Faith-Based ProfitsThe idea behind giving churches and other religious institutions exemption from state and federal control-even by way of tax exemptions, exclusion from certain labor laws, and such--is that these institutions are so focused on doing good that the governments have no right to impose order upon them. As such, and under the wall of separation between church and state, many religious organizations have enjoyed significant autonomy from taxation and regulation. But what do we do when these religious institutions do not follow the very notion under which these exemptions are provided?
In some limited cases the government has used its considerable power and legal authority to exert some influence over religious institutions gone astray. In one case--Bob Jones University--the fact that the university used its religious nature to proffer a position of segregation that was totally and utterly in contempt of a public policy that was hard won in the civil rights era. Then, too, the government has used its legitimate authority to deny such exemptions from such pseudo-religious organizations as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and some "churches" that were formed merely out of a desire to experience drugs under the umbrella of religion.
Additionally, the various governments have used legitimate authority to intervene in cases where religious affiliation or commune were used to justify child abuse, sexual predation upon children, and other pseudo-religious rationalizations. In some states, even the protection offered to Christian Scientists regarding medical care to children is in question.
However, those instances are obvious extremes. But what about when a religious institution uses its status to treat members of its congregation/affiliation with utter disdain and injustice by not being required to adhere to certain labor provisions? One would think that a religious organization--especially one adhering to the charity, love, hope and justice tenets of one of the major faiths in our world--would act in a just manner out of mere adherence to these tenets of faith. But such is not always the case.
In the article cited and quoted below, there are a few cases that illustrate that religious organizations do not always adhere to the tenets of faith that procured the special status in our society often afforded to them. In my own life, I experienced such treatment as a teacher for a Catholic High School in the Gary Diocese of Indiana. The issue was parity of pay and recognition of the dedication, professionalism and hard work teachers within the Gary Diocese brought to the church. In my experience the Diocese was not only acting in an unfair, un-Christian manner, it sought to strike back at any attempts teachers made to organize and bring the Diocese to a bargaining table. If the word "union" were even mentioned within earshot of an administrator, teachers were subject to some form of retaliation, retribution or intimidation. I taught for this institution in 1998 and 1999, and parity has yet to be established or even discussed in a reasonable manner... which may explain the tremendous amount of turnover the school and the Diocese has experienced. Even further, contracts signed with this particular school and the Diocese used to include a penalty clause for any teacher that might want to seek greener pastures in a higher paying position. The contractual clause completely negated the at-will doctrine present in Indiana, was totally unenforceable given the other clauses and terms of the contract, but was effective in keeping many teachers from jumping ship in the middle of the year because teachers do not always understand their rights or contractual obligations.
Mary Rosati, a novice training to be a nun in Toledo, Ohio, says that after she received a diagnosis of breast cancer, her mother superior dismissed her. If Ms. Rosati had had a nonreligious job, she might have won a lawsuit against her diocese (which denies the charge). But a federal judge dismissed her suit under the Americans With Disabilities Act, declining to second-guess the church’s “ecclesiastical decision.”
I am a Catholic and believe in the faith completely, although I have taken issue with the Church and the way it interprets and imposes that faith upon its members. For myself, the eucharist is a real experience of communing with God through the body and blood of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. While I regognize that none of that makes and sense in terms of science and our everyday life, it is none-the-less a reality for me. Where I draw the line is twofold: 1) my faithfulness does not allow my Church to perpetrate injustices and 2) when the Church acts in an injust manner it must make reparations and correction.
Ms. Rosati got screwed not only by the court that refused to hold the Church accountable, but by the religious order--an extension of the Church--that chose to act in an unjust manner. There are no religious exemptions in the language of the ADA of 1990. While I see many flaws in the ADA
ab initio, I also see the legitimacy of many of its terms and provisions. One of its flaws is that it did not specifically state that religious organizations are not to be exempt from adhering to it.
Day care centers with religious affiliations are exempted in some states from licensing requirements. Churches can expand in ways that would violate zoning ordinances if a nonreligious builder did the same thing, and they are permitted, in some localities, to operate lavish facilities, like state-of-the-art gyms, without paying property taxes.
I have a colleague that bemoans the idea of exempting child care centers created and run by religious organizations from licensing requirements. For myself, I see the need to allow exemptions from curricular requirements, but not the zoning, safety and operational requirements. In the case of a church, synagogue, mosque or other institution running a "gym" or social center, I see room for allowing such exemptions
provided the facility is used for community outreach and good works not merely focused on its own congregation and operated in a not-for-profit fashion... complete with a board of directors.
As I was growing up my local Catholic Parish allowed its parish hall to be used for meetings of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, community events, school events (including public schools), etc. They also operated bingo games out of the center and rented the hall for weddings, dances and other local events. The money generated from the bingo and the rentals was used to pay church bills and provide services within the parish. But many churches are exclusive in terms of who gets to use such facilities. While we can understand saying no to certain activities and events that would violate the tenets of faith (i.e. a divorced adults dance at a Catholic facility), there has to be a way in which these issues could be mediated to allow reasonable compromises and adherence to faith and law or community obligations. Then, too, I have seen certain religious organizations generate excesses only to use it to pay the pastor or leaders a higher salary--which is one of my major objections to televangelists like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart and Benny Hinn... all of whom seem to make more money for themselves than seems reasonable for a servant of God's will and mercy.
Some of the most disturbing stories, like Ms. Rosati’s, involve employment discrimination. Ms. Henriques told of a New Mexico rabbi who was dismissed after developing Parkinson’s disease and found himself blocked from suing, and of nurses in a 44,000-employee health care system operated by the Seventh Day Adventists barred from joining unions.
There seems to be an inherent injustice in these cited examples.
Religious institutions should be protected from excessive intrusion by government. Judges should not tell churches who they have to hire as ministers, or meddle in doctrinal disputes. But under pressure from politically influential religious groups, Congress, the White House, and federal and state courts have expanded this principle beyond all reason. It is increasingly being applied to people, buildings and programs only tangentially related to religion.
In its expanded form, this principle amounts to an enormous subsidy for religion, in some cases violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. It also undermines core American values, like the right to be free from job discrimination. It puts secular entrepreneurs at an unfair competitive disadvantage. And it deprives states and localities of much-needed tax revenues, putting a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.
Like most special-interest handouts, these privileges exist in large part because the majority is not aware, or is not being heard. With property taxes growing ever more burdensome, it is likely that localities will start to give religious exemptions closer scrutiny. People who care about discrimination-free workplaces, the right to unionize and children’s safety should also start to push back.
There is a fine line to be considered in these issues. But we have seen the current administration kowtow to corporate influences and the Religious Right. Currently, one of the major campaigns being offered by the Religious Right is a media blitz talking about an attack on churches because the IRS is insisting that the "no political activity from the pulpit" regulations be fully observed and respected. But such organizations as the Christian Coaltion and the ACLJ have encouraged churches and pastors to ignore these requirements. I have written in the past on these issues. While I think it is important that a church and its leaders have a voice on the morality of an action or law, these institutions and leaders should not go so far as to endorse political parties, party affiliation, raise funds for political reasons, or conduct door-to-door campaigns on political issues under the umbrella of church activities.
Where I live now there is an ultra-conservative Baptist Church that is quite focused on political action and activities under the color of the church. Its activities are so well known that most politicians in Porter County (Indiana) are almost required to have some form of discussion with their campaign staff on how to deal with the vote this church can generate.
But the bottom line for me is that a religious organization--regardless of faith, sect or denomination--should be required to act in a fair and just manner or lose its exempt status.
In a few places, at least, that has started. After Texas exempted religious day care centers and drug-treatment programs from state licensing, a study found that the “alternatively accredited” facilities had 10 times the rate of abuse and neglect of the others, and several were investigated. In 2001, the Texas Legislature, no enemy of organized religion, did the right thing and ended the exemption.
It seems to me that the ending of such exemptions were clearly warranted and justified.
