According to ACSBlog, the Justice Department has released a memo providing legal cover for faith-based programs who receive federal funding but use religious affiliation as a basis for hiring. The memo, which is available here, reinterprets the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to categorically exempt any religious organization that receives federal funding from any anti-discrimination policies, even if the programs through which these groups receive their funding specifically require inclusive hiring practices.
The blog post references a New York Times article, which delves deeper into the hiring practices of World Vision, a faith-based group that receives federal money to pay for its anti-gang programs, but only hires Christians. According to ACS, World Vision defines itself as “an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to follow our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice, and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God.”
Barry Lynn, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said “The Bush administration has been trying to allow religious recipients of tax dollars to discriminate in hiring. No Congress intended that. The Constitution does not permit it. And this memo is just one more example of this administration subverting Congressional and constitutional intent in pursuit of a forbidden goal: discrimination in hiring.”
This isn’t a leading issue among the several motivating the electorate to kick the bums out; but, it’s certainly significant among folks concerned with returning constitutional guarantees relegated to lip service these past several years.
1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Pretty clear cut.
I’ll just say again that any church that is not socially active is no church at all==just a scam to collect donations.
Churches have “morality” and “soul of man” at their very core reason for being. NOTHING is more relevant to that core than the politics of the country any such church is in.
To give away the core reason for being ((not to speak for or against politicians)) in return for a tax free status is to have sold your soul to the devil===and all the churches have done it.
Everything is a tissue of lies, everything is hypocrisy.
Pretty clear cut.
Jesus H. Christ!
# 3 Special Ed.
Yes?
My two cents.
1st Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
This is the basis for the seperation of church and state.
It is the fundamental reason churches don’t get taxed.
It is also the fundamental reason why churches need to stay out of politics.
The first amendment basically says that the government must not affect religious affairs (to disallow the establishment of one accepted national church such as what happened in England with the “Church of England”).
It also goes both ways. Churches should not try to directly affect the operation of the state. (For centuries, it was entirely unclear who ruled much of Europe, the kings or the Pope.)
Once a church directly attempts to affect the state, the church has broken the separation, and no longer can be thought of as independent from the state. The exception is that the church members individually or even as a block can vote their opinions and beliefs, but not a church using church facilities.
So, what we have in this case is:
A church taking public funds for the public good.
At first blush, this appears to be a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment, but is it?
Is it a violation if the by using the funds you are not affecting public policy nor trying to sway policy-makers?
In my opinion, it is a violation of the 1st amendment because I believe taking and using public funds creates an implied contract that those funds would be used under well understood federal guidelines, including non-discrimination.
But this is what you get when we have liberal judges who have decided that the constitution is a “living document” which can be interpreted on present whims and opinions.
#5 Interesting but not really correct. The Founding Fathers had no problem with preachers talking politics at the pulpit.
Since they thought it was okay and they wrote the Amendment you can figure out the rest for yourself.
Ummm,
Ya..
HIRE all the child molesters you want, just not a Jewish one..
The 1st amendment was written to restrict the Government not religion/churches. The question is if a church decides to become a government subcontractor by taking government funds (including administration overhead funding)to providing what ever service to the public that those funds were intended for are they required to follow the same laws (such as employment non-discrimination) as non-church subcontractors are required to follow or not. My 2 cents is if you take the money you should have to follow the rules.
#6, Paddy-O, thanks for the comment, but to make a correction:
The founding fathers allowed preaching from the pulpit, but not moving the pulpit to the oval office. The establishment of a state religion or to allow any one religion to dictate national government policy.
As an example, Jeremiah Wright can preach “God Damn America” all he wants, but the moment he moves the voting machines to the church lobby, he no longer has church/state separation.
Admittedly, this seems like a small difference, but it is the difference between freedom of speech (constitutionally guaranteed), and freedom of action, (not a protected freedom).
Churches have protected freedom of speech, but churches are not protected as to their actions.
This loophole is big enough to pass the Titanic with room to spare. So which constitutes freedom of speech but not action?
Does the million man march constitute an unprotected church action? It probably would have if it had been solely one church.
Here is a great article about this topic:
http://tinyurl.com/58ur9u
#8 You haven’t cited ANYTHING in the Constitution that allows the Congress to make law respecting an establishment of religion.
You have an interesting opinion. However, show me where the Founding Fathers didn’t allow polling places to be in a church much less the other items you mentioned.
Also, your comment, “but not moving the pulpit to the oval office.” is nonsensical.
So let’s take the first amendment and put it into context:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,… everyone likes to quote this part, but they just don’t give a rip about the next
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…now myself, I don’t like it when my church gets fed or state funds for that matter, but if some church has a good program, shows that it is making a difference and the government gives them money to help make a difference, then why should the government tell them how to practice what they are preaching.
Oh and here’s the rest of the first amendment:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Quit quoting the context like people of faith have no voice or have to check their faith at the door to help with government funds. The wall was put in so that government did put it’s nose into how all religions practice their faith.
#8–Ah yea==you have confused and gotten wrong several issues. The heart and soul of free speech is political speech and who to vote for. It is the REASON FOR free speech and is the most protected.
The seperation of church and state has NOTHING to do with what churches say about politics. THAT issue is purely one of tax status and qualifying as “tax free” and more importantly that their income is tax deductible for their contributors.
Churches can choose to be taxed and can say anything they want to. They choose money instead.
#10 for the win.
#11 bobbo “Churches can choose to be taxed and can say anything they want to. They choose money instead.”
It will be interesting if this hits the S.C. I have a feeling the IRS is going to get spanked. I may be wrong though.
Paddy–I agree with you. If memory serves, the whole “no political talk” was of course passed by government to protect the incumbents. The original idea was to prevent people from forming political groups under cover of claimed religion and being able to raise money tax free. In those golden days, all the 527 groups and other tax free dodges were not available. Today, I think the restriction on speech is unconstitutional, but so is the tax free status. Either issue could go either way depending on your values.
Silly liberals, Everyone knows that to Republicans the Bible is more important than the Constitution.
^^^^^^^^
Looking busy…
#4 – er, nevermind. – wait, stop by and lets get nailed!!
regardless of the Constitution, my secular / agnostic morals tell me it’s wrong to discrimminate in hiring for a paid job. Why don’t these organizations have morals at least has high as mine?
I don’t have a lot of time for counterpoint today, but here are the answers to Paddy-O and Bobbo.
It’s real straightforward. These links help clarify the constitutionality of non-taxation of churches, etc.
Good stuff.
http://tinyurl.com/6gun4u
http://tinyurl.com/59n34y
It seems some people here believe that if one chooses to be religious, they have to excluded from all government services and funding open to everyone else.
Interesting concept of “freedom” of religion.
And where exactly in the Constitution is the power to force private citizens, corporations or organizations to hire people or not… and how can this trump both the right to association and the right to religious freedom?
#19 Interesting opinion but it doesn’t really nullify the 1st amend or its meaning.
#15 Bobbo. Thanks. Makes sense.
#19–Ah Yea==your links are consistent with what I posted, and not consistent with what you first posted. Those links also don’t prohibit the opposite results being applied in the future. IE==a wall between church and state does not expressly approve or disapprove the tax status of a religion/church, nor the extent of its free speech. In ALL CASES, the free speech limitations arise from the tax status, not the religion.
#9, Ah Yea,
Your religious link wants me to send them $5. Like that is going to happen. Sorry, but I can’t read that article.
#10, Cow-Paddy shit talker,
Quit bringing up the Constitution. You have repeatedly demonstrated you know sweet nothing about it.
#19, Ah Yea,
These links make for good reading, but they are mostly opinion. Well stated, intelligent opinion mind you, but still opinion.
#20, RSweeney
Your error is that the government is giving them money to do charitable work. The Church organizations are hiring only their own people and discriminating on the basis of religion. Many pieces of Federal Civil Rights law forbids discrimination on the basis of religion. You could start with the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or the Civil Rights Act which states in part,
So if someone can’t be hired because he is a Catholic then that is discrimination.
Taxing a church that engages in political speech would not offend me. Giving all churches tax exempt status does offend me.
Of course churches have freedom of speech. They can say whatever they want. And if they exercise that right, then, just like the rest of us, they don’t get to enjoy tax exemption.
Just like the rest of us.
Of course churches can discriminate against whomever they want in their hirings and firings. They do all the time. They’re doing it now.
Just don’t expect my tax dollars to pay for their discrimination. Man, talk about a sense of entitlement!
The KKK might do an excellent job of keeping kids off drugs. But my tax dollars ain’t going to be paying for them. If this confuses you, I can’t help ya.
I would like to thank all of you for an enlightening and intelligent conversations.
The only one I’ve had all day!
How about race? Gender? Well, some faith-based organizations must be cheering.
I guess this makes it OK not to hire religious workers too? If I hear one mention of the bible or their imaginary friend, their ass is fired.
Tax money from all US citizens should not be handed out to so-called religious organizations, for which they do not (or may not) subscribe to. The “Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993” should be labeled the Scientology Windfall Act. Cause I’m sure they were behind it. Senator Sonny Bono’s influence, at getting his cult some government backing. They only “hire” their own, and then DON’T pay them. They earn course time at being better robots. And help their fellow upper echelon cultists, live in luxury. And this is what “separation of church and state” was meant to stop! Because when America broke with England, they had a single religion allied monarchy. That persecuted many of those who fled to America to escape its discriminatory policies. In fact Catholics were then discriminated in America, for a time, as a reaction to England’s former rule. And it wasn’t such a paranoid fear, as the church used its agents to try and return England to a catholic ruler, after it had gone Protestant.
#29 Nimby said, “Now my question to you: Which organization would you rather your tax dollars support?”
Don’t know. I would have to see an audit on which uses $ more efficiently. Some people don’t car about efficient use of tax $ though…
#30 Glenn E. “And this is what “separation of church and state” was meant to stop!”
I’m glad to hear you won’t be voting for Obama. He plans on expanding even further, the amount of tax $ going to religious groups…
Unless, you are a hypocrite and ARE voting for Obama…
# 31 Paddy-O said,”I’m glad to hear you won’t be voting for Obama. He plans on expanding even further, the amount of tax $ going to religious groups.”
Not doubting you but can you document this?