Hiring based on a person's religion: Good or Bad? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-04-2005, 08:34 AM

raveneye: interesting scenario. a bit unnerving.

the more general question this church-as-charity raises for me is that this model was dominant in the 19th century and failed miserably.
the assumptions then seem like those of the bushpeople today: that poverty is a function of individual moral failings, therefore it made some sense to enlist the aid of churches for redemption at various levels. then, as now for the american right, the correlate is that there is nothing necessarily wrong about the operation of capitalism as a system, no real problem with the destruction of the lives of those exlcuded from holding capital. the invisible hand mythology dovetailed nicely into a christian mythology. what is real is rational because the invisible hand of god says so.

these assumptions were, and are (more so now) insane.

the shift back toward this already-antiquated, already-proven-ineffectual model slides across a wholly irrational view of the welfare state, how it came into being, what its meanings are, its relation to taxation etc. constructing this view has been an important political function of the conservative media apparatus at least since the earliest phases of the clinton period.

the main shift in assumptions that played out across the period that lead up to the development of the welfare state was simple: what was at stake was not the redemption of individuals, but the survival of the system itself.
the uneven distribution of wealth creates fundamental political torsions at the heart of the capitalist order.
the welfare state was an attempt to co-opt this political threat.

these problems have not gone away.
you would have to be blind to the actual history of capitalism to think otherwise.

the bottom line: i do not understand what bush is doing with this "faith-based initiative" idea at all. the question of hiring practices simply follow from this bigger irrationality, repeat the problems that attend it in general at a particular level.

shakran · 03-04-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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)

would any of these get money from the feds? Hopefully not.

Quote:

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

Bull

Quote:

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

Again, bull. When's the last time you marched into a christian book store, found the clerk, and interrogated her on what religion she was.

Are you saying only a christian is capable of helping you find the book about Jesus? Only a christian is capable of operating the cash register in the christian bookstore?

Obviously, all that's absurd. If they want to hire based on religion, they certainly can do that, but they shouldn't be getting rewarded by the government for it.

raveneye · 03-04-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i do not understand what bush is doing with this "faith-based initiative" idea at all.

My question (for anybody in favor of this initiative) is pretty simple: isn't the term "faith-based" completely empty? Faith in what? Isn't it possible to have faith in just about anything under the sun? What if you place your faith in principles that are completely counter to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, common sense morality, etc.? Should you still have the political support of the Bush administration and federal funding? Just because you have "faith" in something?

Should you now be completely free (by yesterday's Republican vote) to use federal funds to discriminate at will?

Quote:

the question of hiring practices simply follow from this bigger irrationality, repeat the problems that attend it in general at a particular level.

Seems to be the case, doesn't it?

KMA-628 · 03-04-2005, 10:44 AM

oh, wow....i'm a dumbass

KMA-628 · 03-04-2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Again, bull. When's the last time you marched into a christian book store, found the clerk, and interrogated her on what religion she was.

There are periodicals that advertise strictly "Christian" businesses that follow "Christian" teachings, ethics, etc. The companies that advertise are then monitored that they follow through with their claims (kinda like periodicals that advertise hispanic-owned companies--is the owner hispanic or merely a front man, etc.).

People use these guides because they want to support a company that values the same things that they do (my parents do this as much as possible). They expect that any and all people they come across in these companies espouse the virtues of Christianity.

So, no, you are mistaken, it is not bull.

Don't believe me? Call my parents. And there are many, many people like them.

03-04-2005, 08:34 AM	#41 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	raveneye: interesting scenario. a bit unnerving. the more general question this church-as-charity raises for me is that this model was dominant in the 19th century and failed miserably. the assumptions then seem like those of the bushpeople today: that poverty is a function of individual moral failings, therefore it made some sense to enlist the aid of churches for redemption at various levels. then, as now for the american right, the correlate is that there is nothing necessarily wrong about the operation of capitalism as a system, no real problem with the destruction of the lives of those exlcuded from holding capital. the invisible hand mythology dovetailed nicely into a christian mythology. what is real is rational because the invisible hand of god says so. these assumptions were, and are (more so now) insane. the shift back toward this already-antiquated, already-proven-ineffectual model slides across a wholly irrational view of the welfare state, how it came into being, what its meanings are, its relation to taxation etc. constructing this view has been an important political function of the conservative media apparatus at least since the earliest phases of the clinton period. the main shift in assumptions that played out across the period that lead up to the development of the welfare state was simple: what was at stake was not the redemption of individuals, but the survival of the system itself. the uneven distribution of wealth creates fundamental political torsions at the heart of the capitalist order. the welfare state was an attempt to co-opt this political threat. these problems have not gone away. you would have to be blind to the actual history of capitalism to think otherwise. the bottom line: i do not understand what bush is doing with this "faith-based initiative" idea at all. the question of hiring practices simply follow from this bigger irrationality, repeat the problems that attend it in general at a particular level. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-04-2005, 10:44 AM	#44 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	oh, wow....i'm a dumbass __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot. Last edited by KMA-628; 03-05-2005 at 10:26 PM..