home

House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:12:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Bush Administration scored a victory for faith-based discrimination yesterday. In a party-line vote Wednesday, the House approved changes to the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, a law that "provides funds for training and vocational rehabilitation programs for adults and dislocated workers, as well as activities for low-income youth."

Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.

This requirement is removed under the proposed amendment.

The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.

Passage of the bill, on a largely party-line vote of 224-200, came a day after President Bush (news - web sites) told a group of religious leaders that he would attempt to institute the faith-based employment policies through an executive order if Congress did not approve them this year.

In a statement Wednesday supporting the bill, the White House said, "Receipt of federal funds should not be conditioned on a faith-based organization's giving up a part of its religious identity and mission."

This bill amounts to government-sponsored discrimination. It now goes to the Senate.

During debate on the amendment, Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Mass.) said the provision allowing consideration of religious beliefs was equivalent to "turning the clock back on civil rights." "Faith-based institutions should be required to adhere to basic civil rights laws," McGovern said.

"This provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, and beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional. It is important that we oppose discrimination at every turn," he said.

Amen.

< Do You Know Where Your Pap Smear Is Tonight? | U.S. Soldier Death Toll Reaches 1,500 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill | 73 comments (73 topical)
    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    The proposal on this that I would find acceptable is that faith-based organizations would be allowed to designate somewhere between 10 to 20 percent of their positions as "management," and could restrict those to members of their faith. The plan would have to be filed and made public.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#2)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 09:45:24 AM EST
    Let's see, give tax money to organizations that practice discrimination. Sure doesn't sound constitutional. Doesn't even sound christian.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    So now there would be exceptions to civil rights law based upon whether or not you belong to the right religion. Any organization receiving federal money should be required to adhere to hiring practices that uphold civil rights laws.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#4)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:13:34 AM EST
    The long, slow but steady march to a theocracy continues. It should also be noted that the Bush admin doesn't treat all religions the same. For the past national day of prayer catholics could attend but not speak, mormons were not allowed to attend at all. The man in the shadows adding his guidance is Pat Robertson.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    Doesn't even sound christian.
    as most of their agenda. so this would probably preclude an atheist from receiving assistance, and definitely a job. when is that rapture / armageddon thing suppose to happen, this is becoming hell on earth.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#6)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:22:23 AM EST
    I'm with you aNon. I'm waiting for the rapture so I can grab all that free stuff and "unpiloted" cars that I'm told will be lying around. I'm still feeling a little burned from all the other times I've been told the world was ending. Congratulations to the Right Wing. They have no made it legal for recipients of Govt. Money to ignore civil rights provisions, and discrimintate at will.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    The head of the Miami chapter of the NAACP is/used to be white. This drew a lot of ire for obvious reasons. Can you imagine a man heading NOW or a straight heading GLADD, or even a conservative writing for this site? Having said that, this is the problem when you start to mix government with religion. The government should stay out of religion. Soccerdad, do you have the links to the national day of prayer stuff??? Thanks.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    Churches, Mosques, Synangogues, temples...they all don't pay taxes. Why exactly is the gov't giving them money again? I don't want to subsidize any "god-talk" whatsoever.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#9)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    I'm looking for names for my new church I'm starting.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:03:21 AM EST
    GLAAD, NOW, NAACP et al are not tax supported. On the lighter side: My town is so prejudiced* that when a Unitarian family moved in the klan burned a question mark on their lawn;-) * How prejudiced are they? [/carson]

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    Most of those with a heart to help those in need have a religious and/or political reason to do so. What is the democratic (philosophy not party) rational for not allowing those who share a common view band together to carry that out - and to recieve government money to carry out a government desired task? Nothing in separation of church and state speaks to that - it does not constitute the creation of a state religion. That said: almost every organization has a mission statement, and a (in a positive sense) corporate culture. This law did not allow exclusion by religion for the clients of the program - only the employees. Those employees have to be "on board" for the purpose of the organization. Better to say that religious organizations,or political ones for that matter,cannot be involved in government-funded social service than to say they must cannot exclude employees who do not agree with their mission - but is that truly honoring of free speech.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#12)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    Bocca - not at my finger tips, I'll try and remember to find them for you when I get home.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    It would be interesting to see how effective these religious groups are. Maybe it's sort of like how Alcoholics Anonymous is more effective than support groups how leave out the God stuff. If a Baptist church can place 100 Baptists in good jobs for $100, but the secular aid groups can only place 80 people for $100, maybe it should be reduced to a bang-for-the-buck issue. Those unemployed Baptists needed help anyway, we may as well help them efficiently. (Or maybe the religious groups perform worse, and this is just a bad idea in every way)

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    I'm looking for names for my new church I'm starting.
    wasn't it george carlin who said he was going to start one called "The church of what's happening now", or soemthing close.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    Actually, AA is bad choice - recognizing powerless of self and need for higher power is central. And most of famous non-governmental social service agencies are faith driven. Again, this bill was not about those trained by program and placed in jobs - it was about direct employees of program. Finally, faith based organizations are much better at getting free volunteers than most But I agree, effective efficient results are what matter - and no social service agency (faith based or not) should call itself one if it turns anyone away from recieving its aid.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#16)
    by scarshapedstar on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    Who would Jesus blackball?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:30:53 AM EST
    scarshapedstar: Thanks for making my point. There was only one in the 12 who was not "on board" for the mission statement of Christ's ministry - that was Juda's. (Of course, Jesus knew someone had to turn him in.). Only one of the remaining 11 was not killed for his beliefs, and Christ's mission. Should he have had pharisees in his disciples? But who was excluded at the feeding of the 5000, or the 4000, or the two others crucified.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#18)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    Dont require us to be moral and we wont require you to be non-descriminatory. Praise the Lord.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    Considering all our money says "In God we trust", it makes sense for the federal government to distribute more to those who have faith in God.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:45:05 AM EST
    Hasn't it occurred to anybody that perhaps Bush is really Satan's prophet?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:45:50 AM EST
    Jondee - cute but no cigar. If you wear New Balance tennis shoes while you represent or work for Nike, it is not DISCRIMINATION if you are fired. And I have no requirement that you be moral - all christians sin nearly every day - only that you be part of the purpose of the organization you work for - and if you are not don't whine if your fired

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    Nancy makes an excellent observation why wee need to change all those religious leftovers on our money, courts, pledge etc. The legal argument is that it's traditional, not religious, but when folks like NJ say that is the justification for prejudice and an excuse to elevate THEIR religion then they are obviously religious and need to be separated from our state. Boycott god.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:02:58 PM EST
    But the heart of the constitutional issue: Should organizations with a religious base (or political, or racial - NAACP, or gender - NOW) be allowed to set up job training programs and recieve federal money. The secondary question is whether they are forced to hire (not train) those who oppose the underlying beliefs of their organization.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#25)
    by Sailor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    NIKE isn't handing out my tax money to some wacko superstitious cult based on a belief that 2000 years ago some tart lied to her dad about who got her pregnant. Nike also can't fire based on sexual identity and religious beliefs.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:08:15 PM EST
    JHCFleetGuy: Roman taxpayers weren't funding Jesus's ministry, unlike the U.S. taxpayers that are going to be forced to pay for these "faith-based" organizations. And by the way, the Apostle Paul was a pharisee.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:14:10 PM EST
    (conservative)Bush isn't promoting discrimination, he's ending it. You can't discriminate against an aid organization for being religious, and you can't require them to stop acting religious.(/conservative) (libertarian)You get problems like this when you let the government meddle. You'll either fund discrimination against non-religious individuals or against religious organizations. Refuse and you'll go to prison.(/libertarian) (apathetic)We're paying to help people. Religious groups help people. Let's pay them.(/apathetic)

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    Sailor: I'll pray for you - and the point is an employee's conformance to the goals and beliefs of his employers The government needs people trained for jobs. Should all of these trainers be state or federal employees - and if not, should organizations with religious beliefs be able to carry out this government function - within constitutional limits. And what are those limits?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    [name omitted]: Paul was a pharisee before he met Jesus (a dead guy) on the road to Damascus - not after

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#30)
    by wishful on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    This is a sad, sad, commentary on both the gov't proponents of the new law, and the "faith based" community advocates lobbying for funneling tax money to themselves. It gives the lie to those pretending that tax money should not support "entitlement" programs for the needy, but are perfectly happy with all the giveaways to the corporations and richest citizens. Apparently, entitlement programs are perfectly fine for the poor if the faith based community gets their percentage. But these things are beside the main point. This is bad law, based on the greed of the powerful, hidden in their sanctimonious pretense at caring deeply for those less fortunate. Ha! Charitable/religious groups never needed tax money to help the downtrodden in the past. What changed? I'll tell you--now they have the power to bastardize the main tenets of democracy, and boy have they been busy. As soon as SS and Medicaid are gutted, they can hire lots of Christians, and help only those who profess their religious faith (though that second bit hasn't made it into the law yet, it will be a practical effect). I can't imagine why coercion is a goal for them, when clearly their God's important characteristic of His human creation was their endowment by Him of free will.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    But to keep on track. Saul became Paul after meeting Christ on the road to Damascus in AD 32. The "worst of the pharisees" and the greatest of the apostles was not allowed into the presence of the other apostles for about 3 years. That was quite an extended job interview and vetting. Was it discriminatory of the apostles not to want to "hire" the stoner of Stephen?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#32)
    by Patrick on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:29:57 PM EST
    And he was called Saul at the time, not Paul.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    I'm not sure if I would be too happy about this if I were a faith-based institution. Doesn't this mean that, if someone was running an agnostic or atheistic business, and they wanted to exclude people because they professed any faith at all, they could? In other words, company ABC could say that none of their employees could go to church and remain employed by them. Any legal opinion on that from the law experts around these parts?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    Wishful: Better prayful - because those in need of job training and social services need action and prayer - not wishes you cant have it both ways: should as the worst of the right wing believe ALL charity should be handled by private parties. Strictly non-biblical: it is clear that government's role in God's eyes is to protect the weak and aid poor. If government should see to the poor as well as private citizens: Should those with truly the greatest heart (not an 8-5 level 6 GSA job) for the poor be banned from public funding to help the poor because their reasons are based on faith - and not the reason you do it (you do do that correct). Understand - my view from my 52 years of life is that it is those who profess christian faith who are under attack in this culture. Not the other way around.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:47:54 PM EST
    Tom: If ABC's mission was to denounce and discredit God - yes

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    Bocca -see this reference The National Day of Prayer in the USA Is it for people of all faiths? at religious tolerance

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:00:19 PM EST
    JCHFleetGuy- At the risk of further turning the thread away from the topic (I promise I'll stop here)... Paul remained a pharisee after his conversion, in his own words: Acts 23:6 'Then Paul (Saul), knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee..."' Note that he says, "I am a Pharisee," not "I was a Pharisee."

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    Correct but I suffer from the connotative meaning, not denotative: Pharisees were a group - but it was their beliefs and attitudes that Jesus criticized not their place. Its not really off point because we are discussing whether it is discrimination for an organization not to employ (not help) those opposed to their underlying mission. The point is the Pharisee who stoned Stephen and the "Pharisee" who became the greatest apostle had a different viewpoint of the mission of the organization - one you might serve, the other you might hire.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    First, I'm a Catholic girl working for a Chassidic Rabbi. He likes that I can turn the lights on and off on Friday evenings. We never talk about his "Chabad" mission of reaching out to the Jewish Diaspora. We did discuss his voting for Bush in terms of Israel's best interest but it's like religion, politics and OJ - best not left to polite discussion. In this light - does anyone know if Catholic Charities is hiring? The problem there is that while I'm offically Catholic. I don't believe (as we are commanded under threat of excommunication to) that Christ necessarily died, rose on the third day, ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father. I'm also not ready to swear that communion wafers purchased from the wafer factory and crappy red wine turn into the body and blood of Christ when blessed by a priest (does his moral life factor into this transformation?). So, maybe Catholic Charities doesn't want me. I don't necessarily want them either. Perhaps I should decide on a religion I like and convert. Perhaps it is in my best interest to find a job I like and convert. The "Christian values" for everyone's information touted by the wingnuts is not an ancient and venerated offshoot of Catholicism. It is a uniquely American phenomenon - a fundamentalist movement that seeks political power and has as it's mission to proselytize (sp?)(i.e.spread the "word" that Jesus is nigh") and convert. True fundamentalists (like the crazy guy at my train station and the miserable looking lady carrying the 10 commandments on the front page of The NY Times this a.m. believe that Jesus is coming and that those who have been "born again" like Bush and Ashcroft (some ad!) will ascend to heaven while the rest of us burn in hell. So, being a "non-believer" I have always counted on the secularity of the government when needing assistance - I've seen the judgmental hypocrisy of many religious organizations and won't, as pigwiggle put it some time ago, "sing any song they wanted to hear if I needed to get fed". Now, not only can they have the option of assisting me based on some assessment of my religious beliefs, but they can apparently quiz me on said beliefs on my interview and use my faith (or lack thereof) in a hiring decision. Che, I had an old boyfriend who was always joking (I think) that he was going to start his own religion - Steveism. I was thinking of Maryannity for myself. You should think about Cheism... you've already got the T-shirts and a martyr so your way ahead of me. So, if you think the secretary, or janitor, or treasurer, or food service worker at a religious based charity, institution or school should profess the same beliefs as their bosses, go ahead and fork over tax money to the zealots. Hopefully the agnostics are building retirment communities...

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:05:16 PM EST
    Mfox Now, not only can they have the option of assisting me based on some assessment of my religious beliefs I challenge you to find one, just ONE, instance of anyone being denied assistance by a christian/catholic charity for any reason whatsoever. You will not do it. You cannot do it. But perhaps you will learn that not everyone shares your low opinion of personal morality.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#41)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    Mfox, A religion based on Che would be antithetical. I'm just looking for some capital and a swwwweeeet tax shelter. Then I'll hire some friends as "consultants", buy a "place of worship" on Maui and set up a web site soliciting more tax free donations. After all. This is America!

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    You lefties are all looking at this the wrong way. Just consider, all that you have to do now is go get some religion to be able to live off my paycheck. Going to church on Sunday might do you some good anyway.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 02:41:38 PM EST
    "I challenge you to find one, just ONE, instance of anyone being denied assistance by a christian/catholic charity for any reason whatsoever. You will not do it. You cannot do it. But perhaps you will learn that not everyone shares your low opinion of personal morality." Actually, NoName, I think the burden is on YOU to prove that such incidents have never happened. Look at housing discrimination cases. The landlord often gives some other excuse for why they don't want to rent to a member of a particular minority. You think employers and companies are really totally different animals? Also, what about religious charities which don't turn anyone away, but include a little lecture on accepting Christ with their help? You don't think that's a problem? What if the person seeking assistance isn't Christian? And I don't think anyone here, much less the person you responded to, has a "low opinion of personal morality." Your comment is an illustration of the blinders that result from bias against somebody because of what you think their beliefs are, in fact. The issue is that without safeguards, like has a tendency to favor/hire/help like. This article suggests a way forward:
    SO WHERE CAN the sides agree? Most concur that the exemption for privately funded religious organizations should continue. No one wants to force a mosque to hire a priest or a Baptist church to hire a rabbi. It is also reasonable that organizations directly affiliated with and funded by a particular faith have the right to hire adherents. Some programs are so oriented toward proselytizing or religious instruction that it is essential for their staff to share their beliefs—for example, drug rehabilitation that is dependent on personal conversion. These programs shouldn't receive public funding. If the government cannot fund specific activities, it shouldn't be funding positions where those activities are carried out. In other programs, direct services can be separated from ministerial or leadership positions and each funded separately. Positions for social workers, day care teachers, or computer instructors in a job-training program should be subject to equal opportunity hiring. A person's religious beliefs can certainly be one factor—as is now the case—but should not be used to disqualify an otherwise qualified person. This is essentially how organizations such as Catholic Charities currently operate.
    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:05:22 PM EST
    Well yes! after all Bush has Faith in mexico and the "ruling Families" of that so called nation, and yes a great deal of Faith in Red China and the ruling class of that so called nation state, which is making mass weapons to kill us all, and yes its a good idea, because we have faith in our political big boys? to do the right thing, right? and i have faith that bush and business will do us all in the end, got what i mean? oh yes here in san diego gas is $2.50 and by this time next week its going to be $2.75 or $3.25 per, like it now people just wait and see what "do you means" oh yes with each dollar cost about a half million jobs a year, you do know that fact right?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    Webmacher: No issue with what's in the article. Fred Dawes: mostly off the point blather - you'll have to connect gas prices in San Diego with hiring practices in government funded charities are little more tightly. The only point I can bring, and it is not on point either, is if you put faith in ANY person you have serious potential problems. Faith is reserved for God - not leaders or humans. mfox: my prayers for your job search. The point is you are not a practicing christian inherently looking for ways to have your rabbi or his target population understand Jesus. Should the rabbi keep you if you were?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    No name tells me:
    perhaps you will learn that not everyone shares your low opinion of personal morality.
    Thank you for making my EXACT point, no name. You ASSUME, because of my lack of religiosity or affiliation, that I have a LOW OPINION OF PERSONAL MORALITY. I happen to think that you have a LOW OPINION OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY if you think that only people who are "Christian" by your definition can be "moral". I believe that my sense of personal morality is NO LESS than yours in fact may be greater. I'm not "behaving" because I'm afraid of going to hell. I "behave" because I CHOOSE to do so out of my own FREE WILL (see enlightenment). You all (trust me, I was raised, taught and surrounded by "very" religious folks for my entire pre-adulthood) think that if the government and your church didn't tell you what to believe or not believe, do or not do, you'd immediately lapse into a moral funk and end up in hell given all that freedom. Well, sorry. Some can handle freedom, some can't. If you can't, join a church - they'll help you to figure out when you're "bad" and "good". If I'm destitute, however, spare me that humiliation please. BTW Catholic Charities is extremely non-partisan. But they aren't American Fundamentalists, are they?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#47)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 07:38:08 PM EST
    mfox- thank you. I have seldom seen this viewpoint expressed so eloquently. I don't share your views as expressed wholesale (i.e. not agnostic), but agree with the main point wholeheartedly, esp. regarding morality. I don't have a problem with G-d, just some of his fan clubs.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    Mfox I'm still waiting for some justification (ie ONE documented occurance) to your insinuation that anyone in need would be denied help by a catholic/christian charity because of their "religious beliefs". Why do you feel the need to slander and berate people who, although they share a different religous point of view than yourself, often contribute much to those in need? Your self-righteous indignation is noted, and unimpressive.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#49)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    -noname Sorry I can't provide a link to a detailed analysis performed by a right wing think tank (the only type of "proof" I'm guessing you'd accept), but I can speak from personal experience. I remember growing up and hearing horror stories about the hoops one would have to jump through and the depths one would have to abase themselves to prove themselves "worthy" of receiving aid from certain Church's "Charity", if you were unfortunate enough to need it. Some were OK, some were high-handed and petty, just like individuals. More recently, I ended up helping out an associate and her children economically for a while because she had chosen Wicca as her religion, and she couldn't find any support from most of the church's in her area, and didn't want the State's help until she had no choice. She was raised Mormon, and they were worse than useless when she needed help. Nice "Family Values". I'm certainly not saying all Churchs' would act in such a manner, the majority wouldn't. However, some would. Why would you want the Govt. funding those that would? Are you seriously claiming that no church (though I notice you are careful to only mention Christian church's....can't trust those heathen's eh?) would never discriminate on who they gave money to? How do you know this? Are you a personal friend of every pastor or person working in these organization's? Can you really see Fred PhelpsChurch giving aid to someone who's Gay, Bi or TG? No. The only evidence you offer is that know that you all claim to subscribe to a similar theology. Not good enough to play with my tax dollars, sorry. I'm all for giving tax money to the Church, when the Church pays taxes. BTW- if you can show where mfox "slandered" you, I'll be quite surprised. Don't worry, you can immediately dismiss me, I'm just another heathen.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:06:59 AM EST
    I've never understood why so many people are so worried about the presence of religion. If a religious organization has a jobs program that gets people work and does it more efficiently than government, why not provide funding? This isn't government establishing religion. This is government looking for alternative sources to fulfill a need. Personally, I don't care if a program to get homeless people off the street is run by the Methodists or the Church of Satan himself. I want my tax dollars to get results. Faith based programs are often staffed with volunteers motivated to get the job done, rather than paid civil servants worried about a career. IMO, they shouldn't be ruled out just because they're religious. The Constitution prevents government from establishing religion, but it doesn't mean government has to shun anyone that mentions God. Why is this so threatening to people? I'm devoutly religious, and am happy to see anyone incorporate religion into their lives because of the way it makes them feel about who they are and their place in the world. I have my beliefs, but I'm not offended by the presence of others. I'm Christian, but I'd visit a mosque or synagogue in a minute if a friend asked. To the agnostics or outright atheists out there, I'm sorry you feel that way and live your lives with no faith in anything beyond yourself. But I respect your right to feel that way. But don't expect that the entire world should adjust to avoid offending you. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anyone has a right to not be offended.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 07:38:22 AM EST
    Trueblue, I agree with your last post on every level. I am not religious (although raised in a devoutly religious family, I am agnostic, and take a scientifically oriented view of things), and I cannot understand why people are so threatened by this. I agree with your empirical view: it these oprganizations are effective, go with it.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:13:51 AM EST
    doctor Ace and Trueblue: Exactly. (Ace- in my opinion there is no conflict between a scientific viewpoint and God. Earliest scientists started examining and exploring their world to find underlying causes BECAUSE they knew God was a rational creator and you could understand His creation. I am not in any way unscientific - no advance of science I know of has put my faith in question)

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    oh but the original question: should these government-funded faith-based jobs programs be able to restrict their hiring (not their service) to people who share their faith. I say yes to this also - and that in no way does this constitute discrimination

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#54)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 08:43:41 AM EST
    JHCfleetguy: dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn) n. The act of discriminating. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. Just because you support it doesn't mean it's not still discrimination. If you don't hire someone because of their religion (category), when they are otherwise qualified, you are guilty of discrimination. Taken from Dictionary.com

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    again i suffer from connotative meaning not denotative. If you go through life not making fine distinctions and being discriminating then you are a fool. So i will amend to unconstitutionally discriminatory. Every organization has a right to have a corporate mission and mission statement - most would say to be successful you have to have one. Every organization has a right to have its employees be "on-board" for that mission statement - as a requirement of employment. If I have a faith-based job training program and I am hiring a staff member, I would present that you are not qualified for the job because you do not share an essential part of our corporate mission statement - there need not be any other criteria. Okay, you have convinced me that while you do not share my beliefs you have the skill set - I'll give you the job. By the way, the mandatory staff prayer meeting is 15 minutes before opening each day; and the weekly staff Bible study is Friday's at 3:00pm - next week be prepared to discuss Matthew 28

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#56)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:22:44 AM EST
    mmmm....herring. Regardless, it's still discrimination, and my tax dollars have no place supporting it. Tax money should only go to churchs when they will abide by civil rights legislation in the use of said money. If you want to use the "corporate model" that's fine. Tax dollars can go to Churchs' who want to discriminate in their hiring based on faith-based mission statements ,as soon as churchs pay taxes like companies do. Sorry, I see nothing in the constitution that says you can use taxpayer money to support religion. Do you have another version?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#57)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    incidentally jhcfleetguy- So you have no problem with your tax dollars going to support a "faith based" effort from Scientologists, Discordians, or Satanists? After all, as churchs, they have the same claim as charitable organizations that the ones you defend do.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:57:56 AM EST
    Discrimination? Cry me a river, Havelock. You sound like one of those pervs who gets tossed out of a Women's Aerobics class for oogling too many tight buns and then cries "discrimination!". You do realize that Affermative Action, is, Ironically, by its very definition, dicrimination?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    Stop sliding: I'll refer you to trueblue above for the argument about whether faith-based groups should be able to carry out government-funded activities: yes, if the Satanists, Scientologists, or Madrassa educated Muslims want to set up job-training programs and abide by the regulation - so be it. Step 2: The satanists, the muslims and the christians have their job training programs - do we all have the right to hire people who agree with our world views which is at the root of our mission statement? As Trueblue infered: I am not afraid of what those other folks say - peoples spiritual states are in God's hand not mine. And "hmmmm herring" looks cute but says nothing. Are you going to take the job and attend the Bible study and morning prayer or not? And do I have the right to require it for the STAFF of my program?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#60)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    noname- 10:57 AM If that's the best troll material you've got, your outclassed by far by others around here. Funny, I don't recall mentioning I supported Affirm. Action. jchfleetguy- If you have no problem with your tax dollars going to a Satanist organization, than congrats, you are not a hypocrite. I do wonder how many Fundie preachers would agree. as for:
    Are you going to take the job and attend the Bible study and morning prayer or not? And do I have the right to require it for the STAFF of my program?
    That depends. If the position is funded by taxpayer funds, than no. I see nowhere in the const. where it states the govt. may fund Prosetylization. I do see a bit where it states "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If your paying for it yourself, then yes. As for your "step 2" the same applies. I don't know why anyone would want to get their Church entangled with the Govt. anyway. Seperating the two protects both from unwarrented influence. Unless part of it is that the Religious elite want their cut of Uncle Sam's money too. Considering the behaivior of numerous televangelists, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a minor contributing factor in the push for this legislation. Thanks...I really like the taste of herring. Got any Smoked Salmon?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    The Gov't is not funding prosetylization, they are funding social services administered by religous organizations. Kind of like the Gov't is not funding advocacy for abortion, they are funding social services (ie family planning) administered by people who may advocate abortion. Havelock, get a clue. We get it already, you have a problem with religion. And stop leaving strawmen lying all over your posts.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    I guess i just have to give up on havelock staying on point. so, Mr. Havelock - you have failed to perform the requirement of your job (mandatory staff meetings) and you are fired. I'll see you in court - I'll win

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    I knew it was a mistake to hire someone who didnt agree with our mission statement.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    Havelock: Oh and the hypocrite check: 1) There are non-religious organizations that are both tax-exempt and recieving federal funds all over everywhere.Do you want their funding pulled. 2) There are government-funded job training programs all over everywhere that I would not fit into because i'm male (and they dont want me working with battered women); or white (working with ghetto blacks); or conservative (the other staff members are liberal democratics).I've got no problem with people hiring who they think will fit into their team, but do you think I'm being discriminated against and they should lose their funding?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:19:19 PM EST
    Posted by at March 4, 2005 11:56 AM The Gov't is not funding prosetylization, they are funding social services administered by religous organizations. And the companies receiving the funds are requiring their employees to be prosetylized when receiving those social services. Kind of like the Gov't is not funding advocacy for abortion, they are funding social services (ie family planning) administered by people who may advocate abortion. And refusing to allocate any funds unless those social services do not make any reference to condoms, any forms of birth control, or those abortions you so highly object to, if they want to receive any of those funds. Havelock, get a clue. We get it already, you have a problem with religion. And stop leaving strawmen lying all over your posts. It seems to me that Havelock has more of a problem with religion being forced on those who do not choose to believe. As for strawmen, have you looked in a mirror lately? Would you see anything if you did?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    Tom: An employee is providing services and not recieving them. The premise is that at the root of what my company does in job-training is our religious beliefs - and that those beliefs control how we fashion and deliver our services. I have said I have no wish to "convert" anyone to work for me - that is why I intend to hire based on the employee being able to step into and embrace our mission.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 12:30:38 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with G-d, just some of his fan clubs.
    my sentiments exactly.
    By the way, the mandatory staff prayer meeting is 15 minutes before opening each day; and the weekly staff Bible study is Friday's at 3:00pm - next week be prepared to discuss Matthew 28
    therein lies the crust of this dilemma. no, i'm not going to attend your fairy tale sessions.
    ...your outclassed by far by others around here.
    TL does have some classy and knowledgeable trolls, spewing pure bs, but eloquently.
    I'll see you in court - I'll win
    the thought of all entering litigation.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    Work on your eloquence, anon, and you can join them. Havelock, I'm not sure what it is you're adept at, is it logic? If abortion is taxpayer supported, can someone who is against abortion work at the clinic? I doubt it. Tom, after the US gov't, the largest provider of social services is Catholic Charities. Do you hear of them forcing religious views?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#69)
    by wishful on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    This is a serious question. If a faith based vocational rehabilitation outfit finds it necessary to hire only people who pass the test of having the appropriate level of the right faith, how likely is it that this will not become a factor influencing how clients are viewed and treated, if those clients are not similarly situated wrt faith? How about if the client's faith is repugnant to the faith of the faith based organization?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    mfox: The faith-based initiative, and all federal grants, have restraints in place for these kind of issues. when your write the grants you tell them your target group, what kind of job training you are using, what industries you are training for, etc. The Feds monitor your success rate, and your complaint rate.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    Here is one explanation of those rules: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/partnering.html#1

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    We're talking about faith-based organizations meeting the same criteria as non-faith based organizations. Why should the government restrict its funding support one of those two equally capable organizations based solely on religious preference? Is that discriminating against someone based on religion? A far as discrimination in the hiring process, it's not discrimination to hire people you feel would best contribute to the effectiveness of the organization. If Matt Hale tried to get a job with the NAACP and was denied because there were other candidates who fit with the organization better, has he been discriminated against? Should he file suit?

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Mar 04, 2005 at 09:26:09 PM EST
    Also, could atheism and agnosticism be considered "religions" based on them being the basis of an individual's metaphysical view of the world? If so, then why can atheists organizations get federal funding and non-atheists can't? Sounds discriminatory.

    Re: House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 05, 2005 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    I think trueblue and I get to plant a flag on this hill and ask that the inflammatory "victory for faith-based discrimination" be recended in the lead article above.

    House Passes Faith-Based Job Bill | 73 comments (73 topical)