In God’s Name (1)

What started the previous series of posts was the article I wrote about and a series that is going on in the New York Times entitled:

In God’ Name

by Diana B. Henriques. This lengthy series is giving me more on this subject to continue on. So here goes another series of posts, especially with this tag line about:

how American religious organizations benefit from an increasingly accommodating government.

The reason I am following up the previous post right away is because of they are linked. As you will see this presents the ever increasing blur occurring between the Christian ethos in America and secular institutions, especially the courts and the IRS. It also looks into the important issue of the separation of church and state and abuses that are arising from it.

The article in the series is called:

As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation

The article starts with two different child care centres in Auburn Alabama. The first is run by Ethel White. At any time, state inspectors can come in, unannounced to make sure her centres meet state requirements. Which makes sense because the law is intended to ensure the children are safe.

For Ms. White, this means continual training for the staff, and details like having two sinks, one exclusively for food prep. And important things like all cabinets require safety locks, and things like medications are kept under lock and key.

Then there is a day care centre run by the Harvest Temple Church of God with the Reverend Ray Fuson. Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements.

It is important to note that recently, the requirements were tightened after almost a dozen children died in both licensed and unlicensed day care centres in two years.

As the article continues, the differences do not end there. As an employer, Ms. White must comply with the civil rights laws. Therefore if employees feel mistreated, they have a recourse in the courts. Yet:

Religious organizations, including Pastor Fuson’s, are protected by the courts from almost all lawsuits filed by their ministers or other religious staff members, no matter how unfairly those employees think they have been treated.

And another telling difference has to do with financial statements. Anyone can see how Ms. White’s nonprofit centre uses its public grants and donations because she has to file her financial statements each year with the IRS. But there are no IRS reports from Harvest Temple; federal law does not require churches to file them.

Because of the separation of state and church, religious organizations are enjoying an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes. And the number in the States is increasing rapidly.

Yet it is important to point out, this is not just for the mainline Christian megaplex churches. Mosques, synagogues to Hindu temples also enjoy the growing area of exemptions.

Some of these exemptions have existed for much of America’s history. Originally they were devised for Christian churches but as the nation became more religiously diverse, it expanded to other faiths.

What is curious is that many of them have been granted only within the last 15 years. And often, it seems, they have been added to legislation anonymously and with little attention. As the article suggests:

An analysis by The New York Times of laws passed since 1989 shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.

The article quotes Professor John Witte Jr. the director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University Law School. He say that the special breaks amount to a sort of religious affirmative action program. And then he says:

Separation of church and state was certainly part of American law when many of today’s public opinion makers were in school. But separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land.

The obvious reason for the changes is the growing political influence religious groups are having, especially conservative Christians. This influence is not just in the political arena like Congress but there is a growing presence of conservatives in the courts and regulatory agencies.

I can see some people jumping up and down complaining about people like the Republicans, but it is important to realize that these tax and regulatory breaks have been endorsed by politicians from both parties, by judges across the country and at all levels of the government.

As Richard R. Hammar, the editor of Church Law & Tax Report and an accountant with law and divinity degrees from Harvard is quoted saying:

The religious community has a lot of pull, and senators are very deferential to this kind of legislation.

The end result is that religious organizations of all faiths are in a position that American businesses and all non-religious nonprofit groups can only envy. What is telling is that the new breaks these organizations are getting is at a time that they are expanding into activities like day care centres, fitness clubs, books and broadcasting. They are coming into the market place and competing with others that do not have the benefit of these exemptions.

Thing is religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state and local laws. One area of growing contention is that federal law gives religious congregations unique tools to challenge government restrictions on how they use their land. The result is things like land-use restrictions that are a result of a long standing public demands like open space or historical preservation can be superseded by a religious congregations’s construction plans. More on this later.

As mentioned before, another area is the civil rights laws. Exemptions protect religious employers from all legal complaints about things like faith-based preferences in hiring. And the courts have shielded religious employers from different complaints on other forms of discrimination such as race, nationality, age, gender, etc. What surprised me the most is that most religious organizations have been exempted from federal laws meant to protect pensions and to provide unemployment benefits. More on this later.

The one area which is guaranteed to raise an eyebrow has to do with taxes. Congress has imposed limits on the IRS’s ability to audit churches, synagogues and other religious congregations. Which has allowed more vague religious groups like the Church of Scientology some great exemptions. At the same time, at the local level, houses of worship have long been exempt from local property taxes in every state.

If we were just talking about a local church and the pastor, I don’t see a problem. But religious activities, especially in the States are expanding far beyond the weekly worship and the running of a soup kitchen.

In Minnesota, you can find a church-run fitness centre with tanning beds and a video arcade. In Florida, there is an biblical theme park. These are just two examples of the expanded activities which are getting tax breaks. And if the local officials don’t want to give the breaks, the courts or state legislators step in.

So these organizations are exempt from the local taxes. Yet they still rely on public services. They still want police and fire protection. They need street lights and storm drains. The roads need to be maintained. But these exemptions shift the cost of providing the local benefits onto other citizens. The tax burden is placed on the ordinary Joe in the town or city. And the resulting cost is unknown because no one keeps track.

Now it is important to go back a few hundred years. One of the brilliant aspects of the framers of the Constitution was the insight they brought to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One area, from the onset, was they wanted to protect religious liberty. There were two clear goals in mind, as constitutional scholars point out.

• The framers wanted to assure that everyone, even members of a small and possibly unpopular sects could practice their faith without the fear of persecution. All too often many came to America because a dominant religion was allied with the state, as it was in England, and persecuted smaller sects.
• The framers wanted to make sure that the government would not become captive to a particular religion or set of beliefs at the expense of people with other faiths.

Many scholars say that this tradition of religious freedom and tolerance helped America avoid sectarian violence that erupted in places like Ireland and attracted immigrants, bringing talents from around the world.

For some legal scholars and judges, they see the special breaks for religious groups as a way to prevent the government from infringing on religious freedoms. As Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has written and testified in support of greater legislative protection for religious liberty is quoted as saying:

Never forget that the exercise of religion is a constitutionally protected activity. Regulation imposes burdens on the free exercise of religion. Exemptions lift those burdens.

He adds:

That is constitutionally a good thing.

Yet he is talking about the exercise of religious freedom here, not running a day care centre. We are now entering murky waters that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned. Until recently, churches, mosques or synagogues were a local matter. And whatever exemptions they received were not far-reaching. Yet as some of these churches grow into megaplexes and other just jump on the bandwagon, these special interests start to collide with other values important in the country. For example:

like extending the protections of government to all citizens and sharing the responsibilities of society fairly.

Of course, religious organizations defend the exemptions as a way to recognize the benefits these groups are providing. From early on, religious organizations operated things like schools, orphanages, hospitals, etc. long before social welfare and education were seen as a responsibility of the government.

Yet the question arises about fairness. These ministries benefit from exemptions with things like soup kitchens and homeless shelters but the nonprofit organizations that provide the same services get nothing. It would make sense to have any and all breaks available to any charitable organization.

I saw that when I was living on the streets. Nonprofit shelters like the Old Brewery Mission were run down compared to those run by the Salvation Army or other religious organizations. What kept some people away from the religious shelters was the dollop of religion that would be forced upon them be it like during meals. While others took it in stride because the food was a little better, as was the bedding. Even back then I wondered about the fairness that the religious run shelters had more than the non-religious ones.

But now, religious nonprofit groups are expanding vigorously into other areas. These groups do things run nationwide broadcasting networks or generate best-selling publications and take full advantage of exemptions that are not available to secular nonprofit groups that are engaged in similar activities.

Of course one of the key elements is the First Amendment and the command that:

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

As I said before, the Founding Fathers did not envision churches moving into endeavours like publishing books or running fitness centres. And what they are doing, does it really have to do with exercising their religious faith.

As the article states:

For most of the past half-century, courts interpreted the first part of that clause as a barrier to government action that seemed to treat religious groups more favorably than secular ones, legal scholars said. But today, many lawyers agree, courts are taking a more accommodating view of government actions that benefit religious groups.

But it seems the change started to change under the influence of William H. Rehnquist when he was the chief justice of the Supreme court. This is suggested by Derek H. Davis, until recently the director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco, Tex. Additionally, he feels:

Clearly, we’re going to be in this accommodative mode for some time.

This is because Mr. Davis sees Chief Justice Rehnquist’s successor, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to continue to follow in his footsteps with respect to cases affecting religious groups.

The issue here, for people like the Supreme Court is to protect the free exercise of religion but also assure that religion is not being favoured by the government. Yet all too often the two efforts collide and become messy court cases.

In the next post we look into more about exemptions including how religious organizations are now eligible for things like federal grants and continue this exploration.