Can Religious Institutions Discriminate in Hiring Practices?

  • News
  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Religion
In summary, the Evangelical political forum held at Rick Warren's megachurch in Orange County, California, hosted by the minister and best-selling author, gave both Barack Obama and John McCain the opportunity to discuss their Christian faith and address issues important to evangelical Christians. Obama was able to counter false beliefs that he is a Muslim, but his views on abortion may have raised concerns. McCain's positions are more in line with evangelicals, but he may have difficulty appealing to the religious right. Overall, both candidates gave strong answers, with McCain receiving more applause from the audience. However, some may feel that both candidates are pandering to different voter groups rather than standing firm on their beliefs.
  • #36
Though I disagree with his stance (it seems an odd question to me too), I can't let this go:
Crosson said:
I agree that this statement, along with the boldface assumption that faith-based organizations are worthwhile supporting with federal dollars, is tremendously anti-American.
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Not American - can't vote.
 
  • #38
Oh - American, but didn't watch. (the Phillies are on!)
 
  • #39
I have it on Fox now and plan to watch it (9 pm here) if it comes on. From what I gather from the earlier posts it seems Obama is also trying to wear religion on his sleeve, which is unfortunate but may be necessary in the US, I guess.

(Note: it is starting as I'm tying this.)

I hope Obama doesn't let me down too much; he seems to be trying to redefine himself as a complete "centrist," a strategy that didn't work for Gore or Kerry.
 
  • #40
Just watched the CNN critique and they say McCain was the clear winner. They said Obama was too wishy washy and avoided taking a firm stand, which is also how I felt. He really needs to take a firmer stand, aside from coming back stronger on the stem cell issue, he just danced around.

They said Obama is really going to have to change and be more assertive and stop trying to avoid taking sides on issues.

Obama really does need to tell us where he stands instead of well, you could say this or you could say that, I'd hate to come out and actually take a stand and possibly upset someone.

McCain was praised for taking a stand even if it might be unpopular.

Also, Obama was dinged for being too verbose and not coming to the point.
 
  • #41
Evo said:
No one watched? Gokul?

<chirp, chirp>

Oh well, it's just the Presidency of the United States, nothing important. :uhh:

Gee. Is it November yet?

I'd rather watch Phelps go for #8, and besides I can wait for the news shows to tell me whether or not anything important was said.
 
  • #42
Evo said:
Also, Obama was dinged for being too verbose and not coming to the point.

I think that this is his major "problem". He takes much too long to make his points, and sometimes it makes him appear that he is avoiding the question.

I don't have cable, so I guess I will see the rest of it when it becomes available on the net.

Chase
 
  • #43
I watched all but the first 5 minutes (Obama was on then).

I LIKE nuanced positions...I don't see the world in simple black-and-white terms. I thought Obama's answers were significantly more thoughtful than McCains's. Obama's answers about the Supreme Court were excellent, especially about the abortion issue.

(Full disclosure - I was an Obama supporter before this event, and I'm fully pro-choice.)

McCain did much better than I expected, though. Yet I thought most of his answers were pandering - the reference to home-schooling, and the many, many stories referencing his experiences as a POW.

But I understand most American voters want short, concise answers to complicated questions. If a candidate can answer in one (preferably a monosyllabic) word, that makes them look decisive.

Much as I hate to admit it, I'd have to give it to McCain, but just by a little bit.
 
  • #44
lisab said:
But I understand most American voters want short, concise answers to complicated questions. If a candidate can answer in one (preferably a monosyllabic) word, that makes them look decisive.

Some time ago I read in a thread that Obama (probably) flipped the bird at Hillary. Short and decisive enuff in my book. :biggrin:

EDIT: Here is the thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=229826
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Evo ?

Is it permitted to open a parallel thread on this topic for non-Americans only?

We have opinions too.
 
  • #46
if AhmedEzz is not going to participate than that would be fine.
 
  • #47
If you want to join, it's fine to just post... all over topically. Please...
That helps some trouble-shooting problems resolved fully or partially...
 
  • #48
What I find interesting, is to watch it live and uncut and then compare what I heard with my own ears, with the slants and comments the various news stations cut and paste together.

Some stations seem very biased to me.lol @ AhmedEzz
 
  • #49
russ_watters said:
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.

We mostly agree on this point Russ, but I also want to point out that their is a more subversive tactic at work: McCain and the Republicans are trying to push the idea that faith-based charities are more effective, and so they should get disproportionate federal dollars for that reason. I dispute this conclusion, and instead of operating on flimsy evidence generated by a few phone surveys, I would rather do the fair thing which is to support only secular institutions with federal dollars. That way no one religious group is getting unfairly "established."
 
  • #50
Alfi said:
Evo ?

Is it permitted to open a parallel thread on this topic for non-Americans only?

We have opinions too.
Ok, as long as you have watched the two hour program and keep the discussion to what was discussed, no outside opinions.
 
  • #51
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #52
Obama went first, McCain knew the questions.
 
  • #53
BadDog said:
Obama went first, McCain knew the questions.
No McCain, was in a "silent" room where he could not hear the questions.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
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.
 
  • #55
That’s what Rick Warren thought, I heard Warren interviewed today and McCain wasn’t even in the building when Obama was being questioned.
 
  • #56
BadDog said:
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.
 
  • #57
  • #58
Warren was interviewed on CNN by Rick Sanchez and said he was mistaken about, what did he call it, cone of silence?
 
  • #59
Evo said:
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?
 
  • #60
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #61


Evo said:
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/
 
  • #62
Wow
Even a simple Q&A cannot be held without one side calling the other 'cheaters'.

Sad, really sad.
 
  • #63
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #64
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.
 
  • #65
russ_watters said:
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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top