The Interfaith Shelter and the Conversion Clause
A multi-faith charity runs a winter night shelter in a converted hall, housing 24 guests per night from May to September. Six local congregations supply volunteers on a rotating roster: a mosque, two churches, a synagogue, a Hindu temple and a secular humanist group. Funding comes from a state government grant of $85,000 and private donations of $40,000. The grant agreement requires the charity to be 'non-discriminatory in service delivery and in the conduct of its activities'. One church volunteer group has begun ending each shift with a 10-minute prayer that guests are invited but not required to attend, and has distributed leaflets describing its faith. Two guests have complained. The humanist volunteers have said they will withdraw if the practice continues. The mosque has said it will withdraw if the charity bans all religious expression, arguing that the ban would be discriminatory against religious volunteers. The coordinator must decide before the next funding acquittal.
1. Identify the interests at stake and explain why a simple ban or a simple permission would each be inadequate.
Read the worked answer
Interests at stake: (1) guests' right to receive shelter without pressure or unwanted religious solicitation; (2) volunteers' interest in expressing their faith, which for many is intrinsic to their motivation to serve; (3) the charity's obligation under the grant to be non-discriminatory; (4) the charity's operational need to retain all six volunteer groups; and (5) the funding relationship, since a breach could cost $85,000.
A simple ban on all religious expression is inadequate because it would treat religious motivation as a problem to be suppressed. It would likely lose the mosque and possibly the churches, and it misreads the grant condition: non-discrimination requires equal treatment, not the removal of religion from the public square. It would also be difficult to enforce fairly, since a volunteer's private prayer before a shift is not the same as a leaflet handed to a guest.
A simple permission is equally inadequate. Guests are in a dependent relationship: they need a bed, and an invitation from the person providing it is not easily refused. The two complaints suggest the practice has already crossed from expression into pressure. The leaflet distribution is the clearest problem because it is directed at guests and is not opt-in in any meaningful sense.
The coordinator needs a distinction between the volunteers' own religious practice and religious activity directed at guests. The first can be protected; the second needs boundaries.
2. Recommend a policy and explain how it satisfies the grant condition while retaining volunteers.
Read the worked answer
Recommended policy: protect volunteer religious practice, regulate guest-directed activity, and make the rule apply equally to all groups.
Specific elements: (1) Volunteers may pray, wear religious dress and observe their own rituals before or after shifts, in a designated space away from guests. (2) No group may distribute religious literature to guests or make attendance at any religious activity a condition, explicit or implied, of service. (3) Optional spiritual reflection may be offered only if it is clearly separated from the shelter service, advertised neutrally alongside secular activities, and led on a rotating basis by any willing group, including the humanists. (4) The policy applies to all six groups, so the mosque's concern about anti-religious discrimination is answered: the rule does not single out religion, it distinguishes between expression and solicitation.
How it satisfies the grant: the charity remains non-discriminatory because the rule is neutral across groups and because guests receive identical service regardless of participation. The rule is published and applied consistently, which is what an acquittal process looks for.
How it retains volunteers: the mosque keeps its religious identity because its practice is protected; the churches keep the ability to pray together; the humanists get a genuinely secular alternative rather than a religious default. The most likely loss is the church group that wants to evangelise, and the coordinator should accept that risk rather than lose the guests' trust or the funding. The coordinator should document the consultation, the two complaints, and the reasoning, because the acquittal will ask how the decision was made, not only what it was.