[Kazan]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050303/ts_latimes/houseoksbillonfaithbasedjobs

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.

First they allow "faith-based" organizations to receive federal funds - and nobody listens to me about the bad step that is and how it's unconstitutional

now they make it even more blatantly obvious


"Atheists Need not Apply"/
"Catholics Need not apply"/
"Muslims need not apply"/
"X-religion need not apply" signs here we come!


Way to make my argument for me

[LeGuille]

I know how you feel... my bang-head-on-keyboard-method of ranting hasn't worked on how this is a bad idea.

But it's not unconstitutional... there is no mention of 'seperation of church and state' in the Constitution. Trust me, that was just a phrase invented by a professor to condone the conjoining of moral and religion into the same sentence (i think). But that's another issue.. Morals should come naturally... but it seems that everyone has to say you have to be religious to be have morals...pfft.

[Kazan]

rejindo:

actually that phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson himself to summarize the meaning of the establishment clause of the constitution into laymens terms - the seperation of church and state exists and was meant by the origional authors of the constitution to be high and inpregnible

[IceFire]

I think you guys need to move to another country

[Corsair]

Why? I like it here. It's my country. I just thing some of the policies of the current government are absolutely ridiculous.

[Kazan]

whoa timewarp - and i agree with corsair

what america is supposed to stand for is GREAT .. what the current admin and it's supports are doing to it is absolutely disgusting

[LeGuille]

If that's the case... then it should be written as an amendment. I would be totally for it, if it was presented to Congress. To think... we have under 30 amendments in the entirety of the existance of the U.S.

[Kazan]

Rejindo

US Constitution
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

by giving money to religious organizations it's making a "law that respects an establishment of religion" (even if it's generically religion of the lack of religion)

by allowing organizations getting government funds to descriminate based upon religion is doing so even more strongly

to put "in god we trust" on our money "under god" in the pledge is doing so as well

[LeGuille]

Kaz...

You make an interesting point - but the truth is, Atheism is not a religion. Allah is just another word for God in the Muslim's religion, if that's the point in case - the founding father's founded the Nation on Judeo-Christian beleifs. Being the point that "in god we trust" is not a law as well as "under god" is a statement in the very speech we use to define oursleves, there is no infringement on religious discrimination.

I agree with you on the point of government funds for a private organization, though.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Rejindo
Kaz...

You make an interesting point - but the truth is, Atheism is not a religion.

you are correct -

however freedom of religion includes freedom from religion - because it's our exercise of our "right to religious expression" to not have a religion

Originally posted by Rejindo

the founding father's founded the Nation on Judeo-Christian beleifs.

wrong - this country was founded on enlightenment principles and several very prominent members of the constitutional convention were agnostics (ex: jefferson), atheists (ex: franklin), and all demoninations of christians agreed right alongside them

Furthermore Article 11 of the Treaty With Tripoli (remember treaties come right after the constitution in legal strength) states

 Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

the Senate of the United states ratified this treaty UNANIMOUSLY - this is one of the oldest treaties we have and Article 11 sets precident reinforcing the Establishment Clause of the 1st ammendment

Originally posted by Rejindo
Being the point that "in god we trust" is not a law as well as "under god" is a statement in the very speech we use to define oursleves, there is no infringement on religious discrimination.

this judgement is based upon faulty knowledge of the constitution and the laws of the united states - see above

[Rictor]

*shrug*

Does it make sense for a Baptist organization to hire a Catholic or a Muslim? As for the federal funds, there's plenty of worse things they could be spent on that charities, faith-based or otherwise.

Would you complain if a Chinese restaurant hires only Chinese people, or that an African cultural center refuses to hire Swedes? Same thing.

[Ace]

...that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Ha! Seems that both the Bushes and Bin Ladens forgot to follow their own agreements

Of course technically it is two 'countries' not two 'peoples' but the absurdity stands.

[redmenace]

For every abuse by Conservatives(or neo-cons) of the constitution, Liberals do the same. *Hints as general welfare clause.*

That is all I am saying about this issue, except that I believe in banning all subsidies completely. Why fund a crusifix in a jar of urine under the guise of art?

Also seems kazan will have to move to a 3rd party...Democrats like the idea, in particular Hillary Clinton.

For the record, legislature during the drafting tried to have the word christian mentioned in the constitution but was voted down several times.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Would you complain if a Chinese restaurant hires only Chinese people.

Damn right I would! They can demand that the applicant speaks chinese if that's the language most of the kitchen staff use but if they only hire chinese people that's no less racist than a company refusing to hire black people.

[aldo_14]

I think it's unfair to allow discrimination of any type.... why is this legislation even necessary?  What change will it make to the existing scenario?  Is there some great scandal of Muslims working for Christian faith-groups I've not heard of?

[Kazan]

aldo_14: it'll allow governmentally-funded organizations to descriminate

[Rictor]

There is a difference between discrimination and being compltely and intentionally blind to race, religion, nationality, gender, age or whatever. The fact is, different cultures/religions/nationalities have their own customs, and its not at all discriminatory that they insist on hiring people who fit into the same group. When you see a woman in a burqa, you assume she's Muslim. When you see a man wearing the Russian hat thingy (I forget what its called), you can rightly assume that he is from the territory of the former Soviet Union or somewhere is Eastern Europe. Thats not discrimination, thats common sense.

To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
There is a difference between discrimination and being compltely and intentionally blind to race, religion, nationality, gender, age or whatever. The fact is, different cultures/religions/nationalities have their own customs, and its not at all discriminatory that they insist on hiring people who fit into the same group. When you see a woman in a burqa, you assume she's Muslim. When you see a man wearing the Russian hat thingy (I forget what its called), you can rightly assume that he is from the territory of the former Soviet Union or somewhere is Eastern Europe. Thats not discrimination, thats common sense.

To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?

What if i decided my businesses main identity was conservative right wing; would that make it right for me to discriminate against political opinions when hiring?  And doesn't disclosure of religious affiliation require disclosure of sensitive personal information, and isn't there a potential privacy/data protection issue there?

Why would, for example, the cleaner or receptionist in a Baptist church need to be Baptist?  If the job is itself centred around the faith, then knowledge of that faith would thus be part of the requirements; you wouldn't give the job to a non-Baptist (for example), simply because they were not qualified to that job (they don't have the religious knowledge).  

But for certain personnel who have no need of this knowledge to do their job, why discriminate against them?  Surely a job which, by definition, requires no religious knowledge or belief (otherwise you could fairly discriminate based upon a competence to do the job basis), doesn't require religious discrimination in the first place?  What is the need for this legislation?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
To give you an example: it would be perfectly acceptable that a Baptist church hire only Baptists, because that is the central issue in the organization's identity. However, it would not be OK if they hired only Baptist males, if females we equally capable of performing the job. See the difference?

I 100% agree that when hiring a priest or a choir you have to hire someone from the same religion.

 But why should I as a non baptist pay for it when the job doesn't involve faith. And if the job does involve faith why should I have to pay for it at all?

[redmenace]

Originally posted by karajorma


I 100% agree that when hiring a priest or a choir you have to hire someone from the same religion.

 But why should I as a non baptist pay for it when the job doesn't involve faith. And if the job does involve faith why should I have to pay for it at all?

On the same token why should I have to pay for offensive art or services I don't use.