Are clergy and teachers of religious faith/thought public servants? Is their work on par with that of others who work for 501c3 non-for-profit groups and for government agencies? It used to be, but as of Jan. 31 the federal government has changed its mind about that.
Although not known to most people, the federal government maintains a program called Public Service Loan Forgiveness. According to that program, after 10 years of public service work, any remaining federal student loans remaining for that worker would be forgiven. But what counts as public service?
Until the end of January, the government definition was clear and inclusive. It read as follows:
Qualifying employment is any employment with a federal, state, or local government agency, entity, or organization or a non-profit organization that has been designated as tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes. Additionally, the type of services that these public service organizations provide does not matter for PSLF purposes.
Now, though, the rules have changed. At the end of the description of who qualifies for this program, a new paragraph appears and it's striking not only in that it re-defines things, but that it does so in a way that seems purposefully disingenuous.
Generally, the type or nature of employment with the organization does not matter for PSLF purposes. However, if you work for a non-profit organization, your employment will not qualify for PSLF if your job duties are related to religious instruction, worship services, or any form of proselytizing.
So after telling us that pretty much everything qualifies, even going out of its way to highlight that neither the type of work nor nature of the organizations matters, the government slips in the fact that if faith or worship are part of your work, you don't qualify. What?!
Is faith really so threatening that it merits this singular exception? Well, perhaps it does. The careful separation of church and state is not simply a nice idea. It is a crucial part of our democracy, and a commitment based on the historic abuse of church-state entanglement. But as framed, this policy puts all of the weight of that question on those who can least afford to shoulder the burden -- students carrying loans.
If the government wants to re-visit making loans to those who study for religious careers, fine. I would oppose any change there, but I get it. Likewise, if the government wanted to revisit the tax-exempt status of religious institutions, I would get that as well. I would also oppose that, but I would understand it. But taking this out on those who can least afford it is simply wrong.
All that said, I also believe, especially given the otherwise broad definition of public service according to this law, that clergy and religious teachers should be considered public servants. On balance, there is no doubt about the public value created by faith and faith teaching in America.
While religion can be abused in the most horrendous ways, it remains a source of enormous social good and unprecedented public service. The new regulation seems to uphold only one of those truths, and in doing so, is actually taking a position on faith (dare is say, "establishing" one?) -- a hostile one.
While church-separation is a wise and necessary policy, separation is not about discrimination against, or hostility toward, religion. The law, as newly reformulated is clumsy at best, insensitive for certain, and may even be illegally hostile to religion. This one needs to change.
Follow Brad Hirschfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bradhirschfield
2.) There is no bright line between a clergy person as social worker and as religious worker. The student who is training to be a chaplain explained his work will involve listening and praying with people who are injured or dying in hospitals. This is not easily quanitfiable as "social work." But hey, it's a "free market" and we're all good Randian libertarians here, so let's all just die alone and afraid.
3.) Religious work does not equal conservative work. Clergy do outreach to LGBT communities, teach self-respect to poor kids, work on social justice programs, work with labor unions, suicide prevention, women's reproductive health, etc. This work is INSEPARABLE from their work as religious leaders.
4.) I profoundly dislike the work of Focus on the Family, Heritage Foundation, Concerned Women for America, and National Organization for Marriage. But if I work for these organizations, I receive Federal student loan forgiveness. If I work as a pastor for a church that supports social justice causes and LGBT equality, apparently I don't.
Most people think the Salvation Army is a charity but it is not, they are a religion, and they are very picky on who they will help (again homosexuals are on their untouchables list and they have spent millions fighting same sex marriage laws).
There are many wonderful religions that are not hate based, but why should the Vatican be able to send all their priests and nuns to college for free (or any religion) and then have the US government just forgive their student loans because their career is religion. Seperation of church and state. I think sending all public teachers, state social workers (public), nurses, and EMTs to college knowing the loans will be forgiven if they are in their fields for 10yrs is far more beneficial than helping Rev. Phelps and his followers get an education for free to pick funerals of dead children.
Is not the same as
Oh. Okay.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
When it comes to receiving public funds for their preaching activities, they DONT WANT exceptions.
When it comes to renting their facilities for same-sex marriages, they WANT exceptions.
When it comes to renting public buildings for worship purposes, they DONT WANT exceptions.
1. To be available 24/7 to offer crisis support to individuals and families facing trauma / death of a loved one. (I am not allowed -- and have no desire -- to mention ANYTHING religious unless the family specifically indicates they want me to. In any case, I am expected to "speak the religious language" that the family requests, not my own.)
2. To serve as a patient advocate.
3. To offer emotional support to people faced with when taking a loved one off of a respirator, or when considering organ donation. While this is a religious decision for many people, for many it is not. We serve both groups.
4. To be available 24/7 to help doctors break bad news to families.
5. To help mediate disputes between staff members, patients, their families.
6. To serve on the hospital's ethics board.
You would be surprised to find out how many of the not-necessarily-religious functions I described are also filled by clergy people in your community.
I know there's a lot of hurt regarding the ways that religion has been used to abuse people. I carry some of that hurt myself. Please don't take it out on people going into debt in order to be with you in your darkest hours, who have absolutely no intention of preaching to you.
Social good and public service are provided by those who do practical work for real people at homeless shelters and soup kitchens and social welfare organizations and those people do get their loans forgiven even if the reason for their career choice is their faith. There's no reason the taxpayer should fund the educations of people who plan careers asserting their religious beliefs are better than others. We have an overabundant supply of sanctimonious know-it-alls who want to tell everybody else what to do already.