Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
No Exemptions, Please
Q: 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?
I don't think we're being real smart if we allow charities that receive federal funds to discriminate in hiring on the grounds of religious beliefs. For as long as I have been involved in church work, I have been told that in applying for grants, we need to be inclusive of everyone. I think it's good policy.
I do not understand why former President Bush issued a memo that allowed charities which receive federal funding to discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs. Was Bush merely playing to his base? Was it just a political move? If so, it was a bad one and one which appears to be in conflict with the tenets of the United States Constitution.
As our programs have hired people of all races, religions, and ethnicities, I have found that our programs are the richer for it. Religious dogma, if it is worth its salt, can withstand people of differing views. If it cannot withstand it, then perhaps the dogma needs to be examined.
But the beauty of being held to the constitutional litmus test of non-discriminatory hiring practices is that it allows for communication between people of different cultures, races and religions. That type of mixture is what America is all about, or what it is supposed to be about.
If one is confident of one's belief set, he or she ought not be secure if someone is let into a program with a different belief set. That is different from having a person of differnet beliefs in charge of that religious organization; that could be harmful.
But to hire someone who has different beliefs can only help smooth misunderstandings and ignorance, both of which promote and increase fear. That cannot be a good thing.
Religious groups who hire others can prohibit proselytizing. They can prohibit any attempt of an employee to sway someone to his or her way of thinking. It is easier if everyone is on the same page religiously, but being on the same page is not necessary to have a successful program.
Why isn't it possible to work with others who have different beliefs, or no beliefs, for that matter?
I am not in favor of religious charities being exempt from the standards that every other American company and business has to adhere to. I am not that insecure in my faith, and I enjoy learning about what other people believe.
Why? Because I hate ignorance and lies and fears perpetuated about any group of individuals based on ignorance. There's been enough of that already in America. It's time for a new book, or at least a new chapter.
By
Susan K. Smith
|
September 23, 2009; 12:50 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Flirting with Violations of Religious Liberty |
Next: Subsidizing Religion
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 27, 2009 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
These are the words of the First Amendment, United States Constitution. In the last several years, no other part of the Constitution has been more quoted that the First Amendment. There are some individuals, however, who, in the name of the First Amendment of the Constitution are practicing religious discrimination in hiring.
A problem? Yes! A solution: Just as we should not force Christian beliefs on anyone, likewise, we should not be discriminating because others freely exercise religion the way their conscience dictates.
Turning the page for looking for the new chapter...
Posted by: tyson41 | September 25, 2009 8:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tax exempt status for religious institutions is in violation of the First Amendment.
Since they have this status (illegally), they must abide by the those laws of the land that are still upheld. Attempting to convert has not heretofore been seen as "hate speech," which is unprotected. It is therefore protected by the First Amendment.
Thus, for example, if a Protestant church hires Muslims who frequently speak of Islam, who make its precepts known to Protestant congregants, they must be free to do so. In the main, Muslims do not attempt to convert aggressively. They explain. Their discourse is well within the bounds of protected speech.
Overall, an intelligent essay, Sue. However, once you accept nonprofit status, you must abide by ALL the rules and regs.