News Can Religious Institutions Discriminate in Hiring Practices?

[Evo]

Though I disagree with his stance (it seems an odd question to me too), I can't let this go: That's patently untrue. What it is is unconstiutional to discriminate against organizations on the basis of religion. It is also unconstitutional to fund them because of their religion. But if you're handing out money to non-profits or letting them use public facilities, you must do it without discrimination on the basis of religion.

Actually the question was if faith based organizations taking federal money should be restricted as to who they can hire. If the government is paying for it, can they only hire people in their church. The answer is no, not for the part that's government funded.

 

[BadDog]

Obama went first, McCain knew the questions.

 

[Evo]

Obama went first, McCain knew the questions.

No McCain, was in a "silent" room where he could not hear the questions.

 

[wildman]

Ok, only 20 minutes in and Obama has given himself over to Jesus Christ as his savior. How disapointing.

That is what he believes. The fundies might hate him for not being a conservative. But he IS a Christian and he has always said it. Not every Christian is a wing nut.

Keep in mind, with the fundamentalists, being a Christian is not necessarily an advantage. They after all went for Reagan (who was an agnostic and was not afraid to say so) over Carter who was a church going, Sunday school teaching, Southern Baptist. Being conservative is more important.

 

[BadDog]

That’s what Rick Warren thought, I heard Warren interviewed today and McCain wasn’t even in the building when Obama was being questioned.

 

[Evo]

That’s what Rick Warren thought, I heard Warren interviewed today and McCain wasn’t even in the building when Obama was being questioned.

You'll have to post a link to that.

If was true, it would be plastered all over the media because that would make headlines, and it's not.

It is against forum guidelines to make false statements, or stating something as true without being able to back it up by a valid source.

 

[Astronuc]

Analysis: Same tough questions, different approaches
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/17/forum/index.html

McCain and Obama are picture with Rick Warren standing between the two candidates.

Links to videos and analyses provided.

Candidates Look For Inroads At Evangelical Forum
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93677501

Obama and McCain's Test of Faith
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1833118,00.html

 

[BadDog]

Warren was interviewed on CNN by Rick Sanchez and said he was mistaken about, what did he call it, cone of silence?

 

[russ_watters]

Actually the question was if faith based organizations taking federal money should be restricted as to who they can hire. If the government is paying for it, can they only hire people in their church. The answer is no, not for the part that's government funded.

That doesn't make any sense to me - any company can hire from pretty much whatever pool of workers they want. If I start a business, I can hire only family members, members of my flag-football team, or random people I see at a bar. You don't have to advertise open job positions and interview from the general public. Why/how would a church be restricted in that way?

 

[Gokul43201]

That doesn't make any sense to me - any company can hire from pretty much whatever pool of workers they want. If I start a business, I can hire only family members, members of my flag-football team, or random people I see at a bar. You don't have to advertise open job positions and interview from the general public. Why/how would a church be restricted in that way?

Because it is being funded by taxpayer money? To my knowledge advertising for positions and strict equal opportunity employment laws come into effect if you are, for instance, a State University. I imagine the same is true of any other taxpayer funded venture.

 

[Gokul43201]

You'll have to post a link to that.

If was true, it would be plastered all over the media because that would make headlines, and it's not.

It is against forum guidelines to make false statements, or stating something as true without being able to back it up by a valid source.

Some articles in the media:

Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’

ORLANDO, Fla. — Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/us/politics/18mccain.html?ref=politics

(CNN) – Sometimes you just have to take it on faith.

Pastor Rick Warren said John McCain didn’t hear any of the questions in advance at Saturday night’s Civil Forum, even if the candidate was a little late arriving to the pre-arranged quiet room or “cone of silence.”

At the beginning of the forum at California megachurch, Warren told the crowd and TV audience, “I'm going to ask identical questions to each of these candidates, so you can compare apples to apples. Now, Senator Obama is going to go first. We flipped a coin, and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence.”

But at 8 p.m. ET, as Warren said that, McCain was actually not in the building.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/17/warren-mccain-did-not-violate-cone-of-silence/

 

[Alfi]

Wow
Even a simple Q&A cannot be held without one side calling the other 'cheaters'.

Sad, really sad.

 

[russ_watters]

Because it is being funded by taxpayer money? To my knowledge advertising for positions and strict equal opportunity employment laws come into effect if you are, for instance, a State University. I imagine the same is true of any other taxpayer funded venture.

Well, maybe it's just because I so loathe Affirmative Action that I fail to see any logic or constitutional basis there. But I'll let it go for here - maybe I'll start a thread on why I think AA should be considered unconstitutional.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't see the direct connection to AA (which I too am not fond of), unless you are saying that Fed funding for positions that discriminate on the basis of religion is no worse than Fed funding for positions that rely on AA to arrive at hiring decisions.

 

[quadraphonics]

That doesn't make any sense to me - any company can hire from pretty much whatever pool of workers they want. If I start a business, I can hire only family members, members of my flag-football team, or random people I see at a bar. You don't have to advertise open job positions and interview from the general public.

Well, you can probably get away with the examples you list, because those categories are presumably independent of race, religion, gender, national origin, disability or age. But to discriminate along any of the listed criteria is a violation of federal law, and exposes you to prosecution by the EOEC. The application of these laws to religious institutions has always been tricky (it doesn't make much sense to talk about religious non-discrimination in positions for, say, priests, as membership in the religion is sort of a prerequisite), but a big factor easing the whole issue was a lack of government sponsorship of religious institutions, which avoids a lot of questions. With changes to that approach in recent years, however, a whole new can of worms has been opened.