Washington Watch Report: Faith Based Lawsuit

Let's hope (and pray) Jay is correct in his analysis and the Supreme Court does reverse the 7th Circuit Court.

Those programs are blatent violations of the constitution. The first ammendment clearly says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.' It must take a really twisted interpretation to let the federal government give vast sums of taxpayer money to religious organisations without seeing any type of conflict there.

If FFRF is so very adamant about their views, maybe they would like to take on the challenge of feeding, clothing and sheltering the many, many thousands each day that are assisted by The Salvation Army, one of the largest, if not the largest, faith-based Social Services organizations in the entire world (not just the US).
I know in my city, The Salvation Army houses approximately 165 adults and about 40 children each night and feeds about 600 people per day (not including the food baskets distributed through the food pantry).
Also, maybe we should suggest that from now on they work every Sunday, Christmas, and even Thanksgiving, which although not a religious holiday, is a time we pause to give thanks to a Holy God for all of His blessings and provisions for our lives.

I don't think that giving federal money to religious organizations offends the first amendment.

We have a pressing need for social services and many faith based charities are superb. Many far exceed the efficiency (or lack thereof) of government-run agencies.

However, to qualify for federal dollars the charity must play by the same rules as secular groups.

For example, the care they must must never be withheld based on the recipient's faith. They must not discriminate either in their care giving or employment against anyone based on any protected class.

That is where some seem to have this backwards.

The government should not discriminate against a charity just because it is faith based, but the government has a duty to ensure the charity plays by the same rules as any secular charity.

"However, to qualify for federal dollars the charity must play by the same rules as secular groups.

For example, the care they must must never be withheld based on the recipient's faith. They must not discriminate either in their care giving or employment against anyone based on any protected class."

In theory true. But in practice, very hard to enforce - particually as few in the federal government really *want* to enforce it. Government-funded religious charities can and do use their status and funding to discriminate, to attempt to convert others, or to run political campaigns. The departments supplying the money will turn a blind eye to this more often than not.

Discrimination is often in the nature of the charity - it would hardly be a religious organisation if just anyone were allowed to join, after all. Of course they wont employ non-believers. The Community Solutions Act 2001 explicitly states that religious organisations - even those who recieve federal funding - are permitted to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. Courts have since extended this to include the right to discriminate against people who do or are things which conflict with an organisation's religious princibles - so, for example, if a religious charity beliefed homosexuality was a sin they would be allowed to openly refuse to hire homosexuals. If a religious school believed that women must not be permitted to teach (Some do, see 1 Ti 2:12) then they would be legally allowed to declare that they would not employ any female teachers. Catholics are entited to fire women who they discover to be using contraception or who have undergone IVF treatment (The latter has actually happened). Presumably, if a religious charity were to declare that their doctrine stated black people were fit only for menial labour, they would be perfectly entitled to hire only whites - though no church holds that position these days. Essentially, religious groups are exempt from *all* non-discrimination legislation where employment is concerned.

When it comes to the service provided the discrimination is less legal, but just as common. An additional problem comes along though - preeching. Churches exist largely for the purpose of converting people, and given the chance, that is what they will try to do. I know they mean well and are trying to save people from sin and damnation, but it still results in people having to get support from groups who will do everything in their power to ensure their captive audience converts - up to and including withholding service unless people agree to declare Christ their personal savour. One particular example comes to mind, a prison ministry which worked to reduce reoffending rates. It actually did that, too, but their success is irrelivent here: They were still found by a court to have an informal policy of offering privilidges and even early release to prisoners who declared they were saved.

Think about that situation a little more: This charity was recieving government money (I dont know if state or federal) to work in prisons, and as a result of this it was possible for a prisoner to be released early if they declared their conversion to a particular denomination of Christianity. While those of other religion, or who remained loyal to their own denomination, would have to serve their full sentence.

*That* is why I object to faith-based charities recieving any type of government money. It is not realistic to expect them to avoid discriminating, as this is the nature of religion. And it is not legally possible and certinly not enforceable to prevent discrimination by legal means. Thus the only option - other than the unacceptable means of using government money to pressure people into converting to a particular religion - is to avoid funding them altogether.