Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Obama also did not create a religious exemption permitting discrimination on the basis of race or sex

Obama also did not create a religious exemption permitting discrimination on the basis of race or sex

Last updated on: July 22, 2014 at 8:20 am by Fred Clark

Obama also did not create a religious exemption permitting discrimination on the basis of race or sex 2014-07-22T03:02:35-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The Rev. Canon Susan Russell, who blogs at An Inch at a Time, wound up changing her plans for the weekend when she was invited to attend Monday’s White House signing ceremony for President Obama’s executive order prohibiting LGBT employment discrimination for government contractors. Russell was one of many religious leaders present at the ceremony.

Obama’s executive order simply amends the existing policy prohibiting contractors from employment discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, color or national origin to also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. As Jonathan Capehart summarizes:

President Johnson was the first to use an executive order to protect federal contractors. In 1965, he signed Executive Order 11246 that banned discrimination based on race, creed, color or national origin. He amended it in 1967 to include protection based on sex. Then, [President George W.] Bush added a religious exemption to the Johnson order in 2002 that allows religiously affiliated contractors to use religion as a factor in hiring.

The religious exemption carved out by Bush — and left intact by Obama — applies only to faith-based agencies. What it means is that if, for example, the Mennonite Central Committee were contracted to assist with disaster relief, they would not be regarded as violating the prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of creed due to their preference for hiring Mennonites (rather than Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Pagans, atheists or Episcopalians). But the MCC would still be prohibited from employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color or national origin.

Bush’s exemption is, in other words, more like Hosanna Tabor than like Hobby Lobby. It says that religious organizations may preserve their religious identity through religious preference in hiring, not that religious claims can provide a blanket exemption from laws applicable to everyone else.

Photo by Man vyi via Wikimedia Commons.

President Obama’s executive order did not add any new religious exemption for religious groups who might claim that their religious convictions compel them to discriminate on the basis of race. That would have been unfair, disastrously undermining equal protection under the law when it comes to race.

President Obama’s executive order did not add any new religious exemption for religious groups who might claim that their religious convictions compel them to discriminate on the basis of sex. That would have been unfair, disastrously undermining equal protection under the law when it comes to sex.

President Obama’s executive order did not add any new religious exemption for religious groups who might claim that their religious convictions compel them to discriminate on the basis of color. That would have been unfair, disastrously undermining equal protection under the law when it comes to color.

President Obama’s executive order did not add any new religious exemption for religious groups who might claim that their religious convictions compel them to discriminate on the basis of national origin. That would have been unfair, disastrously undermining equal protection under the law when it comes to national origin.

And yet, it seems that some were hoping or expecting that President Obama’s executive order would add a new religious exemption for religious groups who claim that their religious convictions compel them to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Obama did not do that. That would have been unfair, disastrously undermining equal protection under the law when it comes to sexual orientation and gender identity.

But apparently a handful of religious leaders were worried that Obama’s extension of protection against discrimination was — what did Dr. King’s correspondents call it? — unwise and untimely. A small group of these folks, spearheaded by Jim Wallis, fretted that Obama’s action was not “well-timed” and drafted a letter urging a more cautious, piecemeal approach, accommodating a more gradual pace of change by carving out the kind of “religious exemption” that was never permitted when it comes to race, sex, creed, color or national origin:

“We believe that change in our churches is necessary in regard to welcoming LGBT persons and are committed to working on that,” stated the draft of the letter obtained by BuzzFeed. “But we believe that government action in making those changes would be very counter-productive to our goals of change.”

Happily, even the organizers of this letter eventually realized that last sentence didn’t make much sense (logically, legally, morally or grammatically) and this letter was never sent.

That such a letter was drafted and almost sent, though, is being portrayed as evidence of some new split between “gay-rights and faith groups on the left.” That’s how Molly Ball described it for The Atlantic, but Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches can’t find any evidence to support the existence of such a rift. Sure, there’s the same split there’s always been between gay-rights and some faith groups on the right, but Ball’s claim of disgruntled religious progressives, as Posner says, “has slim, if any evidence to support it. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence against it.”

Posner notes that Ball’s description relies heavily on the response to Obama’s executive order by a group called Third Way. That name might just be a clue that this group isn’t really representative of “the left”:

Ball’s first piece of evidence is a quote from the centrist think tank Third Way, long a player in efforts to find “common ground” on hot button culture war issues, an effort that in the area of LGBT rights, at least, has been rapidly sidelined. Mystifyingly, Ball — who I must add here is a reporter I have long admired — describes Third Way’s “research and activism on gay marriage” as “instrumental to that cause’s mainstream acceptance.” (If anyone can point me to evidence that description is true, I’m all ears.)

The name of that Very Serious think tank reminds me of Alan Bean’s recent sardonic observation that the church always seems to seek — and find — a “third way” when it comes to matters of justice:

Logically, the churches of the segregated South had to decide whether to accept or reject the civil rights movement. Instead, denominational officials crafted tepid resolutions affirming Brown v. Board of Education or the Voting Rights Act and calling for racial harmony. Contrary-minded congregations (and they were legion) were not drummed out of the denomination for refusing to open their churches to African American Christians. SBC pastors weren’t forced to sign off on racial equality to remain in good standing.

Instead, the SBC, with other evangelical denominations in the South, adopted a Third Way approach in which the subject of race was avoided whenever possible, ostensibly in the interest of keeping the focus where it belonged – on saving souls.

… When moral issues are hotly contested there will always be three ways (at the very least): traditional, progressive and uncomfortable.

It was to that Third-Way third group — the uncomfortable — that Dr. King wrote in the epistle referenced above, “I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.”

Susan Russell also offers an invitation to the uncomfortable. Sarah Posner caught up with her at that White House signing ceremony and asked about her response to the trepidation expressed in Jim Wallis’ uncomfortable letter asking for a brand new religious exemption to permit discrimination.

“I think it’s delightful that Jim Wallis has decided to come along,” Russell said, “and he’s welcome along the 21st century train towards making liberty and justice for all actually mean all.”

That’s either a gracious and magnanimous invitation or else she’s really twisting the blade. Maybe both. Both may be appropriate.

Previous Post

July 21, 2014

Never punch down

Next Post

July 22, 2014 The Bible was written by and for humans from Earth

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who stopped the sun from setting during a battle?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Samuel Joshua Moses Elijah