is not only important for relieving a financial and administrative burden on these community-serving organizations, but even more so for restoring the historic and constitutional independence of primary religious institutions from governmental pressures.
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.
The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act on May 17, 2019, to add to federal civil rights law new prohibitions on discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as other protections. As Stanley Carlson-Thies points out, the Act is unlikely to be taken up by the Senate. This is good news because the Equality Act as drafted and passed would have multiple negative consequences for religious freedom. The article notes major religious freedom critiques, including denominational and other voices proposing a “fairness for all” alternative that would simultaneously protect LGBT and religious rights.
The Sacred Sector: A Lens to View America’s Spiritual Infrastructure
By Chelsea Langston Bombino We are living in a unique political and cultural moment–one where discussions are taking place about the need to strengthen communities….