The August 25th draft contains several sections of particular interest:

Safeguarding Religious Liberties:
We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices. . . .[W]e call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace. We deplore the increasing incidence of attacks against religious symbols, as well as incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Renewing Neighborhoods, Building Communities:
Decentralized decision-making in the place of official controls empowers individuals and groups to tackle social problems in partnership with government. Bureaucracy is no longer a credible approach to helping those in need. This is especially true in light of alternatives such as faith-based organizations, which tend to have a greater degree of success than others in dealing with problems such as substance abuse and domestic violence. To accomplish their missions, those groups must be able to rely upon people who share their faith; their hiring must not be subjected to government regulation and mandates.

Reforming Prisons and Serving Families:
Breaking the cycle of crime begins with the children of those who are incarcerated. Deprived of a parent through no fault of their own, these youngsters should be a special concern of our schools, social services, and religious institutions. Government at all levels should work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first offenders from criminal careers through Second Chance and similar programs.

Asserting Family Rights in Schooling:
Parents should be able to decide the learning environment that is best for their child. We support choice in education for all families, especially those with children trapped in dangerous and failing schools, whether through charter schools, vouchers, faith-based or other non-public schools, or the option of learning at home.

Protecting Rights of Conscience in Health Care:
The health care profession can be both a profession and a calling. All who are engaged in the healing arts - doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and others - must be free to obey their conscience while performing their professional duties. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s health care, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.

Democratic Platform: As noted in the previous CPRF eNews, the draft Democratic platform includes a notable paragraph on religion and faith-based organizations.

By Joel C. Rosenberg

Best selling author and CEO of Joshua Fund

(Washington, D.C., September 1, 2008) — Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden got a 10 point bounce coming out of their impressively orchestrated convention. They had been down two points going in; they were ahead by eight on Friday. But McCain’s stunning choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has dramatically changed the equation.

According to a new poll out Sunday morning by John Zogby, McCain and Palin had a two point lead over Obama/Biden, 47% to 45%. A new CNN poll released Monday morning has Obama/Biden at 49% vs. McCain/Palin at 48%. That’s a dead heat - again. But the momentum is now McCain’s going into a very challenging week. A Republican convention. A hurricane moving towards the Gulf coast. An economy that’s rebounding (up 3.3% last quarter). The Russian Bear reemerging. And the possiblity of a major war in the Middle East this fall.

I have to say that I am very impressed with Governor Palin and moved by her story. I love her family, love the fact her son signed up for the Army last 9/11 and is headed for Iraq this fall, love that she’s a pro-life conservative, love the major reforms she has already accomplished in Alaska, love that she took on and defeated corrupt Republicans, love that she cancelled the “bridge to nowhere,” love that she’s given huge oil revenue rebates to the working families of Alaska, love her expertise on oil and gas issues and her ability to get passed a $40 billion pipeline to bring Alaskan natural gas through Canada to the lower 48. Wow. This is good stuff. The media is loathe to say it, but the truth is she has done more in her 13 years in elected office that Obama has with his 100-plus “present” votes in the Illinois Legislature and his paper-thin record in the Senate.

[Must-read interview by CNBC's Maria Bartiromo with Gov. Palin: "Drilling in Alaska is going to be a matter of life and death. Up here in Alaska, we're bursting with billions of barrels of oil that are warehoused underground. We have to pump [this oil] and feed our hungry markets instead of relying on the foreign sources of energy….I think some in Congress have misconceptions about what ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] is all about and what Alaska is all about. When you talk about ANWR and the area that needs to be unlocked so that we can explore more and develop these billions of barrels of oil, it’s a swath of land that’s about 2,000 acres in size-and that’s out of a 20 million-acre plain that has been set aside. So 2,000 acres, that’s like a postage stamp on a football field. It’s about the footprint-size of LAX [airport]. And I think a lot of people have assumed that it’s some mountainous, green valley-an area so extremely pristine that wildlife would be adversely affected; land, water, air would be adversely affected if those 2,000 acres were allowed to be tapped. And that is not true. We have very, very stringent oversight up here in Alaska with our resource development. We would even ramp up that oversight to a greater degree if people would understand the importance of unlocking that swath of land and let the development begin….Just that swath of land in that refuge alone is estimated to hold about 11 billion barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And those are just the areas that have been explored. That’s about a year and a half worth of U.S. oil consumption and many months of natural gas. It’s about a trillion dollars worth of energy. And that’s-again-just that sliver of ANWR. So when we hear, ‘Well, maybe there isn’t enough,’ or ‘Well, it’s too late to drill now anyway, we should have done this five, 10 years ago,’ hey, I can’t argue that. I say yeah, we should have done that years ago. But better to start that drilling today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go.”]

That said, it remains to be seen whether Governor Palin is ready to be Commander in Chief and the leader of the Free World if something happens to McCain. I want to believe she is, but count me from Missouri on this one - from the “show me” state. The Governor is really going to have to prove herself in the days and weeks ahead by what she says and how she says it. How well does she understand the Putin threat and how to handle a resurgent Russia? How well does she understand the threat of Radical Islam and how to handle Iran, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan? How well does she understand the rise of China, India and Brazil as global game-changers and what they mean to U.S. security and the global economy? These are the defining foreign policy issues of our time. Sens. Obama and Biden have demonstrated dismal judgment on each of them. This gives the Governor an opening to prove that she has better instincts and the right judgment.

I am not one who believes that people from small town America and governors from states with small populations “don’t get it” and “can’t get it.” I don’t believe that Americans from Washington, D.C. necessarily understand the country and the world better than those from Arizona and Alaska. To the contrary, as someone who grew up in a small town in upstate New York and has now lived in the D.C. area for nearly two decades, I’m highly skeptical of “inside the Beltway” elitism.. So bring it on, Governor Palin. Show us what you’ve got. I want to believe. Many Americans do.

One more thing: Sen. McCain and Governor Palin have a real opportunity to prove themselves to be different kinds of leaders with how they handle this hurricane about to hit the Gulf Coast. I’m praying the natural disaster does not hit, or the damage is minimal. But if it hits hard, I’d love to see the Governor mobilize the Alaskan National Guard to fly in relief supplies to help those devastated. I’d love to see her work with governors throughout the South to mobilize volunteers to help. This could be the Governor’s best possible introduction to the American people - show us you can lead effectively in a crisis, not just issue a press release or give a glitzy speech like your political rivals.

“Palin is not to be underestimated,” says John Zogby. “Her real strength is that she is authentic, a real mom, an outdoors person, a small town mayor….She is also a reformer. A very important demographic in this election is going to be the politically independent woman, 15% of whom in our latest survey are undecided. In the final analysis, this election will be about Obama vs. McCain. Obama has staked out ground as the new JFK - a new generation, literally and figuratively, a new face of America to the world, a man who can cross lines and work with both sides. But McCain is the modern day Harry Truman - with lots of DC experience, he knows what is wrong and dysfunctional with Washington and how to fix it, and he has chosen a running mate who is about as far away from Washington as he could find.”
To visit Joel’s new weblog site — including the latest developments in Israel, Russia and the epicenter — please click here
To join 66,916 other >> FLASH TRAFFIC <<>

To purchase a copy of EPICENTER 2.0 from Amazon.com (32% off), please click here

To learn more about The Joshua Fund’s efforts to bless Israel and her neighbors and to make a tax-deductible financial contribution — by mail or on-line — please click here.
To watch the Epicenter Conference speeches on-line, and learn more about the conference’s purpose, please click here

From the draft Democratic Party 2008 platform:

Faith
We honor the central place of faith in our lives. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. We believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and that few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. To face today’s challenges-from saving our planet to ending poverty- we need all hands on deck. Faith-based groups are not a replacement for government or secular non-profit programs; rather, they are yet another sector working to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We will empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet challenges like poverty, ex-offender reentry, and illiteracy. At the same time, we can ensure that these partnerships do not endanger First Amendment protections - because there is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution. We will ensure that public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate. We will also ensure that taxpayer dollars are only used on programs that actually work.

The Republican Party platform is scheduled to be completed at the end of August.

Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies

Center for Public Justice

Satuday, August 16, 2008 Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain were separately questioned for an hour each by Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren about policy and character issues.

Each was asked if he would require faith-based organizations that receive federal funds to provide social services to forfeit their freedom under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to take account of religion in making hiring decisions.

Sen. McCain gave a strong No, saying that removing the religious staffing freedom would entail “a severe crippling of faith-based organizations and their abilities to do the things that they have done so successfully.”

Sen. Obama gave a lengthy response in which he reiterated his conviction that faith-based groups play an essential role in fighting poverty and other social problems, the federal rules should ensure a level playing field for all applicants, and faith groups should be able to select staff on a religious basis when using private funds, but also that federal funds cannot be used to support “discrimination” in hiring. He claimed that such a ban on religious staffing is a “long-standing rule.”

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

On June 26 and 27, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives hosted a conference to celebrate and evaluate developments in the partnership between government and civil society organizations, including faith-based organizations. In connection with the conference, a new website now highlights “Innovation in Effective Compassion.”

Religious Exemptions
Constitutional law expert Carl Esbeck explains the First Amendment rationale for providing robust religious exemptions in “When Accommodations for Religion Violate the Establishment Clause: Regularizing the Supreme Court’s Analysis.”

Rethinking Role of Faith-Based Organizations
The Baylor Institute for Studies in Religion recently released Not by Faith or Government Alone: Rethinking the Role of Faith-Based Organizations, a special research report edited by Byron Johnson, with short essays on various aspects of the faith-based and community initiative. Among the essays is “The Paradoxical Role of Faith in the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,” by this editor, arguing that the hard work to ensure the religious freedom of faith-based organizations has not been a distraction from the initiative aims but rather the catalyst for all the reforms requiring government to be more respectful of its civil society partners.

Religious Staffing
For the legal, constitutional, and policy rationales for the religious staffing freedom, download The Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations to Staff on a Religious Basis, by Carl Esbeck, Stanley Carlson-Thies, and Ron Sider (Center for Public Justice, 2004).

Other Faith-Based Articles
Is protecting the religious identity of faith-based organizations that collaborate with government an extremist, sectarian policy, as some charge, or rather the middle position–the equal treatment alternative to the extremes of obligatory secularism and soft theocracy? Read Keith Pavlischek’s reflections on Senator Obama’s proposed faith-based policy, “Doubting Obama.”

Peter Steinfels wrote a thoughtful evaluation of Senator Obama’s proposals for the New York Times: “Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government.”

For a thought-provoking review of John DiIulio’s recent book on the faith-based initiative, Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future (2007), focusing on the religious staffing issue, see Joseph Knippenberg’s essay, “Faith Friendly?”

July 17, 2008

Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies, former leader for the White House Faith-based and Community Office and Co-author of Revolution of Compassion.

Center for Public Justice

stanley@cpjustice.org

Two weeks ago, Senator Barak Obama announced his plans to expand and improve the faith-based initiative. The reverberations from his announcement continue to sound. And rightly so.

The Obama plan draws fire from groups opposed to government partnerships with faith-based organizations to serve the poor and needy. Some of these critics portray the Bush faith-based initiative as an unprecedented violation of settled church-state guidelines. This ignores the fact that government collaboration with religious social-service groups has a long history and that the major legislation on the topic–the Charitable Choice provisions put into three federal programs–was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Work to expand and improve partnership has been going on intensively for a dozen years. Senator Obama is right to see a continuation of this work–expanding the collaboration and continuing to improve the terms of the relationship–to be a vital aspect of domestic policy for the next President.

Reverberations continue as well from Sen. Obama’s announced plan to restrict religious hiring by faith-based groups in programs operated with federal funds. Many religious leaders and faith-based organizations are hoping for further discussion of this vital issue.

In the “guiding principles” in his proposal on “Partnering with Communities of Faith,” Sen. Obama said that the organizations would be required to “comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” But, he added, “Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.”

His exact intention is unclear. Title VII includes an exemption that expressly protects the freedom of faith-based organizations to take account of religion in their employment decisions, so complying with this fundamental part of federal anti-discrimination policy preserves the religious staffing freedom. But the second statement, by sharp contrast, proposes a sweeping ban on religious staffing in any program operated by a faith-based organization using federal funds.

The status quo–under the Bush faith-based initiative, and also before the Bush actions–has never included such a universal ban. Rather, the federal rules are these:

+ faith-based organizations, as a general rule, are free to consider religion when making employment decisions (the Title VII exemption);

+ some federal programs explicitly protect that freedom when the organization receives federal funds (programs governed by Charitable Choice);

+ some federal programs explicitly ban religious staffing by all participating organizations (e.g., Head Start and programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act);

+ but most federal programs say nothing about employment, thus leaving intact the religious staffing freedom for participating religious organizations.

Many faith-based organizations are rightly concerned about a sweeping new restriction on religious staffing and may be forced to reject collaboration with federally funded programs if the proposed rule is implemented.

Concerned organizations should ask the Obama campaign for clarification, emphasizing their willingness to serve all, without regard to religion, and yet their conviction that maintaining their religious identity is only possible if they are able to take account of religion when selecting staff. Many faith-based organizations do take account of religion, but surreptitiously, unaware of their legal rights. Now is the time is be clear about how important this aspect of institutional religious freedom.

Senator John McCain’s campaign has issued a press release indicating his view that the religious staffing decisions of faith-based groups should not be subject to governmental restriction. This is a welcome statement. But it needs to be accompanied by a plan for carrying on the faith-based initiative.

The current issue of the E-Newsletter of the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy includes this article: “Opposing Groups Urge Next President to Improve Faith-Based Policy.” The article notes a recent letter from the “Coalition Against Religious Discrimination” calling on the candidates to prohibit religious staffing. It also highlights the memo from the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom calling for a continued emphasis on religious freedom: “Memo to Presidential Candidates: How to get the faith-based initiative right.”

ENDA and Religious Freedom

The Employment Non Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685), adopted by the House last November, still awaits Senate action. Before passage in the House, an amendment offered by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) was added. The Miller amendment was a response to protests to the bill’s inadequate religious exemption (religious schools not controlled by a church nor dedicated to spreading religious teachings were not clearly exempted). As amended ENDA now exempts from its prohibition on job discrimination based on sexual orientation all religious organizations covered by the Title VII exemption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is, religious schools, faith-based nonprofits, and other religious organizations that are free under Title VII to consider religion in their employment decisions are also exempt from ENDA’s sexual-orientation ban.

However, ENDA nevertheless would encroach on religious freedom in other ways. As currently written, ENDA does not maintain the specific FCC provision that protects the employment decisions of religious broadcasters. Further, Title VII includes a BFOQ provision that enables organizations to “discriminate” in hiring for particular job positions where certain personal characteristics are valid job qualifications–such as a secular bookstore hiring a person of a particular faith to maintain the store’s specialized holdings of books related to that religion. ENDA does not include such a provision.

Most important, adoption of ENDA arguably would render religiously based objections to homosexual conduct “contrary to public policy” and thus subject to government penalty. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status revoked because of its then policy against interracial dating, a faith-based organization that legitimately (because of the religious exemption in ENDA) refused to hire a person who engages in homosexual conduct might nevertheless lose its tax-exempt status or low-cost use of space in a government building. Many backers apparently do wish to regard religiously motivated objections to homosexual behavior to be no different than rank racism.

Legislators who genuinely desire both to protect people who engage in homosexual conduct from unjust discrimination and to safeguard the ability of religious people and organizations to maintain their historic religious standards concerning sexual activity need to amend ENDA further.

If you know other individuals or organizations that could benefit from receiving these updates, please email cprf@cpjustice.org to subscribe to the bimonthly newsletters and occasional action alerts from the Center for Public Justice.

For more information on becoming a member of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, please contact us at cprf@cpjustice.org or 410/571-6300.

Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom

cprf@cpjustice.org

410/571-6300

This is the first of several writings I intend to pen on this topic

You do not need to read a Gallup Poll or Barna report to see the shifts occurring in the Evangelical movement. The religious Patriarch’s are graying along with their faithful followers. Mega church pastors such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley rightfully pay homage to their forbearers while emerging leaders coronate them with corners of the Evangelical mantel. In contrast to many Evangelical denominations these innovators have purposely steered away from formalizing their following. One follower described it as “a loosely connected affiliation based on a shared conviction that the church must be relevant and can be progressive without losing its moral Biblical bearings.”

“Can I be both Loyal and Relevant?”

These “affiliations” or “associations” pose stiff competition for denominations that are already struggling to compete for their pastor’s affection and church resources. There is a painful tug-a-war in many Pastors who want to remain loyal to their denomination while not being branded as such. This move was illustrated for me recently when I drove past a church in the process of removing the denominational name from its marquee. One pastor confided, “We want our community to see relevance when they drive by not organized religion.” This sentiment is now hurting the denominational pocketbook which depends on its churches to survive. A growing percentage of mega church funds are going to their own schools, missions programs and compassion outreach. Denominational publishing is also suffering. “How do we compete with a church that produces their own materials or downloads them for free from popular [church resource] websites?” one denominational leader asked.

How does a denomination compete while not appearing to denigrate the value these “affiliations” and/or associations? How do they provide the added value to their churches while not alienating them further?

“Why do I need you?”

While denominational leaders scratch their heads an even greater challenge looms with the younger evangelical pastors. These emerging leaders have less loyalty to their denominations past and make it publicly known (through blogs like this one) that they will choose their friends, mentors and where they spend their money. This group is not afraid to ask, “Why do I need you?” “What is my church paying for?” And “What is the return on investment I can expect?”

Added Value Denominations Offer

While it seems in vogue to question the relevance and value of denominations I would encourage and caution pastors to push the pause button before distancing themselves. Over the past decade I have worked closely with denominations such as the Assemblies of God and Southern Baptist’s North American Missions Board. These institutions have benefited leaders including and not limited to the following:

1. Inspirational leadership and accountability – some of the most dynamic men and women in the world are spearheading denominational. There is much that emerging leaders can garner from those that have trod the path before them. Henry Ford said, “I cannot afford the tuition of learning from my own mistakes.”

2. Shared vision – as an example, denominations have successfully convened and galvanized leaders around global initiatives such as church planting, compassion projects and support of proven missionaries.

3. Outreach models – more and more denominations are searching for proven models to spotlight as a resource for their church constituents. For example, Tom Trask, former General Superintendent for the AG helped to catapult Convoy of Hope nationally and internationally by opening doors for Convoy to serve the AG churches and missionaries. Now Convoy is working with a constellation of denominations, NGO’s and corporations to reach the least, last and lost in Jesus name.

4. Resources – denominations have specialized funds earmarked to support the vision of emerging leaders. One church planter complained, “They were behind me….way behind me.” When I drilled down it was clear that the young leader had received assistance but not to the level he expected. I replied, “Whatever they blessed you with were funds that you did not have to raise.”

5. Avenue to leverage giving to support worthy people and projects. Most denominations retain a very small percentage of the funds received for overhead. For example, the AG keeps 5% and then channels the balance to missionaries and projects. In return, denominations can provide missionaries (home or foreign) with mentoring, accountability and other benefits (e.g. insurance, vehicles, literature, etc). There are an abundance of Para church organizations clamoring for church funds but this is still one of the best ROI’s out there.

In short, it does not need to be “either/or” proposition when partnering with denominations. You can still benefit from the innovations coming out of a Rick Warren’s ministry but receive the “added value” of remaining tethered to your denomination. At the end of the day your churches relevance is dependent on how you utilize the knowledge, experience and resources God bestows on you to lead.

As already demonstrated Senator Obama would be cordial and enthusiastically embrace the participation of FBO’s in competing for publicly sponsored social programs. I suspect that FBO leaders would attend venues sponsored for them by the White House and many would hail him as a champion of faith-based causes. Yet, when it comes to competing for grants and contracts most will choose to skip this dance if Senator Obama insists on not protecting their hiring rights. As stated in my previous blog, “The future of Faith-based Initiatives” what makes FBO’s successful is their “Faith” and volunteers and employers serving God and others through their faith. It is God working through faith-based people that leads to transformation. Can someone who has been a slave to drugs be delivered by God without any intervention or interaction of a social worker specialized in this field? Of course, and there are many testimonials to this phenomenon. However, as one who has worked closely with FBO’s like Teen Challenge in most cases it is God using a compassionate faith-based worker and friend to counsel and provide “tough love” through a series of breakthroughs over time. If you interviewed both the faith-based provider and the client they would both contend it was their faith in God that resulted in becoming “a new person with the old things passed away and replaced by the new.” Therefore, if FBO’s are forced to hire non faith-based employees then the core to their success will be eliminated.

As a result, if Senator Obama is elected then I believe FBO’s will be left with the following options:

1. Do not pursue public funds. The only exception would be in the form of vouchers since the Supreme Court has declared that in this case the client is choosing the organization thereby allowing the FBO to not change their practices including hiring rights. Examples of vouchers include childcare, adult education and Access to Recovery under SAMHSA. The FBO still cannot utilize public funds for proselytizing under any circumstance.

1. “Don’t ask and Don’t Tell.” The FBO when hiring someone will not ask the interviewee about their religious background or affiliation. Likewise, the interviewee will not feel any obligation to address this question during the employment process or thereafter. This approach is outlined in my book, “A Revolution of Compassion” co-authored by Stanley Carlson- Theis who is a renowned expert on the matter.

1. Start a secular sister non-profit organization. Many FBO’s will choose to establish a separate non-profit that will be used entirely for programs funded by the government. This would create a firewall and protect them from mixing private with public funds. Some FBO’s have already taken this course and have developed successful “Community Development Corporations.”

If I were advising the Obama campaign I would strongly encourage them to be proactive in presenting and explaining these options to FBO’s. If not, FBO’s will eventually see that they have been a victim of “Bait and Switch.”

The Pew Forum, Religion and Politics reported:

“McCain supports faith-based initiatives and has cited charter schools in Arizona as good examples of effective faith-based organizations. He voted for a U.S. Senate version of President Bush’s faith-based initiative designed to make it easier for religious groups that provide social services to compete for federal grants. McCain’s spokesperson, Brett O’Donnell, says that, if elected, McCain wants faith-based organizations to “have at least the same standing as they have now.”

Barack Obama When asked if he would keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open, Obama said he would need to investigate the office’s operations because of the danger that federal money could be allocated to churches ‘based on politics, as opposed to merit and substance.’ He says the office should be ‘open to everybody” and not allow ‘certain groups to be able to evangelize.’

This past week both Senator Obama and Senator McCain offered more details:

Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign issued a statement today (Wednesday) fully supporting the freedom of faith-based organizations to staff on a religious basis even when they receive federal funds:

See the McCain statement here:
McCain campaign statement

See the Obama campaign fact sheet detailing the Obama plan and the new restrictions he proposes:
Obama Guidelines

Hiring rights will become the central issue for both candidates to defend especially if elected President. If a faith-based organization cannot hire someone who shares their faith and values then they are faced with only two options: to compromise in their hiring practices or not compete for government grants and contracts. Senator Obama’s view is a deviation from both the Clinton and Bush administrations that vigorously defended this right.

Senator Obama’s view stands in contrast to his testimony of how Jesus has changed his life. For other followers of Jesus the key to their organizations success is the “Spirit of God” working through Christian believers (employed or volunteers) for the faith-based organization to bring transformation to peoples lives. If an organization that is based on faith in God is required to hire people not of faith then you are asking groups to change the very basis for why they exist to garner public funds.

Further, isn’t that a violation of the organizations civil rights!!!
Everyone has an ideology. Would a leader from Planned Parenthood hire a Pro-lifer? Would a Democrat or Republican hire someone that does not share their campaign’s vision and values? To prohibit a faith-based group from hiring someone that shares their ideology is blatant discrimination. I appeal to Senator Obama who I believe has a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ to ask “Does my Savior and Lord share this view?” Much progress has been made under the last two administrations to build bridges between government social services and the faith community to provide people with a broader menu of choices. If Senator Obama is elected President and does not protect the hiring rights of faith-based groups that receive public funds then he will become the biggest foe of his vision to bring “a new project of renewal in America.”