Hiring based on a person's religion: Good or Bad?

[raveneye]

A bill just passed in the House to allow "faith-based institutions" receiving federal funds to hire employees based on religious criteria.

The voting was almost entirely along party lines: republicans for, and democrats against.

My question: if a person believe's it is OK for companies to hire a person based on that person's skin color or gender (e.g. for the sake of "cultural diversity"), then wouldn't it be inconsistent for that person to be against using religion as a criterion as well?

Granted, most faith-based institutions are not going to value religious diversity. Rather they are going to value preserving their religious identity. So is this an allowable reason to discriminate on the basis of religion?

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."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...faithbasedjobs

[astrahl]

If they receive federal funds there should be NO discrimination. I have a problem with faith-based companies getting federal funds in the first place, but I have an even bigger problem with a fed-funded program hiring somebody on their own personal convictions.

[retsuki03]

Originally Posted by raveneye

A bill just passed in the House to allow "faith-based institutions" receiving federal funds to hire employees based on religious criteria.

I don't think the government should be giving these people money in the first place.

[KMA-628]

A private company can pretty much hire how they want too.

Also, there is a big difference between hiring based on color and hiring based on religion.

Would a Christian bookstore hire a Muslim activist?
Would a company that actively proclaims itself a Christian company hire a Pagan?
Should a Mosque hire a Christian? A Jew? (It works both ways you know--and we are "infidels" to them)

In these cases, hiring based on religious identity is essential to the success of the "business".

There are many, many cases where the religious identity of the person is very important to the customer.

[roachboy]

i agree with retsuki on this one.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by raveneye

A bill just passed in the House to allow "faith-based institutions" receiving federal funds to hire employees based on religious criteria.

OK, generally Title 7 prohibits discrimination based upon religion. What Congress is doing here is putting an exception into Title 7 for religious organizations. I have no problem with this....if the Catholic Church or any other church wants to hire only people of it's specific religious backgrounds to carry out it's religious purposes, that's OK with me. It'd be really stupid to, say, force the catholic church to hire methodist ministers to conduct mass or face a lawsuit.

[raveneye]

Originally Posted by daswig

It'd be really stupid to, say, force the catholic church to hire methodist ministers to conduct mass or face a lawsuit.

Yep, but that's not what the bill is about:

The legislation, which now goes to the Senate, reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. It provides funds for training and vocational rehabilitation programs for adults and dislocated workers, as well as activities for low-income youth.

So if a faith-based organization is operating a federally funded training and vocational rehabilitation program, according to this bill applicants for a job within the program can be screened by religion.

Presumably the consequences of this bill could be more general than that, but those are the specifics that I'm aware of.

[raveneye]

I don't think the government should be giving these people money in the first place.

But now that the government is giving them money, should they be subject to the same restrictions on discrimination that everybody else is who receives federal money?

Or should we continue treating them as if they were not receiving federal money and allow them to discriminate freely against other religions?

[Manx]

The question is not whether a Methodist can or should be denied a job as a Catholic priest. The refusal of hiring a Methodist would clearly be on grounds of lack of experience vs. a true Catholic priest.

But what about a faith-based organizations' janitor? Their receptionist? Their staff accountant? None of those jobs require any aspect of religion, therefore a candidates religious views should not come into consideration. Correct me if I am wrong, but this bill allows discrimination based on religion for positions that are not dependent on knowledge and experience with any particular variation of religion.

[KMA-628]

Manx -

It's hard to explain if you haven't worked for a "faith-based" organization, but every position usually requires a little bit of agreement to the "faith".

It's not like a normal company where the janitor doesn't interact with the accountant--quite the opposite. Many "faith-based" organizations have religious "services" (can't think of a better term) during the work day (i.e. prayer sessions, etc.)

Plus, their is a common goal aspect to it as well--a philosphy that should reside in every employee, regardless of position. If I were a Christian organization (let's say something like Focus on the Family--which is a local company for me, plus I know Dr. Dobson from back in his SoCal days--not that I defend the guy, I just knew him when he wasn't going after Spongebob) I would want all my co-workers to share/believe in a common goal--why else would you want to work there?

I think it goes both ways too.

If I were Jewish, why would I want to work for a Christian Outreach company? That would require a decent amount of hypocracy to just get through one work day.

The same goes for different organizations.

If I hunt, wear fur, etc., would PETA want to hire me? Nope.
If I was white, what chance would I have with getting a job with RAINBOW/PUSH?
I am a man, do you think I could apply for a VP postion at NOW?
If I am against gay marriage, should GLAD hire me?
I am a hard-core republican, are there any jobs at the DNC waiting for me?

I think it is more of an appropriateness issue, not discrimination.

[Superbelt]

but none of those other groups get or have ever asked for federal funding kma.

If they must discriminate, don't take the government's money.
Simple as that.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

but none of those other groups get or have ever asked for federal funding kma.

If they must discriminate, don't take the government's money.
Simple as that.

Ahh, but they do, in a way.

They are tax free organizations, which is, in essence, free money from the gov't. They get a lot of free bennies from the gov't, which, sort of makes them beholden to the gov't. Imagine how much it would cost them if they had to start paying taxes?

I would also be willing to bet that least some of them do receive gov't funding--I will look into it.

[Superbelt]

Tax free because they are non-profit.
No profit = no earnings = taxes should not be levied.

Individual employees of those orgs. still pay all payroll taxes.

[Manx]

KMA -

I don't share all the beliefs of my boss, I don't share all the beliefs of my boss on what is best for the success of his company. I recommend what I think is best when it is applicable to my skillset. My boss tells me what to do and I work my ass off to get it done - whether I believe it is the right thing or not.

Non-conformity to beliefs is not a logical justification for legislating acceptance of discrimination.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by Manx

The question is not whether a Methodist can or should be denied a job as a Catholic priest. The refusal of hiring a Methodist would clearly be on grounds of lack of experience vs. a true Catholic priest.

But what about a faith-based organizations' janitor? Their receptionist? Their staff accountant? None of those jobs require any aspect of religion, therefore a candidates religious views should not come into consideration. Correct me if I am wrong, but this bill allows discrimination based on religion for positions that are not dependent on knowledge and experience with any particular variation of religion.

This saddens me more than anything else I've seen recently. This is the most spiritually bankrupt and elitist argument I think that I've EVER seen, in ANY forum. You seem to think that religion and faith is dependent only on job description (ie if you're not a priest, your religious views are immaterial), and that because somebody sweeps floors, they can't be a spiritually valuable person to talk to or get to know or emulate in some spiritual manner.

Religion is more than sitting in a church every Sunday bored out of your mind. And I've met some people who swept floors for a living that had more spiritual fiber and actual moral authority than certain Cardinals that I've met.

When I was in elementary school, I went to a religious school. The janitor there was a "lay-preacher", and, to me, the epitome of what a good person should be. Periodically, I'd hear about my former teachers dying, but when Sam died, it saddened me far more than when the people with better credentials died, because Sam didn't just "talk the talk", he "walked the walk".

If you think people can't be valuable as a spiritual or life mentor because of their job description or the size of their paycheck, I pity you.

[astrahl]

OT
KMA-628,
I'll be seeing your avatar in my nightmares, thank you very much. lol <shiver>

[KMA-628]

o.k., the research on federal funding for non-profits is going to take more patience than I can muster. There is a lot of funding available to them, but finding who gets what is not easy to find.

Based on what I have found, I would say that many non-profits receive money from the gov't--this is based on the sheer volume of funds available to them.

So, based on this, I will stand on my analogy.

Manx -

You missed my point. Working for a religious organization is very different than a "normal" job. The "common goal" thing applies to them when it doesn't apply to working for a secular organization.

To work for, say Ingersoll-Rand (my former employer), didn't require any specific personal convictions.

To work for PETA would. To work for NOW, would. To work for Catholic Charities would. Regardless of the position.

[Superbelt]

Your analogy doesn't stand.
You need to find a non-profit that gets federal funding that can discriminate.

[KMA-628]

Here you go:

Over the past fifteen years, the Cherokee Nation has posted dramatic and steady financial growth while increasing its asset base. The annual operating budget exceeds $50 million, with the funds provided by federal programs and generated from tribal sources.

Just an example, but it does back up what I say.

My kids are members of the Cherokee Nation--not an easy thing to do as you have to prove lineage.

They receive federal funds, are non-profit and are very selective in their hiring. If you don't have a Cherokee card, don't bother applying--why would you anyway.

I have nothing against this. I couldn't work for them if I wanted to, but my kids can. By your defintion, this is discrimination.

[KMA-628]

And another one:

Sabri Samirah, president of the Chicago-based United Muslim American Association, is optimistic about the opportunities that the Faith-Based Office will open up for the numerous Islamic charities that are struggling because of their financial situations, adding that organizations and groups working primarily with inner city underprivileged Muslims where social ills are typically concentrated will be the chief beneficiaries of governmental funding rather than suburban organizations.

The Muslims are in line to get money from this initiative--do you think they are a wee bit selective in their hiring?

Once again, I have no problem if they receive money under this program, but I know I couldn't get a job with them. I wouldn't apply, anyway.

Like I was saying to Manx, the "common goal" aspect applies to organizations that have an agenda--if I don't share the agenda, they wouldn't want to hire me and I wouldn't apply to work there.

EDIT: Another one, I'll think I'll stop now

In what may be a surprise to many, however, Jewish service providers already receive billions of dollars of federal funding -- and have for years. Indeed, Jewish organizations have long proven that having the word "Jewish" on your building is no detriment to receiving public funds.


So, that's two non-Christian non-profits that receive federal funding and one non-religious one. All three could be considered "discriminatory" in their hiring. Personally, I don't care.

Is that enough to lend a little bit of credence to my point, or should I go on?

[Superbelt]

What NA groups is part of a restitution plan for the way we screwed them over and stole their land. The US Govt has an obligation to provide for them.

I believe the Cherokee's are one of the NA's that have their own constitution, correct?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by daswig

This saddens me more than anything else I've seen recently. This is the most spiritually bankrupt and elitist argument I think that I've EVER seen, in ANY forum. You seem to think that religion and faith is dependent only on job description (ie if you're not a priest, your religious views are immaterial), and that because somebody sweeps floors, they can't be a spiritually valuable person to talk to or get to know or emulate in some spiritual manner.

Religion is more than sitting in a church every Sunday bored out of your mind. And I've met some people who swept floors for a living that had more spiritual fiber and actual moral authority than certain Cardinals that I've met.

When I was in elementary school, I went to a religious school. The janitor there was a "lay-preacher", and, to me, the epitome of what a good person should be. Periodically, I'd hear about my former teachers dying, but when Sam died, it saddened me far more than when the people with better credentials died, because Sam didn't just "talk the talk", he "walked the walk".

If you think people can't be valuable as a spiritual or life mentor because of their job description or the size of their paycheck, I pity you.

You only dislike my post because you clearly fail to understand it.

I'm sure spirituality is very valuable - I never stated or implied otherwise. But as soon as you start claiming that one spirituality is more valuable than another, when the job description is not specifically based on the knowledge of a particular spirituality, you have crossed the line into discrimination based on spirituality.

And that is clearly far more morally bankrupt than even your misinterpretation of my post.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

What NA groups is part of a restitution plan for the way we screwed them over and stole their land. The US Govt has an obligation to provide for them.

I believe the Cherokee's are one of the NA's that have their own constitution, correct?

Um, I answered your question, what does this have to do with anything?

If you want to add rules to the game, at least let me know them up front.

You asked, I answered, why are you trying to take it in a different direction?

[Manx]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

You missed my point. Working for a religious organization is very different than a "normal" job. The "common goal" thing applies to them when it doesn't apply to working for a secular organization.

To work for, say Ingersoll-Rand (my former employer), didn't require any specific personal convictions.

To work for PETA would. To work for NOW, would. To work for Catholic Charities would. Regardless of the position.

To manage the accounting at PETA does not require you be a vegan. There is no aspect of accounting that requires a specific diet.

What you are suggesting is that someone in accounting is unable to perform their job effectively because they may or may not hold the general opinion of the organization they work for. But that is simply untrue. It is quite easy to perform your job remarkably well without sharing the belief of the organization. Maybe if you were dogmatically opposed to the belief of the organization, it would present difficulties - but even then, only if you consistently antagonized your fellow co-workers.

[KMA-628]

Manx -

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

We'll use NOW as an example--just cuz of my deep fondness for that bunch.

Sure, I could be an accountant and not give two squirts about their agenda--but that wouldn't make much sense now, would it.

Imagine me, the accountant, sitting their doing my work wearing a shirt that says "Get me a sammich, Bitch!". I would be attacked, pure and simple, and my time working there would be complete hell. I would then get fired over some trumped up charge so it doesn't look like I am being fired for being an egotistical male.

I am not saying someone can't, I am saying, "why would you?"

If you are among the crowd that refers to NOW as NAG, would you even pay any attention to a job opening at NOW?

[Manx]

How did we get from legalizing the non-hiring of people that don't match a specific religion (or gender in your example) to "Get me a sammich, Bitch!"

?

And if, as you claim, no one would even desire a position at an organization that doesn't match their specific agenda - why do we need legislation to enforce it? Clearly there are people that just want to work and work hard and earn a paycheck and do not passionately disfavor things like Catholicism or women. Or maybe they do feel favorably passionate for those things but are simply not Catholic or female.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by Manx

How did we get from legalizing the non-hiring of people that don't match a specific religion (or gender in your example) to "Get me a sammich, Bitch!"

?

And if, as you claim, no one would even desire a position at an organization that doesn't match their specific agenda - why do we need legislation to enforce it? Clearly there are people that just want to work and work hard and earn a paycheck and do not passionately disfavor things like Catholicism or women. Or maybe they do feel favorably passionate for those things but are simply not Catholic or female.

In other words, they wouldn't want me around because of my "beliefs". More than likely, I would be grilled during the interview as to why I would like any position at NOW. Also likely, is that I wouldn't get the job--regardless of my qualifications.

As to your next question: I don't know.

Maybe to keep people from trying to make a point, an infiltrator, you might say.

I would guess that it is just an extra level of protection for the non-profits. I don't think it is far-reaching to say that someone with PETA idealogies might try and interview for a position with the NRA, get turned down and file suit just to make a point--or vice versa.

[Manx]

KMA - There is a difference between derision towards something and apathy towards something. This legislation makes it legal to refuse employment due to apathy towards a belief, regardless of ability or dedication to task.

The infilitration aspect is hardly worthy of the discriminatory results of this legislation. An employer uses background checks and references to determine the honesty of a job applicant - not their belief system.

[sob]

Originally Posted by raveneye

But now that the government is giving them money, should they be subject to the same restrictions on discrimination that everybody else is who receives federal money?

Correction: It's legal to discriminate against white males. It's illegal to discriminate against everyone else (except, occasionally, Asians.)

[daswig]

Originally Posted by Manx

You only dislike my post because you clearly fail to understand it.

I'm sure spirituality is very valuable - I never stated or implied otherwise. But as soon as you start claiming that one spirituality is more valuable than another, when the job description is not specifically based on the knowledge of a particular spirituality, you have crossed the line into discrimination based on spirituality.

And that is clearly far more morally bankrupt than even your misinterpretation of my post.

When the organization is one of a spiritual or religious nature, then the people involved with working for that organization should embody the nature of that organization. Otherwise, the fundamental underpinnings of that organization are in jeopardy.

For example: Suppose that the religious organization opposes smoking and drinking on religious grounds. Should they be forced to hire smokers and drinkers for the non-leadership positions? When their employees come in reeking of cigarette smoke or beer, shouldn't they be able to fire them? After all, by being employees of the organization, they are supposed to embody the philosophies of the overall organizations. While they may be working in positions not having to do with the establishment of the organizations religious beliefs, they should still be expected to embody the ideals as much as possible.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that religious organizations are no different from any other employer, and that's simply not the case. There is caselaw out there saying that secular organizations can discriminate in certain ways based upon gender and looks for people who interact with the public if such discrimination is a vital part of their public image. This is why ugly men can't get a job as a "Hooters Girl" waitress. Religious identity is FUNDAMENTAL to a religious organization, regardless of what part of the organization the employee is in.

[KMA-628]

Interesting.....

Three job openings for different non-profits

PETA - Admin Ass't
NRA - Accounting Assistant
Jewish Foundation - Controller

Only one lists "Commitment to the objectives of the organization" as a qualification for the job opening.

You get three guesses as to which one, the first two guesses don't count.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by sob

Correction: It's legal to discriminate against white males. It's illegal to discriminate against everyone else (except, occasionally, Asians.)

o.k., this ain't gonna help

This is a left-turn that the thread doesn't need.

[daswig]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Interseting.....

Three job openings for different non-profits

Jewish Foundation - Controller

Only one lists "Commitment to the objectives of the organization" as a qualification for the job opening.

You get three guesses as to which one, the first two guesses don't count.

Somehow, I doubt a job applicant who shows up for an interview with an Iron Cross tattoo on his or her arm is going to get hired.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by daswig

Somehow, I doubt a job applicant who shows up for an interview with an Iron Cross tattoo on his or her arm is going to get hired.

That's why you wear long sleeves to an interview

[guy44]

WASHINGTON - Following the House of Representatives' failure to adopt a key civil rights amendment to a jobs training bill, the American Civil Liberties Union today called on Congress to reject the underlying measure. The amendment would have prevented federally funded religious organizations from using religious litmus tests in employment decisions.

“In its current form, the Jobs Training bill would erode key civil rights protections against government-funded religious discrimination,” said Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU senior lobbyist. “Members failed to restore key civil rights protections. The House has shown that it is more concerned about advancing a political agenda than ensuring that qualified people are not dismissed from publicly funded programs for their religious beliefs.”

The bill, the Job Training Improvement Act (H.R. 27) would allow religious organizations that receive federal funds from the Workforce Investment Act’s job-training programs to discriminate against their employees based upon religion. It would repeal current law, which states that all recipients of federal money for job-training programs must not discriminate on the basis of religion or religious beliefs.

Reps. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Chet Edwards (D-TX), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-NY) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) offered an amendment that would have simply restored the civil rights provision found in current law. That amendment failed on a vote of 186 to 239.

Ironically, this provision was first included in federal job-training legislation that was adopted more than 23 years ago, under a Republican Senate and White House. This non-controversial civil rights provision has not been an obstacle for religious groups to participate in federally funded job training programs. In fact, many religious organizations currently operate job-training programs and are in full compliance with federal civil rights laws.

The ACLU pointed to a lawsuit that filed recently by Americans United for Separation of Church and the ACLU of Pennsylvania as an example of the need for strong civil rights protections. The said that Bradford County and a self-proclaimed “prison ministry” are violating the Constitution by using government funding to advocate religion. The county and the ministry operate a vocational training program for inmates in which a significant proportion of inmates’ time is spent on compulsory religious discussions, religious lectures and prayer, rather than on learning job skills. The complaint also alleges that program administrators discriminate in hiring workers based on their religious beliefs and affiliation.

“The Scott amendment would have protected Americans against government-funded religious discrimination,” Schroeder added. “These protections, supported by both civil rights and religious groups, were put in place years ago to ensure that publicly funded religious groups comply with the same civil rights laws that apply to everyone else using federal dollars.”

That was obviously from the ACLU.

I agree completely with what they wrote - faith based groups have received money for years and complied easily with federal guidelines against discrimination. There's no need to institutionalize discrimination in the United States - again.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by daswig

When the organization is one of a spiritual or religious nature, then the people involved with working for that organization should embody the nature of that organization. Otherwise, the fundamental underpinnings of that organization are in jeopardy.

Absolute nonsense.

While they may be working in positions not having to do with the establishment of the organizations religious beliefs, they should still be expected to embody the ideals as much as possible.

And specificity of religion is supposed to guarantee that? It doesn't. Nor does divergent religion guarantee its preclusion.

This is why ugly men can't get a job as a "Hooters Girl" waitress. Religious identity is FUNDAMENTAL to a religious organization, regardless of what part of the organization the employee is in.

A Hooters Girl waitress is in direct contact with the clientele of the organization. The Hooters accountant doesn't need to have 36 DD breasts and a perky attitude. You are demonstrating my point for me, thank you.

[Willravel]

I'm a christian, and I've volunteered at jewish and muslim events to support the community. They welcomed me and I was able to help people. I know I wasn't actually "hired", but my involvement did not bring contempt from one person.

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by daswig

When the organization is one of a spiritual or religious nature, then the people involved with working for that organization should embody the nature of that organization. Otherwise, the fundamental underpinnings of that organization are in jeopardy.

For example: Suppose that the religious organization opposes smoking and drinking on religious grounds. Should they be forced to hire smokers and drinkers for the non-leadership positions? When their employees come in reeking of cigarette smoke or beer, shouldn't they be able to fire them? After all, by being employees of the organization, they are supposed to embody the philosophies of the overall organizations. While they may be working in positions not having to do with the establishment of the organizations religious beliefs, they should still be expected to embody the ideals as much as possible.

Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that religious organizations are no different from any other employer, and that's simply not the case. There is caselaw out there saying that secular organizations can discriminate in certain ways based upon gender and looks for people who interact with the public if such discrimination is a vital part of their public image. This is why ugly men can't get a job as a "Hooters Girl" waitress. Religious identity is FUNDAMENTAL to a religious organization, regardless of what part of the organization the employee is in.

after all, between the black christians working at my synangogue and pretty much every JCC i've been to, i'm like 2 steps away from burning my WJC (world-wide jewish conspiracy) card, having my skin dyed black and cross burned into my chest. i can't wait until i'm allowed to start being a diag preacher at the local university!

if only we'd never hired those non-jews!

[Superbelt]

Originally Posted by KMA-628

Um, I answered your question, what does this have to do with anything?

If you want to add rules to the game, at least let me know them up front.

You asked, I answered, why are you trying to take it in a different direction?

What it has to do is that NA groups need qualified as the assistance we give them is halfway to being foreign aid and the other half being restitution for past wrongs. They are a unique situation.

The other groups you mentioned, you didn't demonstrate ANYONE being denied a job with them based on ideology. You just picked two groups that were getting money.
They very well may discriminate, but that discrimination isn't legal.
That's the difference with Bush's new faith based crap. The discrimination is being made legal.

BTW, I worked as a teenager, as a lifeguard at my local pool after it was taken over for management purposes by my area's Jewish Community Center. I am Catholic.
Insignificant? yeah, but it's out there.

[raveneye]

Some things to consider:

(1) it is entirely legal and constitutional for faith-based groups receiving federal money to hire based on religion if that hiring practice satisfies the Lemon Test:

As long as the federal money is used for a secular purpose, and doesn't enhance or inhibit religion, and doesn't foster excessive govenmental entanglement with religion, all is OK.

One of the defining cases here is the Dodge v. Salvation Army case in 1989 (U.S. District Court in Biloxi). Here the Salvation Army fired a woman because it found out she was a Wiccan. Because her position as a secretary was funded almost entirely with a federal grant, the court decided that the Lemon Test was violated; ie that the federal money was being used to inhibit her religion and promote the Salvation Army's religion. So she won her suit against the Salvation Army.

(2) The bill that just passed is a bill reauthorizing federal funding for job training programs. What it essentially is saying is that a faith-based organization can use religious criteria to fill any position regardless of the funding of that position. So under this bill, Ms. Dodge would presumably have had no case against the Salvation Army.


For those of you still in favor of this religious discrimination, consider this scenario:

Let's say we have a faith-based organization. This particular organization has a religion that explicitly excludes all racial and ethnic groups except for whites. That exclusion is a conscious, purposeful tenet of their religion. They are funded by the federal government. Do you (people who support yesterday's bill) believe that this organization should be allowed to hire only white people for all their federally funded positions? This is entirely in line with their religion -- you can't be a member of their religion unless you are white, therefore they are hiring only people who can fit into their religious belief system.

I don't see anything in any of your positions that would allow me to conclude you would not be in favor of this religion-based discriminatory hiring. Nor do I see anything in yesterday's bill that would prevent this from happening.

And if you don't believe this is a real-life question, think again: Bob Jones University.