Introduction
To begin with, it is necessary to mention that the federal legislative system offers a particular opportunity for religious institutions and organizations to challenge the restrictions, imposed by the constitution and government. This opportunity mainly touches upon the issues of realty possession and use of land. Thus in Boulder County, Colo., the Rocky Mountain Christian Church is resorting to the innovative federal law which is aimed to resist the county decision touching upon the issues of preventing it from expanding on land assigned for open space.
As Mooney (2004) claims in cohesive communities, the differences and some tensions that may be generated are worked out individually among the persons, who are in tension. These differences may be resolved to be the means of some voluntary actions by different societies.
Originally, these actions are directed to hold the particular requirements of others and to appoint in ecumenical outreach to other faith societies. However, there is an opportunity to avoid tensions by the self-segregation approach based on the religious faith. This is regarded as the key reason for offering churches such freedom in legislation, and the religion policy instruments, which are discussed by different researchers and argued upon by numerous politicians, play an essential role in forming the domestic policy and split up the separate sphere of legislation approaches.
Originally, the religious faith and all the issues associated with it occupies in the identities of the citizens, personal accommodation of religious dissimilarities could make an essentially significant contribution to the issues of social unity (Welborn, 2006). In general, most citizens are regarded as well-intentioned in the context of this issue, regarding cultural and religious differences as the basis of the strength of their community.
Discussion
Initially, the highly competitive origin of political dynamics in democratic states often translates into governments aiming to address the exact requirements of a general diversity of citizens by bringing them or spokespersons for the communities to which they belong into the decision-making process and through resulting adaptations of their policies and programs (Henriques and Lehren, 2006). From this point of view, all the preventions of discrimination are activated by the federal funds, which are used as the reserve tool for solving similar legislative issues.
Most of these funds apply only to the delivery of services and these are not aimed to be used for the employment practices of the organizations and institutions which receive federal funds, there is no necessity to emphasize, that churches and other religious organizations and institutions are rated as such. Moreover, the adaptability of such statutes to the programs which are financially supported by federal reserves and activities are not regarded as an issue of charity.
AS for the issues of charity, there are also numerous opportunities and liberties for religious organizations. Originally, nurseries are often created at the churches, though, some restrictions exist, and the requirements should be thoroughly observed, as the issues of health of the children, or just homeless people should not be ignored. As it is stated by Henriques and Lehren (2006) “State inspectors are able to step uninvited into child care centers to make sure they meet state requirements intended to ensure that the children are safe. There must be continuing training for the staff. The nurseries must have at least two sinks, one exclusively for food preparation. The cabinets should be equipped with safety locks. Medications for the children should be kept locked and refrigerated”.
This is the only sphere that is regulated equally with the other organizations, as nurseries presuppose the responsibility for the lives and health of the others, thus, there should be no exemptions for anyone. Consequently, the federal regulatory bodies should neither grant any exemptions for religious organizations, and such freedoms are not included in federal law. Still, several exceptions may be observed for Christian churches; nevertheless, this exception is more oversight than intentional permission (Henriques, 2006).
Analysis
Originally, it is emphasized that the federal statutes and legislations impose an immense number of employment nondiscrimination prerequisites on public and private employers. These requirements are not generally dependent on the issues of receiving support and financial assistance from federal reserves by the entities and religious organizations. The key reason for this principle is the regulatory requirement on the matter of federal assistance and the application of federal law.
Brown (2004) states the following fact: “With the exception of Title IX, none of the nondiscrimination statutes described in the previous subsection applies to the employment practices of entities that get federal financial assistance from federal funds. However, most public and private employers which employ more employees than it is stated by the regulations, are barred by the Americans with Disabilities Act from discriminating in their employment regulations on the ground of disability, by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act on the basis of age, and by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the bases of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.”
The analysis of the laws passed since 1989 reveals the fact that more than 200 special legislative initiatives, protections, or exemptions for religious organizations or their followers were adopted into Congressional legislation, and these initiatives covered topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. (Henriques, 2006). Nevertheless, separate restrictions were also provided. The initiators of such breaks were often the organizations and bodies of the federal level, thus, the changes were provided in almost all rules for numerous departments and agencies of the executive branch.
The analysis also reveals that there are lots of instances of successful policy adaptations. Many of these adaptations are often regarded as the product of a “muddling through” advance as it is mostly dealing with every particular situation on the ad hoc, case-by-case grounding. It is not viewed as clear, due to its systematic approach for defining what adjustments should be made: either feasible or desirable.
In their article Henriques and Lehren (2006) report that an essential skepticism among policy practitioners toward the advantages of a systematic approach, offered to change social and demographic circumstances as well as the precise nature of many situations that may guarantee policy variations. Lots of the policy practitioners felt the country’s broad constitutional and legislative framework (entailing multiculturalism regulations of more general application) adjusted the tone for flexible policy variations that would be more complex to make if made subject to rigid, high-level instructions.
However, in spite of these principles and high-level regulations, there is a principle-based approach of overall adapting policy for governing religious diversity. Taking this into account, the policymakers may be capable of drawing lessons from recent samples of both successful and unsuccessful efforts to adopt policies claimed to defend the interests of religious communities. The lessons and principles may be the following:
- Originally, any policy variations and adaptations in these spheres do not entail the exercise of state influence over Americans appear to touch upon the fewest issues, such as consultations with religious community stakeholders, most overhauls offered to all Canadians on a more or less comparable basis and even foreign policies.
- Policy adaptations that may appear to involve “exemptions” from legislative, regulatory, or other compulsions imposed on Americans can be expected to be essentially more divisive, especially if they are regarded as the way for involving changes to statutory compulsions.
- Particularly notorious are the adaptations which may be regarded as the running counter to their central estimations or historically significant national representations.
Taking into account these principles, which are represented by the previous experience of legislation, it is necessary to mention that the legislative projects should be subjected to essential evolution, as there are lots of requirements which should be incorporated into the legislation process, nevertheless Angie Welborn (2006) does not pay sufficient attention to this factor. It is claimed, that evolution is the issue of the time, and the contemporary drawbacks of the legislation are inevitable.
She emphasizes that numerous politicians and experts have stated what they regard as the nationwide “war on religion”. Originally, this notion exposes religious associations to hostility and discrimination. But these organizations ‑ from mainline Presbyterian and Methodist churches to mosques to synagogues to Hindu temples ‑ enjoy the profusion of exemptions from regulations and taxes. Still, this enjoying may be regarded as the precedent for the other organizations, which associate their activity with charity and spiritual issues.
Brown (2004) in his turn claimed that likelihood that it will be difficult to set out a single analytical framework for evaluating the need for and creating policy adaptation principles relating the diverse religious societies, the country still requires presenting a coherent overall conversation, based on principles, to describe and rule the overall approach. It is also should be noted that the acknowledgment accorded to religion-grounded discourse in the public space can and does vary from one community to another – and even across those that view themselves as perfectly liberal democratic communities. The central issue addressed in his article is that of “how to lodge but not privilege religious variety in public space and political deliberation”. Basing on these claims, it would be necessary to emphasize that the required level of adaptations should also be taken into account and thoroughly worked out.
Originally, the main case is to make the necessary exemptions basing on the specific sphere of religious organizations, and not o create the grounds for favoritism, as it may cause religious conflict, hostility and discrimination. Thus, this issue should be paid more attention in the work by Welborn, while she pays too much attention to local civil rights laws, which slightly touch upon the issues of the discussed exemptions.
She claims the following: “Under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, it seems clear that Congress has the power to preempt state and local laws pursuant to charitable choice. What has been the subject of debate has been the desirability of doing so in this case. It might be noted that Executive Order 13279 issued by President Bush on December 12, 2002, directs federal departments and agencies to implement a similar policy regarding the independence of religious entities from state and local laws in their social services programs”. Initially, these issues are not relevant and mostly unimportant for the allover matters of rights and law adaptations. In spite of the fact that this order was claimed to clarify the situation with the religious entities, experts classify it as hollow legislation, the real aim of which is to distract attention from the depth of the problem. (Mooney, 2004).
Conclusion
Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that the exemptions, which are made in the legislative sphere for the religious entities can not be regarded as a fresh and innovative idea, as the church has always used privileges in the sphere of politics, legislation, social regulation, etc. Anyway, the exemptions which are made may create a negative precedent and cause further difficulties in the legislation. These difficulties may be avoided if a separate sphere of legislation will be created; nevertheless, such innovation will be rather difficult and will require essential financial social and political support.
As for the matters of issues that should be paid attention to, these issues are too numerous, as the principles of exemptions are rather complicated and generally require strict observation of the rules derived from previous experience.
References
Brown, Brian Edward. Religion, Law, and the Land: Native Americans and the Judicial Interpretation of Sacred Land. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004.
Henriques D. B. Lehren, A. Religion for Captive Audiences, With Taxpayers Footing the Bill. The New York Times. 2006.
Henriques D. B Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks. The New York Times. 2006.
Henriques D. B As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation. The New York Times. 2006.
Mooney, Christopher F. S. J. Boundaries Dimly Perceived: Law, Religion, Education, and the Common Good. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004.
Welborn, A. “Charitable Choice: Legal and Constitutional Issues” Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress 2006.