Home 
The News
The News
| Rev. Gaddy's Letters to Senators Hatch and Enzi on their Amendments to the Healthcare Reform Bill |
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 23 September 2009 | |
|
For Immediate Release Read more
September 23, 2009 The Honorable Orrin Hatch 104 Hart Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Hatch, I write to you as president of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization that celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism and build common ground. I was troubled to hear that you have submitted amendment #C10 to the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 which would restore funding to the Title V Abstinence Education Program. As a Baptist minister, I understand the central role that faith plays in the lives of many Americans, including politicians. At the same time, I value our historic tradition of not allowing personal religious beliefs to drive the policies introduced in Congress. This boundary between institutions of religion and institutions of government is one of the foundations of our Constitution. Sometimes, religious or extreme voices can move policies and legislation in one direction, even when research has proven that another direction is more effective. Earlier this year, President Obama proposed a budget that removed funding for abstinence-only education because studies have shown that the program is ineffective. As reported by The Washington Post on April 14, 2007, a congressionally authorized study that began in 1997 and followed children from elementary and middle school into high school concluded that this type of education did not stop children from engaging in sexual intercourse any more than those who did not receive this education. Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, commented at the time, “There’s not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education.” Senator Hatch, now that we have had this information for more than two years, why would you introduce an amendment to restore this funding? In fact, it has been reported that you would like to spend $50 million a year on these programs. Especially during these difficult economic times, isn’t it more responsible to focus spending on comprehensive sexual education programs – which lead with abstinence as the only 100% effective way of avoiding both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections – that keep our children healthy and safe in practice, rather than in theory? Reintroducing a program that has been proven to be ineffective is not only a waste of taxpayer dollars, it is dangerous to the health of our children. Please reconsider amendment #C10. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance September 23, 2009 The Honorable Michael Enzi 379A Senate Russell Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Enzi, I write to you as the president of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization that celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism and build common ground. I was troubled to hear that you have submitted amendment #C15 to the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, which would ensure that conscience protections are applied in the healthcare reform bill. When President Obama first took office he prevented a conscience protection clause from implementation. He understood that this type of clause placed religious beliefs ahead of the medical needs of patients, and could inhibit their access to medical care and information related to HIV, end-of-life, contraception and other health issues. This legislation does not move us forward as we try to improve health care in the United States. Senator Enzi, why would you introduce an amendment that makes it more difficult for patients to receive treatment for and information about their health? Medical professionals and health care workers should serve their patients, not their own religious beliefs. For a governmental leader to confuse which is the top priority between those two is a great disservice to Americans of all faiths, who deserve the best, most comprehensive and accurate healthcare. I recognize that your religious beliefs may have impacted your desire to introduce this amendment. As a Baptist minister, I understand the central role that faith may play in your life. But I urge you to remember that policies established by Congress are not to implement personal religious beliefs but to advance the public welfare, which includes the kind of health services that citizens receive. Please reconsider amendment #C15. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance # # # The Interfaith Alliance celebrates
religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that
protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge
extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country
from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more
information visit www.interfaithalliance.org. |
| Rev. Gaddy's Letter to Gov. Brewer on Her Decision to Rescind Domestic Partners' State Employee Benefits |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, 23 September 2009 | |
|
For Immediate Release September 23, 2009 The Honorable Jan Brewer Governor of Arizona 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Fax (602) 542-1381 Dear Governor Brewer, I write to you as the president of Interfaith Alliance, a national organization that celebrates religious freedom and is dedicated to protecting the boundaries between religion and government for the good of both institutions. I was concerned and saddened to read that, according to the Arizona Daily Star, you are eliminating domestic partners’ state employee benefits just one year after they were added to the benefits plan by Governor Janet Napolitano. By taking these benefits away from domestic partners, you are implementing a policy of unequal treatment for some of your citizens based solely on their sexual orientation. Yet, the U.S. Constitution ensures that social acceptability and civil equality apply to all citizens. Our government thankfully guarantees that every American enjoys the full benefits of citizenship. Your explanations of why you signed this troubling bill, that reportedly will affect 800 state employees, deepened my concern and set off an alarm. The Star reported that you attribute some of your actions as Governor, at least in part, to your belief that God is responsible for your current position —“God has placed me in this powerful position as Arizona’s governor,”— and that, in affirming a belief of former U.S. Senator John Danforth in his book Faith and Politics, “it is important that we don’t check our religion at the church door. We want to apply it to the rest of our lives.” Articulating these beliefs that so closely link religion and government directly contradicts the First Amendment, which ensures that these two institutions remain separate, for the good of both. Regardless of your religious beliefs towards domestic partners, in our country, law, not scripture, should be the foundation of government benefits for citizens. Thus, all citizens should receive the same civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution without infringing on anyone’s religious rights. Incidentally, I know former Senator Danforth and I am well aware the he and I share a profound appreciation for faith without fostering entanglement between the institutions of religion and government that compromise the integrity of both. Governor Brewer, why would you choose to take away benefits from domestic partners? This certainly is not upholding the vision of our founders, who believed that practitioners of religion should not impose their beliefs on our civil society. Additionally, your action signals disrespect for the thoughtful leadership of Governor Napolitano. These state employees deserve better. As a minister who believes that faith should be the best friend of equal rights for all people and a citizen concerned about a violation of the Constitution, I urge you to both rethink the legislation, now in legal review, and the mindset that it appears you have applied to this important matter. It is unlikely that this is the last question related to domestic partner benefits that you will face. I trust that you will revisit some of the core tenets of our Constitution – equality of all people and the clear boundary between government and religion – as you deal with this issue moving forward. If you do, I believe you will conclude that domestic partners, as equal citizens, deserve the same benefits as all other Americans. Sincerely, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy President, Interfaith Alliance # # # The Interfaith Alliance celebrates
religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that
protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge
extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country
from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more
information visit www.interfaithalliance.org. |
|
|
|
|
| Thursday, 17 September 2009 | |
|
For Immediate Release Interfaith Alliance and Others Call on Attorney General to Review and Withdraw Memo That Threatens Crucial Religious Freedom Protections Washington, DC - Interfaith Alliance, along with 57 other religious, education, civil rights, labor and health organizations, today wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. to request that he direct the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to review and ultimately withdraw a 2007 memorandum that threatens crucial religious freedom protections. Rescission of this memo is vital for the protection of religious liberty and civil rights. The undersigned organizations are deeply concerned by the memo’s interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which prohibits any federal law that would substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling reason, achieved through the least restrictive means. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was enacted to protect religion and those who wish to freely exercise it,” said Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy. “Unfortunately, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo instead turned RFRA into an enabler of religious discrimination. Interfaith Alliance has long worked to protect religious freedom, a central principle of the U.S. Constitution, and today I join my colleagues in calling upon Attorney General Holder to ensure that religion is never used as a means for an organization to implement discriminatory hiring decisions. Today, the battle to protect religious freedom is hard enough without the government, which should be defending the Constitution, making it more difficult. I look forward to the day when this harmful and constitutionally suspect memo is rescinded.”
A copy of the letter follows. REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND WITHDRAWAL OF
JUNE 29, 2007 OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM RE: RFRA September 17, 2009 The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Mr. Attorney General: The undersigned religious, education, civil rights, labor, and health organizations are committed to protecting religious liberty, and working to do so at all levels of the government. We write today to request that you direct the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) to review and withdraw its June 29, 2007 Memorandum (“OLC Memo”).1 The OLC Memo’s interpretation that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 19932 (“RFRA”) provides for a blanket override of statutory nondiscrimination provisions is erroneous and threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections. Some of us were leaders in the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which led the effort to persuade Congress to enact remedial legislation after the United States Supreme Court sharply curtailed Free Exercise Clause protections in Employment Div. v. Smith in 1990.3 This effort culminated in 1993, when then-President William J. Clinton signed RFRA into law.4 In essence, RFRA was intended to provide robust protection of free exercise rights, restoring a standard of strict scrutiny to federal laws that substantially burden religion. 5 Many of us also are members of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), which formed in the mid-1990s specifically to oppose insertion of the legislative proposal commonly known as “charitable choice” into authorizing legislation for federal social service programs. Upon taking office, the Bush Administration sought to impose “charitable choice” on nearly every federal social service program. Stymied in its legislative efforts to do so,6 the Administration instead issued Executive Orders and federal regulations to allow religious organizations to participate directly in federal grant programs without the traditional safeguards that protect civil rights and religious liberty. Not all statutory provisions barring religious discrimination in the workplace could be obviated by Executive Order,7 and the Bush Administration’s attempts to repeal them in Congress were repeatedly rejected. Failing in its attempts to repeal these laws in Congress, the Administration then developed and promoted the far-fetched assertion, memorialized in the OLC Memo, that RFRA provides religious organizations a blanket exemption to these binding anti-discrimination laws. The OLC Memo wrongly asserts that RFRA is “reasonably construed” to require that a federal agency categorically exempt a religious organization from an explicit federal nondiscrimination provision tied to a grant program. Although the OLC Memo’s conclusion is focused on one Justice Department program, its overly-broad and questionable interpretation of RFRA has been cited by other Federal agencies and extended to other programs and grants. The guidance in the OLC Memo is not justified under applicable legal standards and threatens to tilt policy toward an unwarranted end that would damage civil rights and religious liberty. When President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13498, amending former President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13199 (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), he underlined the importance of ensuring that partnerships between government and faith-based institutions can be created and maintained effectively while “preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments.” The OLC Memo, however, stands as one of the most notable examples of the Bush Administration’s attempt to impose a constitutionally questionable and unwise policy—RFRA should not be interpreted or employed as a tool for broadly overriding statutory protections against religious discrimination or to create a broad free exercise right to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers. We accordingly request that the Obama Administration publicly announce its intention to review the OLC Memo, and that at the end of that review, withdraw the OLC Memo and expressly disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA, the most significant free exercise protection of the post-Smith era. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our views. Respectfully, African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA) American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee American Association of University Women Asian American Justice Center (AAJC) American Civil Liberties Union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO American Humanist Association American Jewish Committee Americans for Religious Liberty Americans United for Separation of Church and State Anti-Defamation League Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law B’nai B’rith International Center for Inquiry Central Conference of American Rabbis Disciples Justice Action Network Equal Partners in Faith Friends Committee on National Legislation Interfaith Alliance Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America Hindu American Foundation Human Rights Campaign Japanese American Citizens League Jewish Council for Public Affairs Lambda Legal Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Legal Momentum NAACP NA’AMAT USA National Center for Lesbian Rights National Community Action Foundation National Council of Jewish Women National Council of La Raza National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Education Association National Employment Lawyers Association National Ministries, American Baptist Churches USA National Organization for Women National Partnership for Women and Families National Women’s Law Center OMB Watch People For the American Way The Rabbinical Assembly Rainbow PUSH Coalition Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Secular Coalition for America Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS) Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF) Sikh Council on Religion and Education Texas Faith Network Texas Freedom Network Union for Reform Judaism Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society Women of Reform Judaism Women’s Law Project cc: The Honorable Gregory B. Craig, White House Counsel 1 Memorandum for the General Counsel, Office of Justice Programs, from John P. Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (June 29, 2007). 2 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.(2000). 3 494 U.S. 872 (1990). 4 The Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, chaired by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, also led the effort to enact the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4) (2000). 5 Although RFRA, as enacted, reached both federal and state law, the Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), that application of RFRA to state and local laws was unconstitutional. The Boerne decision, however, did not render RFRA per se unconstitutional and subsequent cases demonstrate that, as applied to the federal government, RFRA remains good law. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al., 546 U.S. 418, 424 (2006). 6 In 2001, the Bush Administration strongly promoted legislation (H.R. 7) which would have expanded “charitable choice” to nearly all federal social service programs. The measure failed in Congress, in large part, because of the civil rights and religious liberty concerns CARD raised. 7 Many programs – including Head Start, AmeriCorps, and those created by the Workforce Investment Act – contain specific statutory provisions barring religious discrimination that cannot be superseded by Executive Order. # # # The Interfaith Alliance celebrates
religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that
protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge
extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country
from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more
information visit www.interfaithalliance.org. |
| Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy Responds to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s Attack on Interfaith Alliance |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, 02 September 2009 | |
|
For Immediate Release Governor Jindal's response does not answer the important question regarding his use of state funds for speaking engagements in houses of worship. Why the governor should not repay or reimburse the state with $45,000 and apologize to citizens for politicizing religion is still in need of an answer. # # # The Interfaith Alliance celebrates
religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that
protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge
extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country
from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more
information visit www.interfaithalliance.org. |
More Articles...
- Rev. Gaddy's Letter to Gov. Jindal on the use of taxpayer funds to travel to church services
- Interfaith Alliance Statement On the Passing of Senator Edward M. Kennedy
- Interfaith Alliance and Interfaith Alliance Of Iowa Criticize DART For Pulling an Ad Placed by an Atheist Group and Calls on Governor Culver to Clarify His Response
- Interfaith Alliance Releases Paper On Same-Gender Marriage & Religious Freedom
Page 9 of 47