Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Just Say No to Faith-Based Discrimination
Dozens of major religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to renounce a Bush-era memo that allows faith-based charities that receive federal funding to discriminate in hiring. Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring?
In the United States you can't fund religious discrimination with tax dollars. That kind of faith-based discrimination runs counter to the founding principle of this nation. "We the People" may disagree about a lot of things, but one thing we really should all agree on is that the government will treat all religions and all religious people, and non-religious people, equally.
In recent years, however, there has been a bigger and bigger disconnect between the compelling vision of the Constitution on religious freedom and equality and the practice of "faith-based" politics. The Bush Administration's use of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act to fund discrimination was politics pure and simple.
Let's be frank, here. Why did the Bush Administration's Office of Legal Counsel produce a memo that permitted funds from the faith-based initiatives program to be used in a discriminatory fashion? Well, as David Kuo writes in his White House faith-based initiatives tell-all book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, the real reason was to show "Christians across the country how very religious the president was willing to be." And, Kuo points out, all the reporting "played out exactly as we hoped. Rather than report on how grand the president's announcement was and how little was actually done," the story became "separation of church and state." Pat Robertson praised the President for his "bold action." (pp. 223-224)
But when it came to actually funding programs that really served the needy, the Bush White House never worked to make any money available. Kuo writes of his time in the White House, "We were good people forced to run a sad charade, to provide political cover to a White House that needed compassion and religion as political tools." (p. 242)
Let's reject that kind of manipulation for what it is--political sops to placate "values voters" and drive them to the polls. That cannot be the American way when it comes to faith and government funding.
Treating all religious and non-religious citizens equally is the American way. If we don't have freedom of religion in this country, what do we have? Every other freedom we have, as Thomas Jefferson argued, comes from the freedom of conscience, and conscience is the very root of religious faith. This is a matter of respecting that fundamental principle by which the individual responds to the movement of God in his or her own life as they see fit and not penalizing them for it by excluding them from employment.
If some religious groups don't want to have to be non-discriminatory in their hiring, they don't have to. Nobody is forcing these religious groups to take government money. If you feel that your faith dictates that you should discriminate, just don't take government money. That's freedom of religion too. But if you take the money, you have to play by the rules.
This question for Attorney General Holder should not be limited to discrimination and faith-based funding. There's a larger issue at stake, in fact the same issue that the Attorney General needs to consider in regard to torture. Are we a people, are we a nation, that plays by the rules, or not?
"Faith-based discrimination" like "faith-based politics" should have no place in this new Administration. The rules don't permit it.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
September 21, 2009; 7:50 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Taxation For Religious Discrimination |
Next: Society is Neither Church Nor State
Posted by: paarsurrey | September 26, 2009 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"In fact, Christians seem to donate time to the Church in far greater numbers than atheists seem to donate time to the government. I guess Uncle Sam could always pay people to do what the Church currently gets people to do for free."
I call "nonsense". For one thing, you use the word "seem". That means you do not know, but you are using your feelings or anecdotes as evidence of what you are predisposed to believe.
Secondly, until relatively recently people were unwilling to declare themselves atheists or agnostics. So much work that's been done by those in a certain setting may well have been done by those who do and did not believe as you thought they did. I don't even know when the option of checking off 'atheist', 'agnostic', or 'other' even became an option on the census forms.
Thirdly, the government does kind of credit people for things they do for charitable organizations. If you track your mileage whilst doing good (for a charity), for example, you get to write it off.
Posted by: Skowronek | September 25, 2009 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
Great. NOw all the Christians/Catholics will love you, too. End of bigotry problem, and, even better, they will acknowledge Allah. Should you tell them, or shall I, that more is written in Quoran about Musa (Moses) than about ANY other prophet?
All this Muslim Jesus stuff isn't fooling anybody you know. Muslims must surely know that Christians/Catholics are aware that Quoran categorically denies the divinity of Jesus and that any who do not, who believe him to be the Son of God, are doomed forever.
Then, too, there is the afterlife you should consider. Musa has always been the greatest prophet in Islam, after Mohammad. Since the emigrations from the Middle East and Asia, Muslims in Christian countries have somehow convinced themselves (I believe they really have) that Jesus (Isa) supercedes him.
That will be a problem you will have to address just shortly after the end of time.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 25, 2009 12:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi friends
I am in favour of state and church to be separate. There is no harm in funding religious institutions but they should not be allowed to discriminate in the name of God or in the name of religion like there should be no bloodshed in the name of God or in the name of religion.This is totally unacceptable.
I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim
Posted by: paarsurrey | September 24, 2009 10:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith-based funding must end. Period. Every week I take several hours out of my hectic schedule to end this mind-numbing theft of tax dollars. And it doesn't end there. It ends with the cessation of nonprofit status for religious institutions.
It makes as much sense for me to subsidize your church, Sue, as it does for me to defray the expenses of a Japanese restaurant.
Believers are invited to assume the burden of their faiths' finances. (Alternatively, they could dine at their local Japanese restaurants.)
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 24, 2009 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Q: Is the government doing religious charities a favor or are the charities doing us a favor?
A: Religious charities are doing the government (and society) a favor.
In the first place, churches exist in every neighborhood, in every town, in every state. For the government to match this investment in infrastructure would be expensive, time-consuming and wasteful.
Secondly, the majority of people working in or for church charities are volunteers, further reducing the costs of distributing aid to the people who need it. In fact, Christians seem to donate time to the Church in far greater numbers than atheists seem to donate time to the government. I guess Uncle Sam could always pay people to do what the Church currently gets people to do for free. Just what America needs, another expensive civil service bureaucracy.
The Church should not and will not allow non-believers to run their ministries for them – so get over it. If this offends you then take your precious tax dollars back, but know that you will not be hurting the Church if you do. You will only hurt the taxpayer who will have to pay much more and the needy who will have to wait much longer (or do with much less) – what a perfect liberal solution.
Posted by: rubytues63 | September 23, 2009 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi friend Farnaz1Mansouri1
Whether the Christians or Catholics love me or not; it is a fact that love of Jesus and Mary is a part of our faith. We love Jesus and Mary as we do love Moses and his mother. In fact we Muslims do love all the Messengers Prophest of God Allah YHWH for their memorable services to humanity. We don't differentiante between one Messenger Prophet and the others as they all have been sent by the Creator of this Universe.
I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Moses and his mother, Krishna,Buddha,Zoroaster, Jesus and Muhammad the Seal of all the Prophets Messengers.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim