Obama's Coming Battle With Conscience

Barack Obama's commitment to expanding support for faith-based initiatives has a lot more bugs in it than the insistence by such organizations that they can discriminate in hiring. He is, apparently without realizing it, wading into the most contentious territory in state-church relations today: the conscience wars.

In recent years, the Catholic Church particularly has argued in court that religiously sponsored institutions have a "conscience" that requires that the institution abide by the precepts of that religion, regardless of how that might obstruct their client's access to care.

What that has meant is that religious institutions that serve the general public, employ the general public, have a secular purpose (say, health care), and receive public money, have refused to provide essential services, some guaranteed by law, to their clients, for example:

• Institutions that provide prescription drug coverage have refused to abide by state laws requiring that such institutions cover contraception.
• Case workers in foster care have been forbidden to discuss safe sex or birth control with teenage clients, who may need such information desperately.
• Hospitals have refused to remove feeding tubes when all hope is gone; to give rape victims emergency contraception; to end a pregnancy; or to allow a mother who has just given birth to be sterilized at the same time, forcing her to have a second operation.
• Religiously sponsored AIDS programs have refused to distribute or even talk about condoms.
• Adoption agencies have preferred to see children in an orphanage than in the care of loving, homosexual parents.

Certainly, faith-based institutions have done an enormous amount to improve the lives of people the world over, and no one wants to see that work end. But determining how to support that work in a country that values deeply the separation of church and state is no easy matter.

Thankfully, case law is mounting that allows religiously sponsored institutions to claim "conscience" exceptions to providing services and opportunities, but to do so only if those institutions exclusively serve people of that religion, exclusively hire people of that religion, and have an exclusively religious purpose.

It is a fair and reasonable requirement for public funding of a faith-based initiative, one that Barack Obama needs to learn about and embrace.

Comments

[LeeScho]

Religious or faith-based organizations employing "conscience" exceptions should not be granted any form of government funding because, by definition, they are promoting their religious beliefs in that they are only serving and hiring those of that religious faith, and doing so according to the religious dictates of that religion or faith.

Obama's faith-based initiative has specifically excluded such organizations from his funding intiative, so the writer's premise is mistaken from the first paragraph. What is distressing is that she states that Obama's initiative "has a lot more bugs in it than the insistence by such organizations that they can discriminate in hiring." Yet she fails to mention any other "bugs," however equally and falsely premised they might have been. The 'bugs" she does mention in bullet form are the practices of some faith-based organizations, not the Obama initiative, and they are all precluded from qualifying under the Obama faith-based initiative - as they should be.

This Obama supporter can rattle off a half-dozen issues on which to legitimately attack the candidate. This is clearly not one of them.

[Liberoservative]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts

Separation of church and state is NOT mentioned in the first amendment... maybe you should read this article and then think about it some more....

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government. yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state." The First Amendment simply states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[itmaybetoolate]

"Engel v. Vitale
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 468 Argued: April 3, 1962 --- Decided: June 25, 1962

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436."

One example of how the SCOTUS has used the 1st amendment prohibition clause to build a wall between the church and the state.

So, if a a religious organization receives federal funds, it is an agent of the state, and, because of that, can do nothing to foster religion.. Handing someone a religious pamphlet with their bowl of soup is not allowed.

[arvay]

As an atheist, I have to face the annoying reality that because of the failure of several American institutions, some of these "faith-based" initiatives are performing well for the US.

The best example is the Catholic school system, which consistently outperforms public schools, and most glaringly among poor and minority children in progressive bastions like New York City.

http://www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/releases/detail/269

What does that mean? Unless and until progressives confront the reactionary teachers' unions who oppose important reforms such as merit-based salaries (imagine that, being graded on performance!!) these kinds of situations will continue.

Many minority parents know that if they send their children to these schools, they'll get a better education than they can receive in the public schools. Little nuns manager to keep order in classrooms that challenge "professional" teachers.

Other services, such as health care, mental health and elder care are also provided by these groups as a result of the Social Darwinism imposed by Republicans. Many of these will require continued government support until President Obama and a solidly Democratic Congress can reverse course -- which will take some time.

[itmaybetoolate]

Failure of governmental organizations is not a reason to accept a violation of the first amendment.

[mergina]

Faith based initiatives have done a lot to help improve lives? Can you name three? One? One thing all faith and religious groups DO do, is breed hatred, bigotry, discrimination, and yes violence toward those that are not them.

[Liberoservative]

Here's a few for you..
http://www.charitywire.com/faith-based.html

What's wrong with the YMCA, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army?

[Beninn]

"But determining how to support that work in a country that values deeply the separation of church and state is no easy matter."

We grant them tax exempt status. It IS an easy matter.

[itmaybetoolate]

They are tax exempted because they are not agents of the state. The money they work with comes from their supporters to propagate their religious views. Once they become agents of the state, their money should be taxed. I would consider support of the faith based initiative if tax exempt status is removed. The churches would NEVER accept that - they would give up the federal dollars first, which gives you some idea about their level of hypocrisy. Tax me? No thanks. We'll just feed fewer poor folks.

[Retrofuturistic]

Faith-based initiatives are a violation of the separation of church and state, as a person as versed in the law as Obama should know. As a person who has sworn to uphold the Constitution should know.

This issue will be Obama's downfall if he does not support the separation of church and state. Faith-based initiative programs do not need to be revised; they need to be disbanded. It is wrong to use taxpayer money from people of diverse or no religion to support the work of Christian-only endeavors that employ predatory proselytizing and discriminate in hiring.

Churches already use their tax-exempt status to accumulate millions from the gullible, needy, and uneducated. I refuse to condone them also having my tax money.

Many of us thought Obama had principles. Apparently, we were all wrong.

[Marlyn]

So now US tax payers will be supporting the Church of Scientology's many secular social services?

NO!

[tbone99]

Another conscience vote coming up - will Obama back exporting torture?

For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA).More than 60,000 Latin American soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.After receiving their training at the SOAS( now WHINESEC)) officers went on to commit countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Colombia.
and Iraq/

Making use of their majority in the 2008 midterms , some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC"s funding They nearly succeeded- 203 legislators voting against and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested that in 2008, WHINSEC might become history.

Obama employs soaring rhetoric when discussing human rights Last year, he failed to take a strong position opposing WHINSEC citing need for more info.What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final decision on the matter? On this issue Obama has staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.

Obama will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That"s because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009. The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank, country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's graduates and instructors.

will Obama vote merely "present" again?

[darcy]

Forcing me to provide tax money to religious institutions angers me to the core. What is Obama thinking?

[BadCompany]

Let the believers fund their initiatives.
I don't want to.
It's bad enough that I have to fund the imperial death machine.

[BADEN]

The young man from Illinois had best let that tiger tail loose.

Despite his eloquent parsing, there is NO PLACE for RELIGION in the WORKINGS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. Period.

This really shows just how scared of that 'secular shadow boogie man" the so-called "faith-based" are.

They don't TRUST their faith!