Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based Hires

Via NPR:

A federal court in New York has ruled that the Salvation Army may hire and fire employees according to their religious beliefs -- even though it receives most of its money for social services from the government. The ruling earlier this week is considered a major court victory for the Bush administration.

[Hat tip to The Heretik]

< Republicans Challenge Frist's Leadership | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Shouldn't they have bigger concerns?

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    This seems to be a twisted decision on its face. Resulting in federally aided and legalized discrimination. AND a privatized social system even more proselytizing than before -- which flies in the face of bushco's claim these institutions would separate their fderally funded activities from their religious prejudics.

    Dadler: Not to stick up for Bush, but wasn't the policy behind the "Office for Faith-Based Initiatives" was that the religious orgs could now serve as conduits to provide social welfare services paid for by public tax dollars without having to behave like public entities: i.e. they could proseteyze the beneficiaries, discriminate in their staff hiring on the basis of religion or doctrine, etc. I don't think Bush and Co. mislead anyone that the dispensing public dollars would have any "strings" attached that would make the religious orgs change their preferred way of doing things. That was what changed. Charley: The First Amendment is what makes me angry. I don't think people getting TAXPAYER PAID welfare or emergency services should have to endure the providing orgs' religious browbeating or that those orgs should be able to behave as if it was the churches' own money with respect to discrimination provisions in hiring or who or what services are provided based on religious dogma.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    chuck, stop plugging in generic talking points/accusations about "liberal hatred of religion". yawn. i have not a whit of anger in my heart toward the salvation army doing whatever it pleases, or any other group, whatever they believe, as long as their not out there harming people. but, see, discriminating in their hiring practices (much less while relying heavily on government funding) DOES harm people. by denying them an equal opportunity for employment. but, hey, according to this court, that's fine and dandy. so be happy, and save the pre-fab groupthink accusations for the amateur hour.

    too bad you won't be able to force a faith based organization into turning its back on its faith based purpose.
    But of course, nobody wants them to stop practicing their religion. We just want them to stop taking tax money while they're doing it--religion ought not to be government funded.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    charley...The Salvation Army can have "Non-Christians need not apply" hiring practices, as long as they don't take taxpayer money. It's not rocket science. They have to choose one or the other. Or at least they used too. PS...I like the Salvation Army, I buy almost all my clothing from them. But you can't take taxpayer dough and discriminate in your hiring practices.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Jackl, I could be wrong, but I remember lots of weak reasurrances that the faith-based orgs could be trusted to separate social services funded by the gov't with their usual proselytizing. Well, to me anyway, but not this court, blatantly discriminatory hiring practices cannot coexist with federal funding. And this is why government should not be funding churches. The separation of church and state isn't a concept intended to protect the church after all, but to protect the state from the church. As a citizen of the state, you'd expect more of your government than heavily funding any organization that would deny you a job because of your answer to the question "why do we exist?" You want federal money, then you follow fair hiring practices. Or is an agnostic or an atheist, or a Hindu, so unpleasant they they simply can't work with them? We'll give you soup and treat you as a sould to be saved, but hire you? No no.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    They don't have to give up their beliefs charley, they just can't discriminate in their hiring practices.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:42 PM EST
    Chuckles, You can't even ASK a person's religion in a normal job interview process, or their marital status, or any number of personal things. Why the Salvation Army can't save themselves from their own prejudice in this area is beyond me, and it gives me further reason to believe the secular government of the United States should not be in business with them. I have trouble with anyone or institution that really can't separate the mythology of their religion (and the implications of their own belief -- rational creatures searching for meaning in a cold, indifferent univers) from the observed standards of society (and in this case, quite decent standards). Also, if the gov't gives money to a religous organization and allows that organization to continue to discriminate in its hiring practices, then logic tells me the state is allowing religion (with substantial federal aid) to infringe upon the beliefs of applicants to such a degree that their beliefs render than unemployable at this institution. And the gov't of "free" America is fine with that? Come on.

    Who would have guessed that the Salavation Army gets most of its social services money from the government? Not I. Facinating.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    Charley, In funding their discriminatory hiring practices, you are establishing a special, federally supported religous standard -- and one that certainly probitits the free exercise of faith (or non-faith) of applicants for employment. If your faith (or lack thereof) can legally keep you from getting a job at a gov't funded charity orgainization, how are you not prohibited from the exercise of your faith? And we're not talking about proselytizing paganism on the job here, we're talking about what a gov't funded institution can use as grounds for not hiring an applicant.

    Charley- So, you support giving tax dollars to churches that discriminate against hiring those not of their faith. I also assume then you have no problem with your tax dollars going to support a Wiccan or(even better for absurd illustrative purposes) a Satanic Church sponsor for their particular covens/churchs "youth outreach program". (To those who might be offended: Yes, I know the two faiths have nothing in common. I'm just illustrating that to most RWNJ's and fundies, there isn't.) How about your taxpayer provided government funding going to a United Church of Christ youth program (to support and extend understanding of Gay Youths), who will of course, only hire Gays of their faith to run the program. I also assume you have no problem with tax dollars going to those religious organizations that will hire anyone...except evangelical christians. Freedom of religion, remember. Are you also OK with your tax dollars going to...oh....say....Wahabi-style Mosques?? If your OK with all these as well as your own pet religion, then good for you. If not, your just another RWNJ hypocrite. Remember, you don't get to pick and choose which religions get your tax dollars.

    Awww. Little charley horse took his ball and went home. Guess that answers that.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#14)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    Charley, Everyone has a right to practice their religion. NO ONE has a right to government funding. Any third grade student can understand that. If you still dont like it, fine. I hereby declare the church of Roger. Now give me money.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#15)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    If I opened a for-profit mission, called it, oh I dunno, the "7th Day Adventist Army" and flat out refused to hire black people, would I still get federal moneys? What if I rationalized it by saying black people shared a few philosophical and spiritual differences? Nah... Now that would be discriminatory, wouldn't it?

    Johnny- Then you would be operating a for-profit business. Not the non-profit religious organizations that are being discussed here. Apples and Oranges, I'm afraid.

    you guys still don't get it. as much as you would like a religious based organization to reject its religious history and origins, that would violate the First Amendment and many statutes. the government grants go to the charitable/social service function performed by the group, not preaching. I presume you have never actually read the First Amendment-maybe actually doing so would open your mind a bit. btw, just to twist your gay analogy, would you agree that the organization promoting understanding of gay youth would have to hire Fred Phelps even though his philosophy considers them an abomination?

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    Uhh, mr charlie, we get it! You're an a$$hole. BTW, answer the question, do you want your money going to the church of roger, wiccan, muslim? I am ordained, do you want your tax money going to me?

    Charley- I'll answer your question, after you actually directly answer the one I've tendered. Perhaps someone a bit more lucid can explain exactly what any of my points have to do with someone "having to hire" that canker-sore on humanity, lil' Freddie Phelps. I'm Still waiting for an answer Charley. I probably won't get one, so I'll keep this little thread saved for future reference on why I should'nt take you too seriously. Given that money might go to some of the causes I listed above, do you still believe that Government funding should go to religious organizations that practice discriminatory hiring. No weasling out of it, it's a simple question, with two simple answers. Yes or No. BTW-Psst. It's becoming increasingly clear that you are the one that doesn't "get it".

    Charley- Been doing some thinking, and can only come up with one logical concept your trying to state: If your saying that the hypothetical UCOC outreach program for gay youth would have to hire Fred Phelps if 1)He Applied, 2)He proved himself the most qualified canidate, and 3)Could perform the functions of the job effectively, his own personal beliefs non withstanding. (IE acting as the church wanted, not condeming the youths) If he meets all three qualifications, then sure, I have no problem with him being hired to do the job. Still not sure where your concept of "having to hire" that canker-sore comes from. Have your doc up your meds before posting next time. It might help render you a bit more lucid.

    Re: Court: Salvation Army Can Continue Faith-Based (none / 0) (#21)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    I am still waiting for my government check. I am entitled to it. Charley says so.

    Well, it's pretty obvious that Charley is more interested in being a troll, than answering a simple yes or no question about his beliefs. What a shocker..... Roger- I'm pretty sure W. said that the check was in the mail...or it might have been (via torture outsourcing) the Czech that was in the mail. I'm not sure. What's so tough, Charley? Yes or no?