Baptists in Louisville, Ky., joined other Christians, Jews and Muslims June 5 at a packed mosque, where they mourned the death of their hometown hero, Muhammad Ali.

Jason CrosbyAli grew up as Cassius Marcellus Clay in Louisville. There, he was known as a boxing prodigy before the world knew him as an Olympic champion who embraced Islam, changed his name to Muhammad Ali, suffered for his principles and became a global ambassador of peace.

He died June 3 at age 74, after living with Parkinson’s disease for decades.

Louisvillians of all faiths gathered in River Road Mosque at the Louisville Islamic Center to celebrate Ali’s life and remember his legacy, the local NBC affiliate, WAVE, reportedlocal NBC affiliate, WAVE, reported.

“He was not only an ambassador of Islam,” Muhammad Babar of Muslim Americans for Compassion told the mourners. “He was an ambassador for humanity, and he’s beloved by people across the planet, irrespective of their faith or ethnicity.”

Rabbi Gaylia Rooks of The Temple quoted The Champ’s own words: “… All people are part of one family. God created us all. And all people have to work to get along.”

Jason Crosby, pastor of Crescent Hill Baptist Church, told the crowd: “What set him apart was the way in which he poured out his heart through nonviolent action and deed to fight for a better world. And he indeed succeeded in making our world a better place.”

Crosby later said he participated in the service “to say there are Baptists who believe Muslims like Muhammed Ali can help Christians be more Christian.”

Kevin Cosby, pastor of St. Stephen Baptist Church and president of Simmons College in Louisville, will participate in Ali’s public memorial service Friday, June 10.

WASHINGTON—Some consumer advocates—including representatives from the faith community—offered cautious praise for proposed new rules designed to clamp down on payday lending abuses.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released proposed regulations that would require lenders to determine if borrowers could repay loans and make it more difficult to roll over loans. Critics of payday lending insist rollovers trap borrowers in a cycle of recurring debt, sometimes carrying an annualized interest race topping 400 percent. 

Important first step

“I believe the rules released by the CFPB represent an important first step in the prevention of the exploitation of the poor and financially fragile neighbors,” said Kathryn Freeman, director of public policy for Texas Baptists’ Christian Life Commission.

The proposed rules offer “another layer of protection” for consumers, in addition to the unified ordinance 35 Texas cities representing 9.3 million citizens have passed to protect their residents, she added.

“This is the most important moment in the fight for just and fair lending,” said Stephen Reeves, who leads public policy advocacy efforts for the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

The proposed rules “will go a long way to ensuring that those who offer small loans are not basing their profits on a cycle of debt they intentionally create,” he added.

The Texas Fair Lending Alliance issued a statement saying its coalition members are “optimistic these rules will help ensure borrowers can repay their loans and avoid falling into a pernicious cycle of debt.” 

‘A lame response’ that ‘falls short’

But some critics found the bureau-proposed regulations lacking.

A New York Times editorial critiqued the proposed rules as “a lame response to predatory loans.” The newspaper’s editorial board insisted the final version of new regulations “will need stronger, more explicit consumer protections for the new regulatory system to be effective.”

Nick Bourke, director of small-dollar loans for the Pew Charitable Trusts, insisted the proposal “falls short,” asserting paydays lenders could continue to flourish while the rules would lock out lower-cost bank loans. 

“To correct this problem, the CFPB should ensure that its final regulations include effective, pro-consumer product safety standards, such as limiting loan payments to 5 percent of a borrower’s paycheck,” Bourke wrote. “With a few strong fixes, the bureau could create a policy that protects millions of hard-working Americans.”

Furthermore, the Pew article criticized the bureau’s proposed regulations as too vague and granting payday lenders too much authority to make a “reasonable determination” that a borrower can repay a loan.

“As drafted, the CFPB rule would allow lenders to continue to make high-cost loans, such as a line of credit with a 15 percent transaction fee and 299 percent interest rate, or a $1,250 loan on which the borrower would repay a total of $3,700 in fees, interest and principal,” Bourke wrote. “These and many other high-cost payday installment loans are already on the market in most states, and they will thrive if the regulation takes effect without changes.”

Some strengthening needed

Reeves noted general agreement with the Pew Charitable Trust critique, noting “the rules will need strengthening in a few key places before they are finalized.”

“Pew is correct that the rapid growth in longer-term installment lending as well as other ‘flex loans’ is disturbing,” he said. “We even saw lenders trying to authorize or modify the availability of these products through state legislatures prior to the official rule release. This activity indicates they feel this is where the rule is weakest.”

Even so, Reeves added, “I’m not yet convinced that the 5 percent standard Pew sites is the best place to fix the problems.”

“In the next few weeks, after a more complete review of the rule, I’ll have an outline of the most important areas to strengthen or loopholes to close and will make those publically available,” he said.

Make voices heard

Reeves emphasized the importance of Christians and other concerned citizens making their views known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau receives and evaluates comments between now and Sept. 14.

“The public comment period is an extremely important opportunity … to raise our collective voices to counter the well-funded payday industry megaphone and demand that strong rules are finalized, as well as enforced,” he said.

Leaders in the PICO National Network—a steering committee member of Faith for Just Lending, which includes the National Association of Evangelicals, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Baptist Convention, USA—likewise called for Christians to make their views known and “push for public comments that help end the worst abuses by predatory lenders.”

Participants with the Stop the Debt Trap campaign are asking consumers to take action and speak up about these abuses by offering public comments to demand that CFPB rules rein-in predatory lenders who evade regulation or exploit legal loopholes to peddle high-cost debt. 

In a June 2 field hearing on the regulations, Reeves emphasized the way religious leaders from varied backgrounds have united in calling for reforms in “lending practices they see as immoral and predatory because of the impact they have witnessed first-hand.”

“Churches, pastors and ministries have been granting benevolence funds, creating alternative lending programs and offering financial education classes. They’ve also shown up as advocates in city halls, state legislatures and on Capitol Hill,” he said.

“They have come together across sincere differences to say: Enough. Enough preying on our desperate and vulnerable neighbors for profit. Enough capitalizing on the shame of being in need by exploiting those who seek to take responsibility for their problems. And enough selling a product that purports to be a way out of a bind, but for so many, is instead a way into a trap.

“We don’t tolerate selling defective products in this country. We recall millions of cars every year on the small probability someone could get hurt. Debt-trap loans are hurting our fellow Americans, and it’s time for a recall.”

Groups including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance voiced support for the Do No Harm Act, introduced by U.S. Reps. Joseph P. Kennedy III (D-Mass.) and Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read it at Baptist News Global.

Family members of the late Clementa Pinckney recently attended Wesley Theological Seminary’s commencement service at the Washington National Cathedral.

Pinckney, a doctor of ministry student at Wesley who was close to completing his final project, was gunned down last June, along with eight of his parishioners, when a young white male, who had joined them for a weekly evening Bible study, opened fire on the unsuspecting participants.

Pinckney not only had been pastor of the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., six years, but also had served in the state Senate 15 years before his untimely death at age 41. He had been committed to seeking justice and the “welfare of the city” nearly 19 years. Someday, he could have achieved national stature as a great statesman; but his life was extinguished in the midst of living out his calling.

Poignant presentation

On May 9, prior to awarding diplomas to the doctor of ministry degree candidates, David McAllister-Wilson, president of the seminary, invited Pinckney’s widow, Jennifer, to join him at the podium.

She was accompanied by her two young daughters, Eliana and Malana.

McAllister-Wilson informed the audience the Wesley faculty voted unanimously to award the diploma to Pinckney posthumously. It also established Pinckney Scholarships for the new doctor of ministry in public engagement degree in honor of its alum. 

After the president finished his remarks, Academic Dean Robert Martin came forward and handed Jennifer Pinckney her late husband’s hood and his diploma.

“Daddy” to his daughters

As I watched Pinckney’s daughters at the commencement service, my heart ached.

The country has come to “know” their father in mythical terms—as a martyr, hero and fallen soldier in the struggle for justice. But the girls knew him as “Daddy.” I could not help but recall some of the martyrs of the civil rights movement and the parentless children they left behind.

Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Viola Liuzzo and James Reeb voluntarily accepted the risk of standing up against an unjust, inhumane socio-political order that doomed generations of African-Americans to substandard existence because of their race.

These martyrs pursued the path of resistance despite the possibility of injury or death. They did so not to seek glory in martyrdom, but because they would have been unable to live with themselves if they had not taken that risk. By resisting injustice, they signed on to consequences that could lead to martyrdom.

However, their children did not. The slayers of Evers, King, Liuzzo and Reeb left 15 children with only one parent to raise them.

Risk remains

One of the more heartbreaking aspects of the Charleston church killings is these deaths occurred in 2015, not 1965. The civil rights movement ended nearly 50 years ago, but young children still can lose a parent because of white supremacy.

Pinckney’s daughters, ages 6 and 10, stood by their mother’s side while she delivered her brief remarks, as the older daughter held his hood and the younger daughter held his diploma. Jennifer Pinckney explained that initially, only she was supposed to attend the commencement ceremony. However, the Pinckneys “always did things as a family,” so naturally, the girls were going to accompany her on this occasion.

She mentioned she and her husband often spoke of his graduation with great anticipation. He was very much looking forward to having his family present as he received his degree. Now they were present, but he was not.

After Jennifer Pinckney spoke, she turned to McAllister-Wilson and hugged him, and spontaneously, her two young daughters did the same. McAllister-Wilson, a large, physically imposing figure, appeared as a bulwark for the bereaved Pinckney family. They held on to him for a long, pregnant moment. It was a deeply poignant tableau that moved me to tears, as it did others. Long after the trio returned to their seats, one could hear sniffling in the audience.

Beverly Eileen Mitchell is professor of historical theology at Wesley Theological Seminary. Religion News Service distributed this article.

The Supreme Court has sent the Zubik v. Burwell contraceptive-mandate cases—filed by faith-based nonprofits that claim the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control provision violates their religious beliefs—back to the lower courts.

The high court’s short, unsigned May 16 opinion stated the court “expresses no view on the merits” of the seven cases that had been combined under Zubik v. Burwell. Instead, the court provided instruction for the lower courts, based upon a supplemental briefing it handed down in March.

At that time, the Supreme Court asked the faith-based nonprofits and the government to determine how the organizations’ employees could receive seamless contraception coverage without requiring the nonprofits to provide separate notice of their objection. The religious groups had claimed notification made them complicit in providing contraceptive coverage.

Some of them—including East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University—have resisted involvement in providing so-called “morning after” drugs, which they claim could terminate a pregnancy after conception.

Further refinement expected

Holly Hollman“Today’s decision does not resolve the controversy, nor will it necessarily change the results in the lower courts that previously ruled in favor of the government,” said Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which filed a brief in the case, supporting the government’s efforts to accommodate religion.

“It does, however, allow the parties to further refine their arguments about notice requirements and how employees will be covered,” Hollman said

The BJC’s brief explained how, under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the far-reaching claims of the nonprofits can harm religious liberty. The court’s May 16 opinion did not rule on whether the accommodation for religious employers violates RFRA.

“The government provided a process that allows objecting employers to avoid paying or contracting for contraceptives while ensuring that employees still would receive those benefits,” Hollman said. “Instead of ruling on whether this accommodation satisfies the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court is directing the lower courts to reconsider the question in light of the parties’ supplemental arguments.”

The court did not interpret RFRA’s provisions. The opinion states: “In particular, the court does not decide whether petitioners’ religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.”

Concurring opinion

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted the court’s opinion should not be interpreted as supporting the nonprofit organizations’ position that anything short of a “separate policy, with a separate enrollment process” would be unacceptable. It reminds the lower courts they may reach the same conclusion they reached previously or reach a different conclusion.

The court’s May 16 decision is the latest in a case full of unusual developments. Its March 29 order for supplemental briefings came six days after oral arguments. The order asked the parties to file new briefs addressing whether and how their employees can obtain contraceptive coverage through the organizations’ insurance companies “in a way that does not require any involvement of (the organizations) beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.”

Those briefs led to the most recent decision.

During the March 23 oral argument, the eight justices appeared divided. The Baptist Joint Committee’s brief was mentioned several times during the argument and may have inspired the court’s hypothetical example in its order for supplemental briefs.

RFRA provides legal protection against government actions that substantially burden the exercise of religion. The Baptist Joint Committee chaired the diverse coalition of organizations that pushed for the legislation, providing a high legal standard for all free-exercise claims without regard to any particular religious practice.

The statute was intended to restore the “compelling interest” standard, which the Supreme Court used prior to its 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The law creates a unique balancing test between substantial burdens on religion and the compelling interests of the government. 

The BJC’s brief was written by law professor and religious liberty advocate Douglas Laycock.

Click here to read the BJC’s brief and additional information about the case.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Baptists, Sikhs and Hare Krishnas told a federal court they think a proposal to erect a New Jersey mosque should be approved.

A planning board denied the application of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge in December.

The board held 39 public hearings as the society sought approval for four years, said the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed a legal brief May 11. The society designed the proposed mosque to look like a house—with minarets that resemble chimneys—so it would blend into the neighborhood.

“A Muslim mosque cannot be subjected to a different land-use approval process than a Christian church simply because local protesters oppose the mosque,” reads the brief from almost 20 religious and civil rights groups. The groups added that “such unequal treatment of the mosque in this case represents a potential threat” to their free exercise rights.

Groups joining the brief include the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the SBC International Mission Board.

Others include the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, the Sikh Coalition, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and the National Association of Evangelicals.

“This mosque is part of my American dream,” said Mohammad Ali Chaudry, president of the Islamic society. “We are overwhelmed by this extraordinary support from so many diverse groups all supporting our position and affirming that Muslims, too, have the right to worship in Bernards Township.”

The society sued the board in March, saying it violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and used excuses to deny the application.

The society’s allegations “do not represent our community,” Bernards Township Mayor Carol Bianchi said. “It is not unusual for an applicant to appeal a denial, and it is their right.”

The U.S. Justice Department said in March it would investigate the denial of the mosque’s application.

Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission called the Donald Trump presidential campaign “reality television moral sewage.”

Trump countered on Twitter by calling Moore “a nasty guy with no heart.”

Moore, in turn, responded on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily” by saying he agreed with Trump. “I am a nasty guy with no heart, which is why I need forgiveness of sins and redemption through the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said.

And so it goes.

Read about Trump’s comments at Religion News Service.

Read about Moore’s respose at Baptist Press.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—About a week after Target, the nation’s second-largest discount retailer, announced transgender customers may use the restroom that “corresponds with their gender identity,” more than 895,000 people have signed a #BoycottTarget online petition launched by the conservative American Family Association. 

In its April 19 announcement, the Minneapolis-based retailer with 1,802 outlets said, “We believe that everyone—every team member, every guest and every community—deserves to be protected from discrimination and treated equally.”

The retailer, which had $74 billion in revenue last year, said it was motivated by legislation in about 15 states that would require individuals to use the restroom that corresponds with the sex listed on their birth certificate.

The Williams Institute, a think tank based at UCLA, estimates there are 300,000 transgender people, age 13 or older, in those 15 states. 

The day after Target’s statement, the American Family Association launched the boycott, saying: “Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. Target’s dangerous new policy poses a danger to wives and daughters.”

The Mississippi-based association called on Target to install additional restrooms to be designated as single occupancy and unisex.

 But Media Matters for America, a nonprofit media watchdog, called the assertion that sex offenders exploit non-discrimination laws to gain access to the women’s room an “urban myth.” The group cited experts in 12 states with nondiscrimination laws to corroborate its claim. 

The issue of transgender civil rights has divided the Christian community. In South Dakota, David Zellmer, a Lutheran bishop, called on Gov. Dennis Daugaard to veto a bill requiring transgender people to use the restroom matching their sex at birth.

“This is a bill that ostracizes transgender students, putting them at risk in our schools,” Zellmer said. “Let us stand in their corner rather than against them.” Daugaard vetoed the bill March 1.

 “There are no easy answers,” Mark Yarhouse, a conservative evangelical psychologist and author of Understanding Gender Dysphoria, wrote on his blog. “What I recommend is a thoughtful, prayerful approach, one characterized by humility about what we know and do not know, and a response that embodies conviction, civility and compassion.” 

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Christian, Jewish and Islamic leaders joined to urge the Democratic and Republican national committees to protect religious minorities on the campaign trail.

Previous campaigns have targeted candidates, but Shoulder to Shoulder—a coalition of 32 religious denominations and organizations, including the Islamic Society of North America and the National Council of Churches—is aiming for the party heads.

“When we have people whose bigoted, hateful, Islamophobic, racist rhetoric challenges the very principles of American society, when they seek the highest office of the land, we stand sister to sister, brother to brother, shoulder to shoulder, and we say no,” said Jonah Pesner of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

Correspondence to national party leaders

In letters to Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus and Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the group called on them to explicitly and unambiguously commit to combat discrimination against Muslims and to reinforce religious freedom in their party platforms.

“The parties have a job to patrol their neighborhoods,” said Ron Stief, chair of the Shoulder to Shoulder campaign. “What are their candidates saying? What are their delegates saying? What’s being written into the party platform? They need to be more concerned about patrolling their own neighborhoods than they are … about patrolling Muslim neighborhoods.”

Such rhetoric demands unequivocal action, Shoulder to Shoulder members said.

“When candidates for the highest office in our nation suggest banning Muslims from the U.S., or registering Muslim citizens, or surveillance of mosques without warrant, we are compelled to lift our voices collectively to say that this exclusivist vision of America harms us all,” Stief told the party leaders in his letter.

Denounce anti-Muslim rhetoric

Stief pointed to statements from former presidential candidate Jeb Bush and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, both Republicans, who have denounced anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric.

“I do not comment on what’s going on in the presidential election. I will take an exception today,” Ryan had told House Republicans after front-runner Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigration. “What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for.”

For people of faith, there is a moral obligation to push back against rhetoric that breaches both the Constitution and religious scripture, coalition members said.

“We are unwilling to sublimate our faith for political ideology,” said Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. “And on the campaign trail this year, it’s pretty obvious that both the rhetoric and the policy proposals are having an impact on Muslim Americans.”

Fanning flames that lead to hate crimes

In December, the FBI reported hate crimes were falling in every category except those against Muslim Americans, which the Council on American-Islamic Relations says reached record highs after several major terrorist attacks. Experts say a wave of anti-Islam rhetoric in the election campaigns would only fan the flames.

The interfaith leaders emphasized the Muslim American community’s ongoing and vocal condemnations against terrorism. Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, a leading Muslim jurist body, reissued the group’s 2005 fatwa against terrorism during the conference.

“None of us are going to stand still when (political candidates) attack any of us,” said Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, retired archbishop of Washington, at the press conference. “It is the worst politics that they can do.”

NASHVILLE (BP)—Self-identified Christians in 30 states—from Alabama to Wyoming—say it’s a sin to lend money to someone who can’t afford to pay it back.

Most want the government to protect consumers from loans with excessive interest. Still, one Christian in six has taken out a high-interest payday loan, while few fellow believers know how such loans work or look to the Bible for guidance about fair lending.

Those are among the findings of a recent online survey of Christians’ views of payday lending from LifeWay Research. The Nashville-based research firm surveyed 1,000 self-identified Christians in 30 states, all of which have little or no regulation of payday loans.

Most Christians find payday loans impractical and morally questionable, said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research. Many seem unaware the Bible addresses lending practices.

The survey, conducted Feb. 5-17, was sponsored by Faith for Just Lending, a national coalition of diverse and nonpartisan faith leaders opposed to predatory loans.

Among the key findings:

• Christians are no strangers to payday loans. Overall, 17 percent of Christians have taken payday loans—20 percent of Protestants and 12 percent of Catholics. About half of African-American Christians—49 percent—and a quarter of Hispanic Christians—24 percent—say they’ve taken out a payday loan.

• Most believe taking advantage of borrowers is sinful. But few say payday loans are immoral. Three-quarters (77 percent) of Christians say it’s sinful to lend money in a way that harms the borrower financially. They also describe payday loans as “expensive” (62 percent), “harmful” (37 percent) and “predatory” (33 percent). Still, more Christians say such loans are “helpful” (16 percent) than “immoral” (11 percent).

• About half (55 percent) say the “maximum reasonable” annual percentage rate (APR) for loans should be 18 percent or less. That includes 37 percent who say APR should be capped at 12 percent interest or less and another 18 percent who want to see a cap at 18 percent interest. Five percent say interest should be capped at 36 percent.

A typical two-week payday loan charges the equivalent of a 400 percent APR, according to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a federal government agency tasked with consumer protection in the financial sector.

• Few Christians see a connection between faith and fair lending. Nine percent say the Bible has the most influence on how they view lending practices. That’s less than the news media (14 percent) but more than their church (1 percent). Politicians (1 percent) and national Christian leaders (less than 1 percent) have little influence on the issue of fair lending.

Instead, Christians most likely rely on their personal experience with loans (28 percent) or haven’t given much thought to the fairness of lending practices (23 percent).

• Most Christians believe the law should protect borrowers. Eighty-six percent agree when asked, “Do you believe laws or regulations should prohibit lending at excessive interest rates?” A similar number (94 percent) say lenders should only make loans with reasonable interest that can be repaid within the original loan period.

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau reports four out of five payday loans are rolled over for an extended time. In the LifeWay Research survey, 85 percent of Christians underestimate how often such loans are repeated.

• Few Christians say their church has a plan to help those who turn to payday loans. Only 6 percent of Christians say their church offers “guidance or assistance related to payday loans.” A third (34 percent) say their church offers no help. Six in 10 (61 percent) don’t know. Protestants (7 percent) are more likely to say their church offers help than Catholics (2 percent). Those who have taken a payday loan are more likely to say their church offers help (10 percent) than those who haven’t (5 percent.)

• Christians say churches should give counseling about payday loans. More than half (56 percent) want to see their church offer guidance to those with financial needs. And a quarter (27 percent) want churches to give gifts or loans to those in a financial crisis. But Christians are less interested in sermons about fair lending (17 percent) or advocacy (18 percent) for changes in laws or regulation.

Some Christians are interested in sermons about biblical principles for fair lending. They include those with evangelical beliefs (31 percent), African Americans (24 percent) and those who go to church once or more a week (24 percent).

Most Christians seem to want churches to offer a mixture of counseling and practical help. Eighty-three percent agree churches “should teach and model responsible stewardship, offering help to neighbors in times of crisis.” But 17 percent disagree.

Galen Carey, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, said payday loans offer short-term solutions but create longer-term problems. Such loans, he said, have a “devastating effect” on churches and communities.

“A payday loan may look like an answer to prayer—a way out of a financial crisis,” Carey said. “But too often, payday or title loans lead to long-term indebtedness, making a small problem into a large problem.”

McConnell suggests churches can play a key role in helping people who are caught in a cycle of payday loans. After all, he said, there’s likely someone in most churches who has taken out a payday loan in a time of crisis.

“Anyone can encounter financial hardships,” he said. “The question is whether the destitute are met with support or someone intent on profiting from their situation.”

Religious opponents of payday lending got a boost from the release of a new research confirming widespread Christian condemnation of the practice.

Read it at Baptist News Global.

A compromise may be possible between the federal government and faith-based nonprofits who claim the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violates their religious beliefs.

Both sides responded positively April 12 to a Supreme Court proposal that appears to ensure employees’ access to free contraceptives while guaranteeing their religious nonprofit employers may opt out of the process entirely.

The dispute is the heart of Zubik v. Burwell, a Supreme Court case combining seven lawsuits that challenge the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for contraceptive coverage. Some of the plaintiffs, including East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University, resist involvement in providing so-called “morning after” drugs, which can terminate a pregnancy after conception.

The high court heard oral arguments in the Zubik case March 23. The court must determine if the contraceptive mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents the federal government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion unless it demonstrates it has a “compelling governmental interest” and does so in the “least restrictive” means possible.

The government previously offered religious nonprofits an opt-out procedure: The nonprofits would provide written notice of their religious objection. Then the burden of responsibility would shift to a third-party, the insurer, which would provide the contraceptives at no cost to the employer. But some of those nonprofits contended even providing written notice would make them indirectly complicit in the process.

Consider compromise

On March 29, the Supreme Court—apparently seeking to avoid a 4-4 tie decision in the absence of deceased Justice Antonin Scalia—asked attorneys on both sides of Zubik to consider a compromise. “The parties are directed to address whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners,” the order read.

The court received encouraging news from both sides April 12.

The nonprofits whose seven cases were consolidated into Zubik gave their full endorsement to the court’s proposal.

Simple answer: Yes

“This court has asked the parties to address whether ‘contraceptive coverage may be obtained by petitioners’ employees through petitioners’ insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of petitioners beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees,’” their supplemental brief stated. “The answer to that question is clear and simple: Yes.

“There are many ways in which the employees of a petitioner with an insured plan could receive cost-free contraceptive coverage through the same insurance company that would not require further involvement by the petitioner”—their employer.

“Moreover, so long as the coverage provided through these alternatives is truly independent of petitioners and their plans—i.e., provided through a separate policy, with a separate enrollment process, a separate insurance card, and a separate payment source, and offered to individuals through a separate communication—petitioners’ RFRA objections would be fully addressed,” the brief added.

Qualified endorsement

The Obama administration offered a more qualified endorsement of the court’s proposal.

The administration “mostly wants to keep the Affordable Care Act birth-control mandate as is, but signaled that it would reluctantly accept a modest change—even while arguing that it is not clear whether doing so would avoid ongoing court battles,” SCOTUSblog reported.

“The government brief … kept its argument close to what it has been all along,” SCOTUSblog said. “It contended that the changes it has previously made in the birth-control regulations provide religious non-profits with the assurance they need that they would not be involved in providing access to contraceptives for their employees. 

The government’s brief added, “If the court determines that the existing process for invoking the accommodation must be modified in some respect in light of (the nonprofits’) religious objections, it should make clear that the government may continue to require the relevant insurers to provide separate contraceptive coverage to (the non-profits’) employees” under other provisions in current regulations.

The Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents East Texas Baptist University and Houston Baptist University in the case, provided comment from those schools’ presidents.

“This case is about the freedom of all Americans to follow their faith,” ETBU President Blair Blackburn said. “At ETBU, we are proud to be part of the long tradition of Baptists in America, just as Roger Williams advocated for religious freedom and separation of church and state in colonial America and founded Rhode Island and the First Baptist Church in America.

“We simply ask the court to recognize that ETBU is a conscientious objector, and that the federal government is insisting that we act as a conscientious collaborator.”

“At HBU, our faith animates everything we do, including our emphasis on academic excellence,” HBU President Robert Sloan said. “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will let us continue to serve our students and others.”