THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

Setanta - Don't play stupid. You know I am not taking offense at your silly hate-on for the Shrub. I took offense at your claim that I am either a liar or naive. Have the balls to stand behind your insults, or better yet, keep the insults to yourself and simply discuss the issues.

Of course, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that you may actually be incapable of doing so. (But please prove me wrong.)

0 Replies

Yeah, Setanta, what's wrong with you (and Lola, and dys, and me and...)?

0 Replies

"There is no logical reason I can think of to assume that workers at a secular agency would be any more qualified than those at one associated with a faith. I suspect there is a bias at play in both your and Setanta's "belief" here." - Scrat

The workers in a government agency or one they sub-contract to have to file an employment application and show qualifications for the job, plus be interviewed. I've know many social workers who were in the federal government programs and they were all screened dilligently for their qualifications. You mean to tell me that the churches are prepared to perform this function? That they won't just hand out money with no consequence of any laws to protect the taxpayer from those who would take advantage? It's true, it's the same problems as when a secular agency is reponsible but I don't believe church folk are really qualified to perform these duties. It's more likely some dillitante housewife who volunteers for these charities in my neighborhood at least. And you don't suppose their political views would influence whether they give out funds, provide clothing and shelter, etc?

What about The Church of Scientology taking money (which they are very good at doing) and recruiting those who ask for their services to make them all "clears?" The whole idea is so ludicrously insane, there are hardly words to describe it.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

The workers in a government agency or one they sub-contract to have to file an employment application and show qualifications for the job, plus be interviewed.

Can you offer me any evidence to suggest that these guidelines are any less stringent for faith-based agencies?

0 Replies

There not.

0 Replies

These people volunteer -- if your suggesting that churches start setting up Human Resource departments and payrolls for all these employees that it is going to cost less, you're fantasizing.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

There not.

Then your comments above meant what, exactly? If faith-based agencies are held to the same standards, you can't reasonably argue that they don't meet the same standards.

0 Replies

Have you read of any such standards in the bill? They aren't there.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

These people volunteer -- if your suggesting that churches start setting up Human Resource departments and payrolls for all these employees that it is going to cost less, you're fantasizing.

Sorry, but lots of faith-based agencies do in fact have professional, paid staff. And if you can cite anything in the law that says that faith-based agencies do not have to meet the same standards IN EVERY WAY, save the waiver on hiring within their faith, please cite it. You can't simply claim it exists and then challenge others to prove you are wrong. You either can support your claim, or you can't. It's that simple.

0 Replies

The standards are not in the Faith Based Initiative. Try and find them. What are these faith based agencies who have professional, paid staffs? I'd like to know who they are.

0 Replies

...save the waiver to hire within their own faith...

There's a Catch 22 that is classic.

0 Replies

the Republican-backed bill would allow religious institutions receiving federal funds for purely secular activities to ignore state and local anti-discrimination policies, the democrat proposed amendment sought to require that where public funds are being dispensed for entirely secular purposes, state and local anti-discrimination policies should be respected.

The rejection of our amendment by the Judiciary Committee Republicans is a serious assault on the rights of state and local governments to set their own anti-discrimination policies, as well as on the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people to receive equal opportunities for employment and service with the tax monies they have paid.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

...save the waiver to hire within their own faith...

There's a Catch 22 that is classic.

This is a clever way of backing away from your claim. Too clever by half, in fact.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

the Republican-backed bill would allow religious institutions receiving federal funds for purely secular activities to ignore state and local anti-discrimination policies, the democrat proposed amendment sought to require that where public funds are being dispensed for entirely secular purposes, state and local anti-discrimination policies should be respected.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea of the feds dictating to state or local governments what they can or can't do. Of course, we wouldn't have to deal with these questions if the feds just stayed out of charity altogether.

Actually, I think I just found a link that disagrees with you here, Dys:

Quote:

What rights do faith-based organizations have under Charitable Choice?

Nondiscrimination: A state may not discriminate on account of a provider's religious character.

Independence: Faith-based organizations retain their independence from federal, state and local governments, including the organizations' control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of their religious beliefs. Faith-based organizations do not have to alter their form of internal governance or remove any religious symbols from their premises.

Employment practices: Faith-based providers may discriminate on a religious basis in the terms and conditions established for their employees, as allowed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, providers remain subject to other local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws.
http://www.in.gov/fssa/faithworks/charitable_choice.html

Am I reading that wrong, or does it state that they must obey state and local laws on the subject?

But none of this goes to the claim LW made and now seems unwilling to support--that faith-based agencies were not being (or going to be) held to the same standards for proficiencies and skills required to carry out the work being contracted.

Oh, and LW, if faith-based groups use purely volunteer staff, why all the hubbub about who they can and can't HIRE? You don't HIRE volunteers. Cool

0 Replies

Been through these discussions before. Will just sit back and watch this one.

0 Replies

The key word being "other" in the above: " However, providers remain subject to other local, state and federal anti-discrimination laws." Sounds like government double-speak. c.i.

0 Replies

The White House has assured religious organizations receiving government funding that they would be allowed to retain an exemption under federal civil-rights laws that allow churches and other heavily religious groups to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion or ideology.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Quite apart from all of this, anyone who would claim that the Shrub's plan for "faith-based initiatives" is intended to get the best bang for the taxpayers buck is either playing fast and loose with the truth, or is hopelessly naive.

You had not at any time in this thread claimed that "faith-based initiatives" will save the taxpayer money, so this was definitely not an insult directed at you. I realize that you would prefer to divert the direction of the argument into an area of allegations of ad hominem rather than actually answer difficult questions, but your accusation here is unfounded. I note that you've not responded to my question as to whether or not you actually do make such a contention. I note that you have not responded to my contention that qualified individuals can apply by bid or grant application without reference to their choice of church. I note that you have not responded to my point that all a church per se is qualified for in the way of expertise is religion, and therefor not an area of government activity. I note that you have not responded to LW's question about the Scientologists. I note . . . well, you ought to get the point. You're attempting to claim you've been personally attacked because the argument is more than you can handle. You're not addressing the issues here, you're trying to make this personal when it has not in fact been personal. This is pretty standard rhetorical technique for you, n'est-ce pas?

0 Replies

Setanta - Looking back, I recognize that I took the proximal location of that statement (and those made with it) and their seeming reference (in other aspects, at least) to my comments as being directed at me specifically. In all candor, I find nothing to prove that inference correct in reading them again, and may well have simply assumed--and wrongly--that you meant those words for me.

If you claim that you did not, then I will take you at your word, and apologize for taking offense where none was intended.

As to what points I have or have not responded to. I took you point for point in this response http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=281435#281435 above, so your pretense that I am running from your arguments is a non-starter. I'm happy to get back on topic if you can keep it on topic. Thanks.

0 Replies

THE VEXED QUESTION OF RELIGION

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know