Adventist College May Receive State Funds
A Seventh-day Adventist college in Maryland is eligible to receive state government funding, a United States court ruled June 26. The decision comes after an 11-year quest by Columbia Union College to gain funding under the Sellinger Program, a state program that distributes grants to private colleges in Maryland.
Columbia Union College cannot be excluded from the Sellinger Program solely because of its religious nature, said a three-member panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. By denying a grant only on the basis of religion, “the government risks discriminating against a class of citizens solely because of faith,” the court said.
Direct state funding of CUC would not violate the United States Constitution’s Establishment Clause “[b]ecause state aid is allocated on a neutral basis to an institution of higher education which will not use the funds for any sectarian purpose . . . ,” wrote Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.
CUC first applied for funds under the Sellinger Program in 1990. In 1992, state officials denied CUC’s application on the basis that CUC was “pervasively sectarian”—that the religious and secular purposes of the school were so intertwined that they could not be separated. Thus, the religious purpose of CUC would inevitably be advanced by any government funding, the state argued.
However, a district court ruled in August 2000 that CUC is not fundamentally different from the religious schools that currently receive aid under the program and so to deny CUC funding would violate the principle of equal protection under the law.
After examining the evidence, the district court said that the Adventist Church “exerted dominance over college affairs” and that hiring and admissions preferences were given to Adventist Church members. But the court also said that the “primary goal and function of Columbia Union College is to provide a secular education even though it has a definite and strong secondary goal to teach with a ‘Christian vision.’ ”
In CUC’s June 28 statement, College President Wisbey reaffirmed the college’s commitment to its Statement of Community Ethos, saying, “[W]e value faith in God, we celebrate the goodness of creation, the dignity of diverse peoples and the possibility of human transformation. Through worship and shared life, we uphold spiritual integrity and are committed to achieving it.”
— Adventist News Network; July 3, 2001
Some of the implications of the CUC case are covered in the article “Lead Us Not into Temptation,” coming up in the November/ December issue of Liberty. Editor
Salvation Army Snafu
One day after The Washington Post revealed that the White House was considering a proposal from the Salvation Army, the country’s largest charity, to issue a regulation protecting faith-based charities receiving government funding from local laws prohibiting workplace discrimination, the White House ended consideration of the plan.
Though they asserted that no actual deal was made with the Salvation Army, the Bush Administration said they “were actively considering the sort of regulatory change the Salvation Army sought.”
“A key part of the president’s faith-based initiative is to make certain that in order to acquire, or to participate in providing these social services with government funds, we not require fundamental changes in the underlying principles and organizing doctrines, if you will, of the organizations that participate,” Vice President Cheney said, according to a second article in the Post.
The paper had reported a day earlier that the Bush administration is working with the Salvation Army to “make it easier for government-funded religious groups to practice hiring discrimination against gay people.” This information was based on a Salvation Army internal document obtained by the Post.
However, according to one Salvation Army senior official quoted in the original article, the Army “never discriminates in delivering its services, but on the question of hiring gay employees, ‘it really begins to chew away at the theological fabric of who we are.’ ”
Rather than encouraging discrimination against gays, as the article stated, the Salvation Army was simply proposing a revision of an old Office of Management and Budget regulation known as “Circular #A-102.” It would have ensured the faith-based organizations would not have to comply with practices or benefits inconsistent with their beliefs.
“It’s the preservation of our employment practices that motivates us to support this,” the Salvation Army official is quoted as saying. He also spoke of these practices as being “central to the group’s ‘theological foundation.’”
Religious organizations have had a long-time exemption from federal anti-discrimination laws. The 1964 Civil Rights Act gives religious organizations an exemption that allows them to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.
A proposal recently passed by the House Judiciary Committee, says religious charities cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability — but as the first Post article noted “it says nothing about sexual orientation.”
To quell the uproar over the Salvation Army document, Bush administration officials eventually released a statement that said: “These protections ensure that religious organizations have the right to hire individuals who share their religious faith.”
—The Washington Post, July 10 & 11, 2001
Appeals Court Rules Against Catholic Charities
A controversial church-state ruling was handed down in California this week. A state appeals court upheld a law requiring Catholic Charities of Sacramento to include birth control pills in its employee health plan. Last year, Catholic Charities filed a suit saying the law violated its religious freedom. The Roman Catholic Church opposes artificial birth control. After the court decision, an attorney for Catholic Charities said, “People of faith should be deeply disturbed.”
—Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, July 6, 2001. Used by permission.
The Golden Arches Get Sued
Hindu vegetarians have filed two lawsuits against McDonald’s Corp. accusing them of using beef flavoring in french fries although the company promised that it would use vegetable oil. The three plaintiffs in the first case in Houston requested that the lawsuit be certified as a class action “on behalf of any vegetarian who ate McDonald’s fries after 1990 in the belief that they contained no meat.” The second lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed on behalf of three vegetarians in Seattle. Two of them are Hindu.
According to an Associated Press report, “the Texas lawsuit contends the plaintiffs were fraudulently induced to eat the fries under the belief that they were cooked only in vegetable oil. Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, plaintiffs may be entitled to damages up to three times the amount of economic harm and mental anguish.” Hindus in India, where the cow is considered a sacred animal, reportedly smashed windows at local franchises.
Although declining to comment on the lawsuits, McDonald’s did apologize for confusing its customers. The company admitted to adding “a small amount of beef extract while the potatoes are cooked,” but added that “fries sold in India have never been flavored with beef extract.”
— The Associated Press
Good News for the Club
The U. S. Supreme Court on June 11 ruled 6-3 that the Milford Central school district in upstate New York violated the free-speech rights of the Good News Club, an after-school Bible study group for 6- to 12-year-olds when it denied them permission to meet in the school after hours.
The school district had argued that allowing the Good News Club and other religious groups to use the school was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The court disagreed. Read the full text of the decision Good News Club v. Milford Central School (Case No. 99-2036) at www.findlaw.com.
— Education Week, June 11, 2001
High Court Upholds High Standards
In another ruling involving children and youth, the Supreme Court (Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (99-699) upheld the Boy Scouts of America’s First Amendment right of expressive association. At issue was James Dale, a former Eagle Scout whose adult membership was revoked when the Scouts learned that he was “an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist.” The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey’s accommodations law required that Dale be allowed to remain a member. The Scouts asserted that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values the organization seeks to instill in its young members.
After the ruling, the Boy Scouts of America posted a document explaining its position, “In Support of Values,” on its web site. Several key points-applicable in many similar situations— include:
• Respecting the rights of persons and groups to hold differing values and expecting that those who disagree with these values to exercise the same respect that has been extended to them.
• Membership requirements are not necessarily “newly devised provisions to exclude anyone.”
• Though not asked to volunteer information about religious affiliation or sexual orientation, members are asked to agree to live by certain principles.
• Children should be allowed to live as children and to enjoy activities designed for them without immersing them in politics of the day.
• It disservices the majority of members of an organization to allow some to selectively obey or ignore one or more elements of the principles that collectively define it. Consistency in these principles is critical to achieving the organization’s objectives.
— www.scouting.org; http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ html/99-699.ZO.html
See “The War Against the Boy Scouts,” coming up in our November/December issue. Editor
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend