Blog Against Theocracy: Obama Expands Faith-Based Initiatives

With the election of a new administration there was much hope for "change" ... but it would appear that not all that much has changed concerning the office of faith-based initiatives.

It might have a new name, but the implications are just the same. Taxpayer funded discrimination.

So far the Obama administration has NOT lifted executive orders left behind by Bush that would allow houses of worship to receive taxpayer money and then discriminate in employment, or to proselytize to people seeking help.

And to make matters worse, the Obama administration has added a faith council to advise the new president on a whole host of policy matters. Check out what my good friend Frances Kissling has to say about this.

Today’s disappointment was the White House announcement of the full President’s Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Fifteen members had been previously appointed. Ten new names were released today. Among the 25 members are six representatives of non-religious, community based organizations. The only Hindu member of the Council and the second Muslim appointed, both women, are in this category. In fact, were it not for the women representing secular organizations (four of the six secular members of the Council are women) the gender distribution would be grotesquely unbalanced.

Perhaps one of the reasons to include community groups is because there are so few women leaders in religion that the White House considers suitable representatives of faith.

But the main purpose of this Council is to establish a formal link between religion and state. It seeks religion it believes can be a partner in the mainstream process of governance—exactly the kind of religion I want to change. It is of course, unreasonable for me to expect that any administration would seek to partner with my brand of religion. But it is still disappointing when I see not a single person like me on the White House Council. OK, it is a little egocentric, I confess, but I am not alone. And changing what is wrong with religion is important. It’s another reason why people like me—feminists—are for separation of church and state. We always lose when the two get together.

Women have every right to be concerned about this new expansion of Bush-era policies. I'm certain this is not the "change" a lot of us voted for.

Nineteen members of the Council represent religious organizations. Not one of the organizations they represent has played a strong role in reforming religion; in fact they have defended themselves against internal reform. There is not a single academic theologian in the batch. Thinkers are sorely absent. The majority of the men representing religious organizations who have been named to the Council either personally or institutionally represent the most conservative religious thought on women’s nature, identity and reproductive choice. Of course, views on reproductive choice are not the only issue—and certainly not the most important issue—facing the Council.

In fact, under the Bush administration the views of Council members on these issues were largely irrelevant. President Obama has made these views important as a substantial part of the Council’s mission relates to women’s role and sexual and reproductive rights. The Council will deal with reducing the need for abortion; preventing unintended pregnancy, and the role of fathers (one cannot deal with the role of fathers without dealing with the role of mothers). Additionally the Council has a mandate to support women and children. Male clerics deciding how women should be supported has some shortcomings. [...]

The National Council of Jewish Women’s president Nancy Ratzen, a committed advocate of women’s rights and reproductive choice assumes a heavy burden on the Council. She is joined by two other women who represent religious institutions that are prochoice: Sharon Watkins of the Disciples of Christ and Peg Chemberlin, a Moravian clergywoman. Bishop Vashti MacKenzie, the other religious woman representative is a member of the African Methodist Episcopal church, which is opposed to abortion rights—although the Bishop has not been outspoken on this issue and is a supporter of women’s leadership. Of the men who represent religious institutions only Rabbi David Saperstein and Rev. Harry Knox are known to support women’s rights and sexual and reproductive freedom.

That leaves a majority of religious leaders on the Council who are likely to lead the nation down a road in which respect for women’s rights will be as absent from their recommendations for government policy and funding as they are in the religious institutions they represent.

You can do better than this Mr. Obama. Either reconstitute this group, or do away with it altogether.

President Obama: Stop Discrimination NOW

From Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

On Feb. 5, President Barack Obama named a new executive director for his White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and signed an executive order creating a 25-member advisory council of religious and community leaders.

But civil rights and civil liberties advocates were disappointed to see that Obama left completely untouched five Bush-era executive orders and numerous agency regulations and rulings that allow publicly funded religious groups to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds and permit public funds to pay for construction and renovation of buildings used for worship.

That means billions of tax dollars in the federal pipeline are being allocated today under the controversial Bush-era rules.

“I would rather there be no ‘faith-based’ office,” said Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn. “But if it exists, it must comply with long-established protections guaranteeing civil rights and civil liberties.”

AU’s Lynn urges every American to contact the White House.

Ask President Obama to issue an executive order barring proselytism and employment bias in all publicly funded programs run by faith-based organizations. In addition, the president should put in place such other civil liberties safeguards as may be necessary to ensure that all programs are accountable to the public, effectively achieve their objectives and do not use taxpayer dollars to advance religion.

Contact the White House today!

You can also contact the president’s office in these ways:

• Through the White House comment site: www.whitehouse.gov/contact
  
  
• By phone:
  the comments line is 202-456-1111
  the switchboard is 202-456-1414
  the FAX number is 202-456-2461
  
  
• By mail:
  The White House
  1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
  Washington, DC 20500.
  

Who's Missing at the Faith-Based Table?

Rev. Debra Haffner asks "Who's missing at the table?" regarding President Obama's new White House Office on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Yes, Mr. President ... inquiring minds would like to know!

The Office has four priorities, according to the press release, including:

It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.

Note that the wording is NOT “abortion reduction” as being reported in the press, but reducing the need for abortion, surely a goal as I have written many times that is common ground. Although I’m not sure why there isn’t a commitment to reduce pregnancies among teenagers rather than it being a topic to be “addressed”, the statement does support the agenda laid out on the White House web site for the new administration:

Supports a Woman's Right to Choose: President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: President Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information, and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.

What’s curious then is that among the fifteen leaders who have been named to the new Advisory Council, only Rabbi David Saperstein from the Union for Reform Judaism is an outspoken supporter of women's reproductive choice, although several of the named persons are vocal anti-choice supporters. Given the President's public commitments and the published White House agenda I note above, the lack of denomination and religious organization leaders who are known to be supporters of these issues and who have expertise working on them is troubling and disappointing. It’s also deeply troubling that only one of the council members is a woman religious leader, that only one third are women, and that none are out gay and lesbian religious or secular leaders.

The last is particularly concerning because the President in establishing the office left in place a Bush executive order that's specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs, what seems like a reversal of candidate Obama’s strong statement in July: “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them or against the people you hire on the basis of their religion.”

If you have suggestions about who should fill the remaining spots, leave them on Rev. Haffner's post -- and tell her BAC at Yikes sent you.

Win for civil rights, loss for GWB

The U.S. House rejected efforts to remove civil rights protections from Head Start, the popular federal program aimed at helping impoverished children gain a sound education.

“Today’s action is a victory for our nation’s commitment to protecting civil rights and advancing early childhood education,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The attempt to re-write Head Start rules to allow for ‘faith-based’ providers to discriminate in hiring based on religion was a mean-spirited affront to a fine program.”

In March, the House Education and Labor Committee turned away an amendment that would have given faith-based Head Start providers the right to discriminate in hiring based on religion. This evening, Republican water carriers for the Bush administration unsuccessfully tried again to amend the Head Start re authorization bill through a procedure known as a “motion to recommit.” The motion was soundly defeated on a 222-195 vote.

For more than 34 years, Head Start has contained civil rights protections that allowed religious groups to provide Head Start programs, but they were not allowed to discriminate in employment with our tax dollars.

Religious Right backers of the faith-based agenda have been pressuring Congress to overhaul Head Start to allow for religious-based discrimination.

“Taxpayer-supported Head Start employees and volunteers should not be selected, hired or fired based on their religious leanings. To allow a Southern Baptist Church to turn away a Jewish volunteer tutor would be inexcusable,” said Rev. Lynn.

The Bush administration continues to push the so-called “faith-based” initiative, which includes allowing religious social service providers to discriminate in hiring in federally funded programs. The Head Start re authorization appeared at first to be their best chance of getting something through Congress. But the dream continues to be out of Bush's reach.

No taxpayer funded job discrimination

A 'faith-based' component could be added to Head Start today. If you have not already done so, please visit the Americans United web site and send a message to your Representative that you want the bill passed, WITHOUT any amendments.

Religious Right conservatives in Congress want to roll back the civil rights protections in what is currently a bipartisan bill. If they succeed, any religious group that provides Head Start services would be allowed to discriminate -- with your tax dollars -- based on religious belief. They could fire someone who is not of their faith, or ask volunteers (even parent volunteers) to leave if they were not of the same faith.

A program that has worked just fine for more than 34 years could now be compromised if an amendment is attached, and all because of a few Religious Right fanatics.

Tell your representative that you don't want taxpayer funded employment discrimination.

Would someone please remind me why I bothered to vote

Over the past six years, for those of us whose full time job is safeguarding separation of church and state it's been a never ending struggle to insure that Congress not pass a 'faith-based' initiative bill. This has not been an easy accomplishment, given that 'faith-based' initiatives were a cornerstone of the Bush administration -- and he had a Republican controlled Congress.

Frustrated by his inability to get anything out of Congress, the president resorted to implementing 'faith-based' initiatives by executive order. While we are not happy that he took this route, getting an executive order reversed is much easier than reversing a piece of legislation once it's passed and signed into law.

One would think that with Congress under Democratic control we could all breath a collective sigh of relief. Well, think again.

Speaker Pelosi has agreed to allow amendments to the pending Head Start reauthorization bill. Since 1972, the Head Start program has contained a crucial civil rights provision designed to protect the more than 213,000 Head Start teachers and staff and 1,360,000 parent volunteers from employment discrimination based on religion in federally-funded Head Start programs.

What makes her decision particularly egregious is that the current bill has bipartisan support, the organization that represents Head Start providers doesn't want the civil rights protections removed (they have sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to vote against their own funding bill if civil rights roll backs are included), and the ONLY group pushing to have a chance to amend the bill are Congress members aligned with the religious right.

In a letter to House members, the National Head Start Association writes:

NHSA strongly supports and appreciates the valued role faith-based organizations have played in operating Head Start programs for decades. Consistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prevailing federal court decisions, faith-based organizations may discriminate in employment on the basis of religion with private funds but are precluded from doing so when federal funding is being used.

Head Start is a model for demonstrating that a strong prohibition on religious employment discrimination with federal funds is fully compatible with federal assistance to faith-based charities. Faith-based organizations can — and do — fully participate in federally funded programs without discriminating in hiring with those same federal funds. There is no reason to change the law to allow programs to use federal funds to discriminate against employees. Faith-based Head Start programs are more than capable and willing to balance the civil rights of our employees with their religious mission. We are aware of no faith-based Head Start provider that has requested a civil rights rollback in order to fulfill its important mission; to the contrary, our Head Start providers believe that civil rights protections in the program must be maintained and are critical to Head Start’s success and fulfilling its mission.

We are greatly concerned that removing civil rights protections for employees could have a negative impact on the children and families who participate in these programs. Tens of thousands of at-risk 3- and 4-year-old children currently in Head Start could lose their teachers – who often are the most important adults to whom they have bonded, other than their parents – not because those teachers are doing a bad job, but because they are the “wrong” religion. Such a provision is incompatible with our deeply rooted traditions, our faith, and the mission of this program.

According to the latest study from the National Head Start Association, the program enjoys a soaring 96% parental satisfaction rate. The Administration for Children & Family (“ACF”) repeatedly has noted that respect and sensitivity to cultural diversity are paramount to Head Start’s success. The ACF and the National Head Start Association both agree that in order to best serve the needs of Head Start children, it is crucial that a Head Start center’s staff be comprised of individuals from diverse backgrounds who reflect the diversity of the community it serves.

Without the existing religious nondiscrimination provisions, children participating in Head Start could potentially stand to lose their teachers, as well as vital educational interactions with their own parents who, in the past, have been strongly encouraged to volunteer for Head Start.

And allowing discrimination based on religion would send a terrible message to Head Start children whose families do not subscribe to a particular religious organization’s beliefs. It also would harm community members who rely on Head Start for jobs and deprive families of the civil rights protections applicable to public schools under other statutes.

Parents and communities that rely on Head Start programs should not have to choose between the renewal of the Head Start program and longstanding civil rights protections that are a cornerstone of this invaluable program. Clearly, faith-based providers do not need a repeal of 35-year old civil rights protections to continue to provide Head Start services. And every president since 1971 – including Ronald Reagan – has signed the reauthorization with the protections in place.

This is not the time for Democrats to try and appease Republicans. The last time a Democrat did this he was impeached.

The Education and Labor Committee vote on this is March 14. If your Representative is on the committee, call and urge them to vote against any amendment that would rollback civil rights protections. If the bill comes out of committee with an amendment, or an amendment is added from the floor, urge your Representative to vote AGAINST the bill.