It concluded that there was “a lack of rigour in RAD’s processes” which resulted in a number of RAD audits where the charities did not present “credible risks of terrorist abuse.”

THE ESSENTIALS

Why This Report Matters

First, although buried in an annex, this report tells us that the number of religious charities is likely under reported in the CRA’s data. This is because charities are given only one code by CRA and a dual-purpose organization (advancing education and advancing religion) may have only an education-related coding.

Second, the report points out deficiencies in RAD’s audit processes, specifically that they need to be more consistent, better documented, and be regularly reviewed to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Third is CRA’s response to the report which shows it is willing to receive and act on some, but not all, recommendations from reviews of its activities.

Fourth, the impetus for the review was grounded in concerns about religious discrimination but it did not conclusively demonstrate that RAD audits are biased. The CRA does not collect this demographic information for the purposes of audit and could neither refute nor substantiate the claims. RAD’s “general scrutiny of the subset of charities may be justified” but only where it is based on credible risks of terrorist abuse, “using rigorous methodologies and practices” and these require attention and remediation.

Fifth, and finally, it provides a small but interesting window into RAD’s work.

What Comes Next?

CCCC takes the position that all charities should be treated fairly, respectfully and on the basis of a principled regulatory and policy framework. The NSIRA review is an important part of ensuring transparency in whether and how government agencies meet these expectations.

In this case, the CRA has committed to addressing important issues of process and documentation deficiencies. We will monitor how RAD and CRA implement changes in response to the recommendations because all charities, regardless of religious identity, should be treated with respect. Consistent, fair and principled oversight is in everyone’s interest.

THE DETAILS

What Is RAD and Why Does It Matter?

RAD was established in 2003 as a specialized division within CRA that focuses on risks of terrorism financing through registered charities. It manages a compliance program based solely on terrorism-related risk indicators. Its work is informed by leads from media, intelligence partners, internal referrals, and public tips. After assessing terrorism risks, RAD may complete a comprehensive assessment that will, in turn, leader to recommending a RAD audit, referring to CRA’s Compliance Division, continuing monitoring or discontinuing monitoring.

RAD audits represent less than 0.5% of all Charities Directorate audits.

What is NSIRA and Why Did It Complete this Review?

NSIRA is an independent body reporting to Parliament. Its role is to review national security activities to ensure they are lawful, reasonable, and necessary.

In this case, NSIRA reviewed how RAD selects charities for terrorism-related audits to assess whether its practices are discriminatory on the basis of religion.

The review focused on RAD’s pre-audit decision-making processes, analyzing 15 charity files (from a pool of 37 completed RAD audits), with “particular attention” paid to the eight charities selected for audit after 2016. It also sampled all risk assessments conducted from 2020 to mid-2024.

Overview of NSIRA’s Key Findings

Important Role but Process Problems

NSIRA affirmed that CRA audits help fulfill Canada’s international obligations to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing in the charitable sector. But in fulfilling this function, NSIRA concluded that there was “a lack of rigour in RAD’s processes” such as lack of documentation and not properly validating risks. In half of the 37 audit files reviewed, there was no record of why audit selection was approved for the charity and the files lacked consistency in how risks were captured and assessed. In some cases, the terrorism risks were based on outdated information, mitigating information was sometime sought after an audit began, or audits were not driven by credible risks of terrorist abuse.

Religious Discrimination

When it comes to the question of possible religious discrimination, the report concluded that RAD’s processes “place it at risk of breaching its non-discrimination obligations” under the Charter; however, CRA does not collect demographic data to either refute or substantiate claims of discrimination so NSIRA relied on contextual information.

At the same time, NSIRA explained that while CRA does not track demographic affiliations, “the one exception pertains to the ‘advancement of religion’ category code, where data does exist.” The report states that as of March 2025, “0.66% of registered charities are characterized as advancing Islam” but 35% of the charities audited by RAD were under this category code, a notable and significant difference.

The report also noted that “the religious affiliation of Canada’s listed terrorist entities and the NIRA’s terrorism financing threat group of actors reflects a roughly similar proportion to the charities audited by RAD.”

RAD relies on the listed entities as identified by the Government of Canada but does not make decisions about listing.  NSIRA states that: “In the context of RAD’s mandate to protect the charitable sector against vulnerability to exploitation by terrorist actors, RAD’s general scrutiny of the subset of charities may be justified. However, this is only true insofar as RAD maintains strict attention on those charities that are credibly at risk of terrorist abuse, using rigorous methodologies and practices.”

In recent years, listed terrorist entities have become more diverse, and as a result RAD includes this diverse range of charities in its initial risk assessments. RAD explained that more recently listed entities are not currently known to use the charitable sector to finance their activities.

NSIRA’s Six Recommendations & CRA’s Response

On the same day that NSIRA released its report, the CRA released its response. It fully agreed with three of the recommendations (#2, #3, #5), generally agreed with one (#4), and disagreed with two (#1, #6).

1. That the CRA collect and evaluate demographic data from the sector to ensure its treatment of charities is not discriminatory.

The CRA disagreed with this recommendation, citing the Privacy Act, which governs collection and use of personal information. The CRA can only collect information that relates directly to an operating program or activity. If the information is not necessary to regulate the sector or serve a compliance-related purpose, the CRA cannot require it be disclosed. The CRA affirmed that “it does not select registered charities for audit, nor does it apply policies or procedures differently, based on any particular faith or denomination.”

On this point, it seems collecting this information outside of the context of a charity’s category code could be extremely complex, if it is even desirable or permitted by law. Is the demographic data that of the directors? Or is it the identity of the charity? In the case of the latter, the category code could already provide helpful data. If it is the former, it becomes problematic and complicated as directors may serve on a wide range of boards that reflect some, all, or none of their particular personal demographic identifiers.

2. That RAD develop an evidence-based way of validating its risk indicators.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation stating that its risk indicators are consistent with international standards which have remained relatively stable. Nonetheless, it will develop and implement a formal periodic review.

3. That RAD formally document its decisions about when, and on what basis, it audits.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation. Effective for 2025-26 fiscal, a formal tracking mechanism will be used to oversee audit referrals, refine processes, and formally document audit decisions.

4. That RAD update its process for assessing risk of terrorist abuse in a charity.

The CRA generally agreed with this recommendation. Its current practice is to evaluate information used in risk assessment against established research standards. NSIRA pointed to examples of using dated information, but the CRA explained that “this information alone did not serve as a primary or significant basis for audit referral.” Because of NSIRA’s concerns, the CRA will examine its process to identify further measures that could reduce risks of bias in decision-making.

5. That RAD ensure it decision-making pre-audit is supported by current, credible information.

The CRA agreed with this recommendation. It reflects CRA’s current practice for evaluating information used in risk assessments against established research standards. NSIRA found examples of RAD using dated information, but the CRA explained that information alone did not serve “as a primary or significant basis for an audit referral.” The CRA will examine current processes and procedures to reduce the risk of bias in decision-making.

6. That the CRA compare audit outcomes between RAD and the Compliance Division to determine whether any identified differences are justified.

The CRA disagreed with this recommendation. Audit outcomes are determined on a case-by-case basis and seek to enforce uniform regulations that apply to all registered charities, including risks related to terrorist abuse. Even so, the CRA committed to reviewing its audit program for any improvements that could support consistent, risk-based audit approaches.

The post NSIRA Reviews CRA’s Anti-Terrorism Audit Division: What You Should Know appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Provincial and federal legislation require that employers offer certain benefits to employees, like the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and minimum vacation time, but benefits packages can include much more than what the law imposes.

Here are some initial ideas to get you thinking as you evaluate your charity’s benefits package.

1. Review benefits regularly

Schedule periodic reviews of your benefits package. Employee benefits can cost an employer upwards of 35% of an employee’s salary. Conduct a diligent review of these benefits on a regular basis.

2. Consider the options

Create a list of available benefits. Write down everything, from health and dental to unlimited office snacks and work-from-home policies. Expand your view of what is considered a “benefit.” Some options on the list may end up being a taxable benefit, but don’t worry about that right now. Explore all that is out there, even those you think may be a temporary fad. Take inventory of what other employers in your region and sector are offering.

3. Narrow down the list

Next, start crossing benefits off the list that don’t apply. Some places of employment may offer regular, catered meals or annual retreats. While these might not fit with your charity’s situation, they can provide inspiration as you determine what your current and future employees are most likely to expect and appreciate. We also recommend you take time to reconsider the donor’s perspective – as stewards of their donations, how might they perceive certain benefits?

4. Match benefits to staff requirements

Your staffing strategy will influence your approach to benefits and should be clear before exploring options. For example, if you hire mostly part-time, seasonal workers, that will change what kinds of benefits they need compared to a contingent of full-time, salaried staff.

5. Decide what kind of workplace you want

You can’t invest in every possible benefit. The values of your ministry, the context in which you operate, and the people to whom you minister all have an impact on the benefits you can offer.

6. Treat employees as assets rather than expenses.

The people on your team have been called by God to help move the mission forward, and a staff team that is well supported will also be healthier and more productive. By establishing a well-designed benefits package, your ministry will be better able to attract, develop and retain outstanding employees!

What’s next?

While we hope this article has given you something to chew on, this is just the appetizer!

If you’d like to go deeper, we offer a wide array of articles about compensation, benefits and other related topics in our Knowledge Base, accessible exclusively to CCCC members.

Got a specific question about offering benefits to your team? Reach out to us for information about our plans and custom quotes. Our team is here to help you navigate HR complexities, foster a healthy work environment, and empower your team.

The post 6 steps to a better benefits package appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

In our extensive experience of over 50 years, collaborating with thousands of Christian charities across Canada, we have learned a key insight: neglecting to establish a compensation policy and unintentionally underestimating your charity’s compensation package can be a significant mistake. Attracting and retaining the right talent needs to be a top priority.

A proper compensation package will reflect Jesus

A well-designed compensation package, rooted in Christ-like attitudes, fosters positive relationships and helps retain quality employees, ultimately impacting the ministry’s effectiveness and reputation and helping you fulfill your mission.

The best compensation packages do the following:

• Demonstrate care for the employee, ensuring fair treatment and promoting employee morale
• Ensure compliance with employment legislation
• Help maintain competitive pay levels
• Protect the organization’s reputation against claims of unfair treatment
• Allow Christian organizations to model exemplary treatment of staff to their members and other stakeholders
• Bring in the best possible people to serve your ministry
• Sustain your workers’ lives so that they don’t need to go somewhere else

What your policy should include

A compensation policy lays out the principles that inform how employees are paid. It should align with the organization’s values and philosophy regarding the treatment of its employees and those it serves. Additionally, the policy should support the ministry in achieving its strategic objectives while demonstrating good stewardship of its financial assets. The resulting compensation package encompasses various components, such as base salary, bonuses, benefits, and non-cash compensation.

Don’t know where to start? Our Member Support Team can send you more in-depth information to help you build or overhaul your approach to compensation. Click here to learn about how we can help.

Construct a policy outline that includes the following elements:

• High-level overview of your approach to compensation
• Purpose of the policy
• Summary of how compensation decisions are made, and who makes them
• Job titling guidelines
• Guiding principles for pay increases

We’re here to help

Consider engaging CCCC and the HR Consulting program to support the work you’re doing on your compensation documents. Our team has extensive experience helping Christian charities build policies and packages that align with their values, mission, and vision.

Additional member-only resources

Members have access to our extensive compensation resources through our knowledge base and member support team.

Here’s a taste of what is available to CCCC members:

• Sample Job Descriptions in the Knowledge Base for various roles in Christian ministries.
• Access to Affordable HR Consulting (blocks of hours or specific job-related processes).
• Free access to CCCC’s Compensation Survey Tool to determine fair compensation for your next hire or review data for various ministry roles across Canada.
• Free access to CCCC webinars related to HR:
  • Common HR Pitfalls to Avoid
  • Hiring Well: Best Practices for Christian Ministries
  • Stewardship of Your People Through Policies and Practices
• Discounted online training courses in the Learning Table.

Still have questions? Our member support team is available from 9am-5pm ET Monday to Friday to answer your compensation and charity management questions.

Not a member yet? No problem! Non-members get one free consultation call with our professional Member Support Team.

Schedule a call today

The post Your compensation policy can help your mission appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

We get the most questions in the fall, when the church year begins. As the ministry season ramps up, charities seek guidance on everything from board structure, to human resources, to finance. November and December are busy as organizations prepare their budgets for the new year and deal with year-end donations. In the spring, we answer lots of questions on closing the books as many charities end their fiscal years. So, in light of these recurring themes, here are five questions we regularly face from members and non-members alike:

1. Tax Receipting

Issuing tax receipts that fulfill Canada Revenue Agency requirements can get tricky. It’s especially hard when a donor wants special treatment. No matter what you or the donor wish could happen, the law is generally clear. For instance – no, you can’t issue a tax receipt to a child whose elderly mother has been donating for years simply because it would improve the child’s tax situation. Download our document, “Top tips for issuing accurate donation receipts” for some other good advice.

2. Conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are often delicate situations. The pastor’s spouse may want to serve on the board, or your organization might want to hire a board member’s company for a contract. These are just two of the many questions we field around conflicts of interest. We can help answer your questions and offer guidance as you navigate these challenging conversations.

3. Board Governance

There are many broad matters that come under the area of board governance. One crucial item for organizations is to recognize that charity legislation takes precedence over any bylaws that might be in place, even long-standing ones. This requires charity leaders to do periodic reviews of the bylaws to ensure they remain compliant with charity law, in general, and any specific requirements for an incorporated charity to follow that are in incorporation legislation it was formed under, as these laws and their regulations change from time-to-time. We provide comprehensive seminars on board governance and offer general guidance and education for members in need of further support.

4. Financial statements

Members often ask if their charity requires audited financial statements. The answer is “yes” if charity is incorporated and that incorporation law requires it if, for example, a revenue threshold has been exceeded set out in that legislation. Unincorporated charities do not have an audit requirement, but it is certainly arguable to consider having one as a good or even best practice. This gives donors a level of comfort that the finances are in good order and presents the numbers and notes that meet a professional standard.”

5. Donation management

Navigating the intricacies of donation management can be tricky, too. For instance, some churches in Canada are affiliated with U.S. parent churches and want to send money south of the border. But, while Canadian law has been clear that only fellow registered charities in Canada could receive money as a donation, there is now the additional possibility of making qualified disbursements to non-charities. Care must still be taken to follow the rules governing those disbursements. Another common question is, what to do when a large donor wants to influence how the organization spends their contributions?

Whatever the question, I can’t think of a time we weren’t able to help. In cases where we may not have an immediate answer, we can introduce you to someone from our Professional Associate network who has the knowledge and qualifications to assist you further.

Need help today? Members enjoy access to our extensive knowledge base and regular consultations with our Member Support Team. Non-members are also welcome to one free consultation.

We believe in your mission and we love to serve.

Gil Langerak has worked in the finance department at major charities, and has served as a board member of a church, Christian charity, and non-religious organization. He has been helping CCCC members with their unique issues for the last 25 years.

The post Top five questions from Christian ministries appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Ontario Grant to Support Anti-Hate Security Measures for Faith-Based and Cultural Organizations

This grant program “is a $25 million, attestation-based grant that will provide funds to faith-based and cultural organizations to increase safety and security measures.”

The deadline for application is March 3, 2022.

To be eligible, applicants must:

• Host regular gatherings (at least once per month) of religious, spiritual or cultural significance
• Hold gatherings as a primary activity
• Be a registered charity or not-for-profit
• Be operational in Ontario on February 3, 2022
• Own, lease or rent an indoor facility in Ontario for the gathering purposes above
• Be in compliance with Income Tax Act and Canada Revenue Agency requirements
• Attest to compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and hate laws under the Criminal Code
• Attest that all funds will be used for security and safety measures against hate-related incidents
• Attest that all funds will be used for expenses incurred between April 1, 2021-March 31, 2022

Applications may be audited and you need to keep all documents that prove your eligibility for a period of seven (7) years.

For the full and detailed information on the application process, requirements, eligible expenses, documentation, and more, be sure to check out the Grant Application Guide.

Inclusive Communities Grants (ICG) Program

The ICG Program provides up to $60,000 for a local project to help older residents and people with disabilities participate in community life. This year’s priority projects are those that support under-served communities and that address COVID-19 related challenges.

The deadline for application is March 3, 2022.

The Program Application Guide explains that “the purpose of the ICG Program is to help communities becomes inclusive by ensuring that the needs of Ontarians of all ages and abilities are considered at every stage of community planning and development.”

It supports existing and new Age-Friendly Communities in eight specific areas of community life:

1. Outdoor spaces and buildings
2. Transportation
3. Housing
4. Respect and inclusion
5. Social participation
6. Civic participation and employment
7. Communication and information
8. Community support and health services

Projects must take place between September 2022 and March 2023, and applicants will know the outcome of their applications by summer 2022. Applications must be submitted online through Transfer Payment Ontario (TPON) – the Application Guide gives more information on how to access and apply through TPON.

Eligible applicants include local governments, Indigenous Communities or organizations, and community organizations. Community organizations must be not-for-profit, legal entities, and have been in operation for at least one year prior to application. Private foundations, private schools, hospitals, and post-secondary institutions are not eligible (see the Guide for the complete list).

If your organization serves older residents and people with disabilities, this could be a great opportunity to obtain funding to expand and create Age-Friendly Communities in your area! Don’t delay! As noted above, the deadline for applications is March 3, 2022.

Other Programs of Interest

Other programs that may be of interest include the Summer Experience Program (although the deadline is listed as February 15, 2022, the application was still listed as “open” as of publication), and the Safer and Vital Communities (SVC) Grant (deadline March 4, 2022) which focuses on preventing online crime, specifically hate crimes, human trafficking and fraud.

The post Ontario Funding Opportunities appeared first on CCCC Blogs.

Conversation With The Author

It was my pleasure today to speak with one of the authors, Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, about this book and why he and Stephen V. Monsma wrote it.  You may be interested in watching our conversation.  It is divided into three parts:

Part 1 Stanley W Carlson Thies with Barry W Bussey 15 11 02 

Part 2 Stanley W Carlson Thies with Barry W Bussey 15 11 02 

Part 3 Stanley W  Carlson Thies with Barry W  Bussey 15 11 02

Book Review

Stephen V. Monsma & Stanley W. Carlson-Thies, Free To Serve: Protecting The Religious Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2015), 198 pages.  $18.69 Canadian at Amazon

The Problem:  Faith-based Organizations Are Denied Religious Freedom

Faith-based organizations’ ability to freely express their religious convictions is threatened more than ever and such threats are on the rise.  However, Monsma and Carlson-Thies assure us that there is hope.¹ They optimistically suggest that the American pluralist society has room for all to live together despite “deep differences.”  Religious and non-religious alike benefit when freedom is protected for all faith-based organizations.  However, religious freedom is challenged when religiously motivated people are denied freedom to allow their faith-based organizations to carry out their faith in the “public realms of health care, education, and services to the needy.”²

The Solution:  Principled Pluralism

Their vision is for all people to be free to worship, or not, as their beliefs require.  Religious people ought to be able to live out their faith in the nation’s public life through faith-based organizations.  Religious freedom requires at least as much.  There must be a profound respect for the diversity of belief/non-belief systems, perspectives and organizations where none is favoured over another.  It is a commitment to religious freedom, pluralism and tolerance.³

The solution to this quandary is a “principled pluralism” that has four principles:  first, all human beings are morally responsible.  They are free individuals who possess human dignity and certain fundamental rights, the most basic of which is freedom of religion;⁴ second, human beings are social;⁵ third, government must not prevent its members from being able to create and sustain nongovernmental organizations that are based on and reflect their members’ deeply held beliefs;⁶ and fourth, as government should not dominate society’s organizations nor should one organization seek to dominate or control other organizations or individuals.⁷

Working out this “principled pluralism” will require a mutual “forbearance and toleration as they experience inconvenience and burdens due to their fellow citizens living as their beliefs require them to live.”⁸

The False Assumptions

The authors reject the notion that religious organizations are said not to be deserving of religious freedom because they operate outside a church.  They point to World Vision’s struggle to maintain its right to fire three employees who no longer supported its statement of faith.  The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in World Vision’s favour.  However, as Monsma and Carlson-Thies point out, it was a close call.⁹

Judge Marsha Berzon’s dissenting decision causes one to pause when she argued that World Vision was “nothing like a church” to be exempt from the requirement not to discriminate against the religious beliefs of its employees.  It’s humanitarian work, she pointed out, “on its face, [is] secular.”¹⁰

Berzon’s view is one that is gaining popularity, not only in the US but throughout Western democracies.  It is a very narrow description of religious freedom based on at least two assumptions.  First, religious activities involve only those that fall within the rubric of church services and religious rites.  Second, it assumes that religious freedom is solely for individuals and their religious communities – it does not include faith-based (profit or not-for-profit) corporations.

Throughout this volume Monsma and Carlson-Thies addresses these assumptions, and others, that would deny religious freedom to faith-based organizations.  They do so by arguing that the protection of religion includes not only the worship rites but it also includes the manifestation of those beliefs in all areas of life.  In particular, they point out that Christianity (and other religions as well) does not limit itself to weekly church services.  Its religious norms are applicable throughout the week and are operative in all occasions.  It is why Steven McFarland, vice-president and chief legal officer of World Vision could say, “We are not just another humanitarian organization, but a branch of the body of Christ.”¹¹  Faith-based organizations operationalize the religious sentiments that are articulated in the churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. in the form of health care, education and other endeavours to help those in need.  When religious people “…band together to create service organizations to fulfill their religious obligations more effectively than they could as individuals or as members of a local congregation, there is no reason why those organizations are any less religious than local congregations.”¹²

The secular/religious divide is a construct of recent origin.  The American Civil Liberties Union, Political Research Associates and other groups have been advocating this description.  The authors point out that Martin Luther King Jr. “would have problems calling desegregation a ‘secular value,’ as would hosts of brave demonstrators who marched out of their churches and into the streets in the 1960s.”¹³

To suggest that government funding transforms a faith-based organization to a government actor is a wrong characterization of the relationship.  Rather, the authors point out that it should be seen as a partnership whereby the government recognizes that it can be more efficient and effective by tapping into the support networks of the “independent sector” to remedy a common problem.¹⁴  In the same way that a government gift to an arts organization does not mean that organization is now a government actor so a faith-based organization should not lose its identity because it receives government funding.¹⁵

The authors reject the assumption that Christianity’s cultural dominance and any attempt to protect religious freedom is an attempt to use public policies to maintain a favoured position.¹⁶  The opposite is true.  “Christianity, is anything but culturally dominant” in the U.S. and one might add in much of Western liberal democracies.¹⁷  The reality is that both the religious and the non-religious feel marginalized by the other group which makes it more difficult to establish common ground.¹⁸

Religious Freedom Also Extends To Faith-based For-Profit Entities

Monsma and Carlson-Thies point out that faith-based organizations are not solely non-profit or charities.  They are also for-profit entities – such as the Hobby Lobby case illustrates.  Consider for a moment that Hobby Lobby applied its owners’ Christian principles in the workplace by giving employees about double the minimum wage, comprehensive health coverage and one day (Sunday) off each week.  Media reports were not as interested in those provisions as they were about Hobby Lobby’s refusal to provide abortifacient medication to its employees.  The refusal was due to the conscientious objection of Hobby Lobby owners, the Green family of Oklahoma.¹⁹

While the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favour of granting Hobby Lobby the exemption based on its right to religious freedom, that decision, as Monsma and Carlson-Thies point out, “remains on shaky ground.”²⁰  The media tried to frame the case as the Green family imposing their religious scruples on its employees.  Such a position is unfair.  That would only be the case, the authors argue, if the Green family fired those employees who were using the abortifacients, or the Green family was lobbying Congress for a law against this form of birth control.  The only coercion in this case came from “…those who were seeking to force the Green family to act contrary to their religious beliefs.”²¹  The authors reject the argument that this was a “secular” corporation and therefore not entitled to religious freedom.  The corporate mission statement and faith inspired practises establish that the owners were, in fact, operating it as a religious based entity.  To deny it protection because of its corporate status could also exclude incorporated churches.  In short, “…religion is more than worship….”²²

Monsma and Carlson-Thies emphasize two limitations on the religious freedom of for-profit organizations.  One, there must be a “clear, explicit, demonstrable religious commitment.  Two, there is no “general right to avoid legal requirements to which they have religiously based objections.”²³  There has to be a balancing of the competing interests.

Other Views

This book also contains six essays written from Roman Catholic, evangelical, Jewish, Muslim and non-religious backgrounds.  Their purpose is to make explicit that Monsma and Carlson-Thies’ concerns are shared by a diverse group.  These essays are very helpful.  Tish Harrison Warren’s piece, “The Wrong Kind of Christian” gave a first-hand account of a Christian organization that was forced off Vanderbilt University’s campus because it required its student leaders to sign a statement of faith.  Warren, an Episcopal priest, said “Religious organizations were welcome as long as they were malleable – as long as their leaders didn’t need to profess anything in particular; as long as they could be governed by sheer democracy and adjust to popular mores or trends; as long as they didn’t prioritize theological stability.”²⁴ Warren came up against a university bureaucracy that was against “discrimination.”  The word “discrimination” was “lobbed like a grenade to end all argument.”  One university official stated, “Creedal discrimination is still discrimination.”²⁵  Creedal belief and sexual expression, notes Warren, were “not just wrong but evil, narrow-minded, and too dangerous to be tolerated on campus.”²⁶  There remained a “culture of fear” on campus where sympathetic professors remained silent in their support of the Christian organization for fear that “going public would be ‘career damaging.’”²⁷

“When religious liberty is not secure, nothing is,” wrote Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz in her short essay included in this volume.²⁸  Bucholz reviewed the experience of the religious order, Little Sisters of the Poor, who refused to agree to pay for the abortifacient drugs as part of the government’s mandatory healthcare.  Little Sisters provides elderly care for people of all faiths who otherwise would not have such help at the end of life.  Yet the government was willing to shut them down with crippling fines.  Little Sisters is currently pursuing their right to religious freedom in court.

Kim Colby’s essay asks the question, “Will pluralism survive the death of relativism?”²⁹  She maintains that relativism was good for religious freedom as, by definition, it had to respect the right of individuals to hold diverse opinions.  However, today there is a “Truth 2.0” that has swept relativism aside and proclaims a new fundamental truth:  “an individual’s sexual autonomy must be unhindered, even unquestioned, no matter what the cost to others’ liberty or even to others’ right to life.”  It demands “that everyone must agree that abortion and sexual conduct outside of traditional marriage are not only acceptable but affirmatively good.”³⁰ And dissent will not be tolerated.

Nathan Diament, an Orthodox Jew, points out that Jews realize that the religious freedom experienced in the U.S. is unprecedented in history.  Therefore, his question “Can it happen here, in America?” has an ominous tone – is it possible that such protections could be expunged in America?³¹  The Enlightened French experience for Jews was “a Jew in the home, but a Frenchman in the street,” has not been the American experience.  It is antithetical to Judaism which “recognizes no notion of ‘being a Jew in the home’ and something else in the street or office or classroom or marketplace or park.”³²

The Muslim perspective, in this book, was given by Hamza Yusuf Hanson and Mahan Hussain Mirza.  “Muslims,” they stated, “stand in solidarity with other faith communities to advocate for the right to live and preach their convictions in the public sphere.”³³  They maintain that the best way to mediate difference is to allow for a plurality of opinions in free and open debate with power of persuasion resting in arguments.  They see successful faith-based institutions in America as a model to bring hope and relief to Muslims everywhere.

Distinguished law professor Douglas Laycock presents a secular perspective in his essay.  “I do not support religious liberty because religion is good,” admits Laycock, “but because religion is profoundly important to those who care about it.”³⁴  He argues that when government “stays out of the way” religion flourishes.  “The whole point of religious liberty is that people from across the whole range of views about religion agree to respect the religious liberty of everyone else across the whole range of views about religion.”³⁵  However, government rarely has a compelling interest in preventing people from feeling offended, insulted, or irritated.

Conclusion:  Practical Steps Going Forward

The authors close their book with five practical steps faith-based organization can take to protect their religious freedom.  First, explicitly stating religious commitments.³⁶  By holding themselves out as religious in all publications, policies, web presence etc. they increase their credibility as being religious.  It will forewarn potential employees the religious nature of the operation.  Second, avoid even the appearance of coercing others to follow one’s religiously based practises.  There is a distinction between providing services to those engaged in “activities that are legal but immoral, and providing services that make it complicit in those immoral activities.”³⁷  There is also a distinction “between refusing to provide a service its religious beliefs hold to be immoral and attempting to prevent someone from obtaining that service elsewhere.”³⁸  By showing respect to a pluralist society the faith-based organization signals its commitment to pluralism and it will strengthen its defense of religious freedom.³⁹  Third, show respect for and work with others who disagree.⁴⁰  Such an attitude demonstrates that they are not simply another advocacy group interested solely in its own protections but cares about the religious freedom of others.  It also opens the door for others to reciprocate the support.  Fourth, get to know community leaders.⁴¹  Ignorance of a group will lead to misconceptions.  Faith-based groups will do best to meet and know community leaders before there is an issue or controversy.  Fifth, work with others to defend everyone’s religious freedom rights.⁴²  They argue that there is a need to work with umbrella organizations and not stand alone – “There is strength in numbers.”⁴³

Evaluation:  Timely but the Conversation Must Continue

While the authors are optimistic that a principled pluralism is possible and even desired I am not sure that society, as currently configured, is willing to put forward the requisite effort to make it happen. Our cultural moment appears less inclined for co-operative projects in these areas of concern. We need more discussion about what will be required to accomplish the vision that Monsma and Carlson-Thies outline.

It seems to me, that further discussions need to be had with those who oppose their views. In many ways this is a book that preaches well to the choir but I question how it may be perceived by those who disagree.  Further conversations must be made with those individuals and groups opposing religious freedom of faith-based organizations.

Monsma and Carlson-Thies’s Free to Serve is timely and necessary.  The pressure on faith-based organizations to conform to a secular ideology is intense.  Such conformity would result in the loss of their religious character.  The concept of the “public” has proven to be dynamic.  Religious communities have established education, healthcare and other centres to meet societal needs for millennia.  It is not as if they are new to the field.  Such endeavours were long considered “private,” that is to say, the religious groups that established the entity maintained their religious character while carrying out their work.  They did so with minimal supervision from government.  If there is anything new, it is the notion of a nation-state seeking to be the sole provider of such services and thereby removing faith-based organizations, or, at the very least, lessening their religious identity to conform to the dominant secular ideology.  Though this book is US centric it addresses issues that are salient throughout the Western World.

It is a great primer and needs to be read not only by law and religion academics, legal practitioners and those leading faith-based organizations but also by the general public.  Its language is easily accessible.

Notes:

The post How To Protect The Religious Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations appeared first on CCCC Blogs.