Today on Blogcritics
Home » U.S. Sponsors Discrimination.

U.S. Sponsors Discrimination.

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

More of our democracy and formerly “free” country got flushed down the toilet last week when the House of Republicans voted to allow states to freely discriminate against American citizens on the basis of religion.

That’s right, we can already freely discriminate against gays in this country, now we can add religion to the list of the discriminated.

The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars.

Yay! Free discrimination with no consequences – and the government will even pay you to do it!

That’s right, Head Start Programs that are run by Catholics, now would have the right to refuse employment to anyone who is not Catholic. And the same would hold true for any faith. So what we have here is government funded discrimination. I’d love to see what would happen if a traditional company decided not to hire Christians because they disagreed with their religion – how fast would that company be slapped with lawsuits and lose any form of federal assistance or support?

This is just another case of theocratic policy making – letting the Christians have their cake and f— everyone else. We’ve already seen the separation of church and state go away when Bush & Co. authorized the federal government to allow funds to go to faith-based organizations. Then we had that very enjoyable law that allows doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in treatment or prescribe or dispense medicine to people if they disagree with their lifestyles for religious reasons. Now we have the Equal Opportunity Laws being discarded in favor of hiring along religious lines.

This administration has gone out of its way to spit and piss on every civil right or human right ever awarded and they have gotten a 100% approval rating on their goal of splitting the country along religious lines. America is now the most polarized nation in history that hasn’t started a civil war…yet.

While we focus our attention on wars and hurricanes, our civil liberties are being carted out the back door. The Republicans are acting alarmingly like fascists and the Christians are acting surprisingly like The Taliban – and nobody is saying anything about it.

And while I am deeply troubled that our government has been systematically destroying our country both internationally and domestically, my undiluted ire is reserved for the stupid, lazy, self-centered and non-thinking American sheeple who are being anally raped each day, and who’s only response is “thank you sir, may I have another.”

So from everyone who has not bothered to say anything because it didn’t affect them to those who blindly follow without thinking because someone told them to – I say, the day is fast approaching when no one will speak up for you.

And on that day I will look out upon you from my new home in Canada and laugh as Christians are put in camps for not being Christian enough while others are jailed and robbed of their freedom, money and minds by the very people they selected to protect them. Let the games begin.

This article originally appeared on The Rudicus Report

Edited: GS

Powered by

About Rudicus

  • Josh

    Your a nut. Freedom is the right to hire whomever I want for whatever reason I want. I’m not a racist or against religion, but you dont have a “right” to work anywhere you want to.

  • http://swingbatterbatter.blogspot.com Greg Smyth

    I don’t agree that he’s a nut. You can’t (and nor should you be able to) discriminate on race, so why should religion be any different?

    That said, there are certain jobs where being of a certain persuasion might be necessary or at least preferable. You’re unlikely to make a very good editor of a Christian magazine if you’re not a Christian, for example.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    So apparently you want to feel free to discriminate against people for whatever reason you want. I guess that if you didn’t want to hire diasbled people or gay people or jews or black people or women or people who didn’t like the Red Sox or people who didn’t like your favorite T.V. shows just because you didn;t like them – that would be fine with you.

    Well guess what, if you had actually read the article and not spent all your time on ad hominem attacks and nonsense, you might have realized that the article was about GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP of discrimination.

    So if you have your own private company and do not receive any funds from the federal government then you can feel free to discriminate as much as your war chest to defend against EOE lawsuits will allow, but if you get money from the gov’t, it’s not appropriate and violates everything this country used to stad for. But then you must be one of the “stupid, lazy, self-centered and non-thinking American sheeple” I was talking about.

    Thanks for providing a live example for everyone – I appreciate it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    I’m an atheist and even I think your argument here is ridiculous. Faith based businesses should be allowed to hire whoever they want and exclude whoever they want. In fact, all hiring should be that way. Now, if a church is running a daycare, that operation should NOT be tax exempt even if the church is. Ideally, of course, not even the church should be tax exempt.

    I wonder how much it would help out the deficit if we started taxing churches.

    Dave

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Perhaps I was unclear.

    My concern is not with people discriminating (at least in this post) it’s with the idea that my government that I am forced to pay for with my tax dollars is seeing fit to use that money to organizations that discriminate.

    I don’t think it should be against the law if a private religious company wants to only hire like minded people as long as it doesn’t violate EOE standards (which this does). My point is that by giving these people money and specifically setting up a situation where they are allowed to violate EOE standards is an alarming and frightening thing.

    All of this on top of the idea that somehow a Catholic teacher is more qualified than a muslim teacher because the Catholic church is running the school is beyond ridiculous. And if for some reason these folks are indoctrinating these children into a religion or set of beliefs then not only does that violate church and state laws but that makes the schools private faith-based schools who likewise should not be eligible for governemnt funds.

    It’s the government funding and involvement in these programs that is the problem, folks.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Rudicus, who said the government wasn’t giving grant money and other support to non-Christian religious schools too?

    dave

  • Bob

    I agree with Josh and Dave that the argument is not quite there and that yes, I should be able to hire whomever I want for whatever reason I want. I see your point about government funds being involved, but if I do not hire people who read book A, then you are free to start a business that only hires people who must read book A and get the same funding. I don’t see the right to work anywhere in the Constitution – feel free to point it out if I missed it. It is not that the government is only saying it is going to support the Catholics, it would support anyone – sounds fine with me. Feel free to start the Satan Worshipers school – that is fine by me.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    Nobody said that, but again, that’s not the point. Previous to this administration is was illegal to descriminate on the basis of sex, race or religious affiliation. Also previous to this administration we separation of church and state, which means that the government cannot fund and/or participate in groups, organizations or institutions that promote religion – especially if it is a specific religion.

    This bill violates both of those. Faaith-based groups shouldn’t be getting a penny from the federal government for anything.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    So what everyone seems to be saying is that if I am an early childhood education teacher or an educational administrator and I apply for a job at a school, it should be perfectly ok for the school to hire someone less qualified but Catholic just because the school is run by the Catholic church and I’m a Baptist.

    And by that rationale, the same school should be able to not hire anyone who is a homosexual because that goes against the church according to them. And they would also be able to not hire a woman who had a child out of wedlock, since that would also violate the tenents of their religion.

    Please explain to me how this is any different from not hiring someone because they are black and giving that job to a less qualified white person because they are white.

    It’s called discrimination people, and it’s against the law (or at least it was). And if none of you see any problem with this, I guess the country is in far worse shape than I thought.

    And I want all of you to tell me with a straight face that if I opened up a satanic Head Start program, it would be viewed with the same openness as the Christian Head Start program and would receive the exact same funding and protection from the federal government. Keep dreaming.

  • http://www.thenewagesite.com/ Lawrence Kennon

    It is ok with me. I don’t care if America doesn’t support some absolute vision of political correctness. I don’t care if a Christian organization doesn’t hire someone it doesn’t like, for whatever reason. There are other freedoms too, like a freedom to _not_ associate with some people, and a freedom to be able to say that you think some lifestyles are not the best (whether you’re right, or wrong).

    If these people are helping others then I don’t care if they don’t hire the occasional homosexual, Satanist, or whatever. I just don’t care. Freedom is not an absolute. Freedom is a compromise between the individual and the greater good of all.

    And no, I am not a Christian Fundamentalist (look at my url).

  • TBJ

    I totally see your point, where do I sign up for that Canada-migration-thing?

    I gotta get my satan-loving gay partner and my pedophile-bisexual-dog to come too.

    Seriously, we are living in very crazy times. I would’ve thought 10 years ago that the “future” would’ve brought more peace, brotherhood and equality to all, was I ever so wrong!!

    The future is here, we have a fanatic-christian in power(although I think he is not that conservative to begin with but you gotta please the peeps) and one by one our civil rights are going down the toilet. I just hope it never gets to the point where I am literally afraid to come out of my house during the day just because i am a minority, not-christian, and i am gay..err.wait…

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    The government funds is the only real point. If a church (or any other enterprise) wants to discriminate, they should feel free to do so — UNLESS they receive any form of government funding. Take taxpayer money and you should not be able to discriminate against qualified taxpayers. Period.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>o what everyone seems to be saying is that if I am an early childhood education teacher or an educational administrator and I apply for a job at a school, it should be perfectly ok for the school to hire someone less qualified but Catholic just because the school is run by the Catholic church and I’m a Baptist.< <

    Absolutely.

    >>And by that rationale, the same school should be able to not hire anyone who is a homosexual because that goes against the church according to them. And they would also be able to not hire a woman who had a child out of wedlock, since that would also violate the tenents of their religion.< <

    No question. In fact, many businesses have morals clauses which exclude hiring people who engage in certain types of behavior. This could not be used to reject a homosexual who was circumspect about sexual behavior, but it could certainly rule out a promiscuous homosexual. The key is behavior.

    >>Please explain to me how this is any different from not hiring someone because they are black and giving that job to a less qualified white person because they are white.< <

    It's different because your religion and your sexual behavior are matters of choice and your skin color is not.

    >>It’s called discrimination people, and it’s against the law (or at least it was). And if none of you see any problem with this, I guess the country is in far worse shape than I thought.< <

    Discrimination is not against the law. Discrimination on the basis of race, age, gender or national origin is against the law, because those are all things you have no choice about. You can definitely not hire smokers or baptists or people with body piercings, because those are choices.

    >>And I want all of you to tell me with a straight face that if I opened up a satanic Head Start program, it would be viewed with the same openness as the Christian Head Start program and would receive the exact same funding and protection from the federal government. Keep dreaming.<<

    It certainly should be. The Nation of Islam gets substantial local and federal funding for their programs, and Satanists could do the same. Of course, Satanists would take the money and spend it on drugs and hookers, so they might lose their funding pretty fast.

    Dave

  • TBJ

    Dave,

    Your point is totally nullified by your penchant for generalizations.

    First of all, are you gay? How can you be so certain that “gayness” is a choice? Sure someone can “choose” whether to be a slut or not, and this applies to any orientation. Also, you can “choose” to come out of the closet or not, but you surely know by now how good of a life closeted gay people have, of course, I bet you hide a lot of things from people too and it feels great.

    Now, as to whether being gay is a choice or not, tell me this…how could someone, fully knowing how mistreated and discriminated they will be, still “choose” to be that way? do you think it is easy to have all the requisite teenage traumas PLUS having to deal with people like you? didn’t think so.

    Second of all, you basically assumed that all “satanists” spend their money on booze and hookers, what about all these so-called christians who rape, are pedophiles and basically get arrested on a daily basis? dont you watch the news?

    dont generalize, every person you know is very different from one another, even so-called christians have a thing or two they would like to hide. never generalize, that’s the same thing Hitler did and look at what happened.

  • troll

    he didn’t day orientaion…he said behavior

    troll

  • TBJ

    So how exactly do you define “behavior” and just “being” something?? How is a straight person supposed to “behave” how is a gay person supposed to “behave”?

    I just dont feel all that good that the people in power(i.e. government) have this same frame of mind as this dave person..that is why the world hates us, that is why we are so divided, more so than ever..because people can’t see past their own noses in issues that they know nothing about.

  • http://www.livejournal.com/~silverstarhawk/friends/ Jared

    “Please explain to me how this is any different from not hiring someone because they
    are black and giving that job to a less qualified white person because they are white.

    That happens. It’s called affirmative action. Sadly, it goes the other way, since some of our ancestors were dumb enoug to be racists in the first place. But there’re plenty of instances where a black person is given a job to fulfill a set minority hiring quota or just to send the impression of a diverse hiring policy.

    “First of all, are you gay? How can you be so certain that “gayness” is a choice?

    At the least, you can choose to keep your homosexuality to yourself. That is a choice. Me, personally, I’m relatively certain that homosexuality is a choice, so whatever.

    Last I checked, the basic principal of a democracy is majority rule. And if the majority is Christian, straight, or whatever variable we’re talking about, then that majority is going to have the upper hand in matters such as this. If it bothers you that much, move to Canada. We can use the drop in population.

  • TBJ

    I would love to know how you are so certain of that. Was it that you were gay before and now are in love with a woman? if so, then you are bisexual, plain and simple. Please explain.

    Discrimination is wrong in any way, worst if the government is sponsoring this type of behaviour. wouldn’t you just love it if your tax dollars went to “actual” important issues, say, like “education”?

    I work at a university and the other day a student asked me how to spell ADMINISTRATOR. If that is not a symptom of what is wrong with this country, then I don’t know.

    I just love how Uncle sam does not discriminate in any way when he takes away more than 15% of my hard-earned money bi-weekly, yet if I want something as simple as “equality” he looks the other way..hmm..

  • TBJ

    I would love to know how you are so certain of that. Was it that you were gay before and now are in love with a woman? if so, then you are bisexual, plain and simple. Please explain.

    Discrimination is wrong in any way, worst if the government is sponsoring this type of behaviour. wouldn’t you just love it if your tax dollars went to “actual” important issues, say, like “education”?

    I work at a university and the other day a student asked me how to spell ADMINISTRATOR. If that is not a symptom of what is wrong with this country, then I don’t know.

    I just love how Uncle sam does not discriminate in any way when he takes away more than 15% of my hard-earned money bi-weekly, yet if I want something as simple as “equality” he looks the other way..hmm..

  • Dr. Kurt

    Federally-funded grants for booze and hookers? Sweet!
    Come on, ya’ll, the post was pretty simple & clear: our tax money is now paying for illegal/unconstitutional discrimination. Yet again, Congress stumbles; we can only hope the Supreme Court will do its duty, since the Executive Branch surely won’t. Our founding fathers were brilliant – too bad our Nation today doesn’t measure up…

  • Baronius

    Heh. Rudicus, even McEnroe didn’t dispute every call that went against him.

  • TBJ

    Why should I move to Canada? they are not the ones taking my money.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Your point is totally nullified by your penchant for generalizations.< <

    You might want to work on your penchant for making assumptions rather than reading what I wrote, which was carefully worded and very specific.

    >>First of all, are you gay? How can you be so certain that “gayness” is a choice? Sure someone can “choose” whether to be a slut or not, and this applies to any orientation. Also, you can “choose” to come out of the closet or not, but you surely know by now how good of a life closeted gay people have, of course, I bet you hide a lot of things from people too and it feels great.< <

    I didn't say being gay was a choice. I said that blatantly gay behavior was.

    >>Now, as to whether being gay is a choice or not, tell me this…how could someone, fully knowing how mistreated and discriminated they will be, still “choose” to be that way? do you think it is easy to have all the requisite teenage traumas PLUS having to deal with people like you? didn’t think so.< <

    People like me? You mean people who think being gay is just fine and support gay marriage? Yep, we're the problem for the gay community.

    >>Second of all, you basically assumed that all “satanists” spend their money on booze and hookers, what about all these so-called christians who rape, are pedophiles and basically get arrested on a daily basis? dont you watch the news?<<

    Now this IS an area I have some real expertise in. “Do what you will shall be the whole of the law” – that means lots of drugs and easy women. Then you grow up a bit, get born again and become a Christian minister. I’ve seen it happen.

    So try to read more carefully so you don’t look foolish mischaracterizing what I write, or I’ll send an ex-satanist born again preacher I know over to tongue=lash the gay devils out of you.

    Dave

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Rudicus supports discrimination against religious groups, and suppression of their freedom of association. That’s not right.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    At the least, you can choose to keep your homosexuality to yourself. That is a choice. Me, personally, I’m relatively certain that homosexuality is a choice, so whatever.

    How is it a choice to keep homosexuality to yourself?

    I’m gay and I’m damn sure I didn’t chose this, it has been a very difficult road for me. I wanted a family, I wanted kids, couldn’t have them being gay without an extra 100k on hand. I wanted to be free from violence, attempted murder, and police brutality. I didn’t choose anything put before me. Homosexuality is NOT a choice.

    And how do I keep it to myself? I have a partner, we have a child. What are we supposed to do, not acknowledge our own family? Remain closeted forever? Never show affection so that YOU don’t feel discomfort?

    And Dave, your earlier comments about businesses being able to fire based on ‘homosexual behavior’. What exactly does that mean?

    YOu can put a picture of your spouse on your desk and bring your spouse to an office party and that’s all fine and good. Can I do that too, or for me is that homosexual behavior?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>And Dave, your earlier comments about businesses being able to fire based on ‘homosexual behavior’. What exactly does that mean?< <

    Public displays of affection in general are grounds for dismissal, IMO. Doesn't matter if they're gay or straight, as I think I made clear. If you're boffing in the front lobby you should be fired.

    >>YOu can put a picture of your spouse on your desk and bring your spouse to an office party and that’s all fine and good. Can I do that too, or for me is that homosexual behavior?<<

    No, that’s normal behavior – I hope. The key thing here is the _sexual_ element. If I put a naked picture of my wife on my desk I should be fired. We need to clearly delineate between sexual and non sexual behavior here. Being gay or straight is one thing. Demonstrating your gay or straight sexuality at work is another. And by demonstrating I mean more than just being at a party with a same-sex partner.

    Dave

  • Aidan Maconachy

    Wait a sec … America is discriminating against Americans because if you run a catholic school you can choose to hire only catholics!?? Uhhhh … isn’t that NATURAL?

    This is freedom of choice as far as I’m concerned. Why should the state act like Big Nanny and lay down the rules for schools, businesses or anyone else. I see the latter as way more invasive in terms of personal choice and freedom.

    As far as I’m concerned Hari Krishnas should be able to hire only Hari Krishnas, Muslims only Muslims, a businessman with a certain fetish … only blondes with fishnet tights.

    This growing habit of the the state sticking its nose into private sectors and demanding that people act this way or that, hire this person or that person, have at least 21/2 people on staff with pointy heads etc and generally act in an oppressive INTERFERING fashion (not to mention TAXES) seems much more like discrimatory practice to me.

    If I run a business I want to be able to hire multi-lingual immigrant Afghan sheep farmers if I feel like it.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Thanks Dave, for the clarification. I was pretty sure that was what was meant.

    My thought is that a private group/organization should be able to discriminate to it’s heart’s content. But no federal dollars should go it’s way.

    Notice how those who disagree with you, Rudicus, disagree with the hiring/firing, but little comment is made on the federal funding. Therein is the key.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    In general I agree with the idea that federal funds should not go to organizations which discriminate, yet I think there’s a difference between discrimination in hiring and discrimination in providing services.

    For example, if a catholic foodbank only hires straight catholics, but provides food to anyone regardless of religion or sexual orientation, I think that it should still qualify for federal funds.

    The way I see it the more of that type of work we can take out of the hands of the feds and put in the hands of reliable private charities – especially those based in the communities they serve – the better.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    yet I think there’s a difference between discrimination in hiring and discrimination in providing services.

    I’m having a harder time finding the difference. It’s rare that 100% of federal funding goes solely to those in need. Say a Catholic organization gets 1 million for charity from the government. It disburses (totally making these numbers up) 80% to those in need and keeps 20% to run the business. Well, that 20% of taxpayer dollars, which includes me, went to foster a business that discriminates against me. That shit ain’t right.

    I would love for charity to be taken out of the hands of the government and put in the private sector. But unlike you, I don’t trust the current private sector. I have seen it’s ugly side. It’s there and it’s very real.

    Here’s an article from the Catholic World News. source
    No baptism for children of gay parents.

    That’s the children, mind you, not the gay people themselves. So, in the eyes of the church, the child who would be deemed innocent of sin by their standards is not provided with the saving of the soul.

    And you are going to entrust them to disburse food without bigotry? That’s where we part, Dave. If the Catholic Church does not care about an innocent child’s soul, as they clearly do not, I’m pretty sure they don’t give a damn about their belly.

    No, no, no, the Catholic Church has show n me here that they need NO federal dollars and what the hell, more government regulation prohibiting them from the evil that is their belief system.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    I sincerely hope that everyone is reading all these comments because they clearly demonstrate one of the major problems with the American people.

    Thank you Steve and others for pointing out the obvious – the issue is the federal funding. Religious groups, satanists, techno-pagans or whomever are free to descriminate on their own time in their own place to their hearts content – until they get federal funding to do it. And the worst part is that it was the government that is pushing to set it up.

    And if any of you think for one second that this bill is being put forth as a way to bring equality to anything you are dreaming yet again – it was exclusively put forth so that the Bush Administration could funnel as much money as possible to Christian religious groups – not all religious groups – just like affirmative action, there will be tokens, but the vast majority of the funding will go to Christian based orgs.

    The worst comment to me is this:

    As far as I’m concerned Hari Krishnas should be able to hire only Hari Krishnas, Muslims only Muslims, a businessman with a certain fetish … only blondes with fishnet tights.

    This kind of thinking is the exact same thing that the Conservatives and Bush are pushing – it is creating disunity, segregation and polarization – making this country split itself apart. This does not help America.

    And lets not confuse fair hiring practices and gevernment sponsored discrimination with affirmative action.

    And for all those of you talking about choices – since you are saying religion is a choice like homosexuality – I’m going to wait here while you run out and find me a devout Christian who would be willing to abandon their faith for a job. Go ahead and dig me up one of these people that actually believes the earth was created in 6 days and that Eve was actually made from a rib bone and then see how much of a choice you think they made.

  • RedTard

    I agree. The government needs to clean house and renew equality of all people. We need to cut off all support to indian tribes and revoke their casino monopolies. Direct government organizations give preference on skin color in awarding contracts and jobs. That should certainly be ended as well with the most qualified person receiving the job/contract.

    Certainly government funding of churches should be ended, but while were at it why don’t we take care of the more egregious violations as well.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Steve, the difference is that they are interviewing the people who join their church, ask for baptism for their kids or want a job with them. At the soup kitchen the only qualification is standing in line and if necessary a information-neutral policy can be enforced by law there. Catholic charities as a rule don’t serve only Catholics and don’t ask who you’re having sex with or if you have an extra dad before helping you. And if they DO, then yank any federal funding on the spot.

    Here’s the comparison which might win you over. Think about the sodomy laws. Do you believe that the government has a right to tell you what kind of sex to have in the privacy of your own home? By the same measure, why should the government be able to tell a church who to allow within the privacy of its own staff or congregation? It’s the same thing. So long as their outward behavior is as acceptable to society as yours is with your partner – i.e. not discriminating in public and not having sex in public – it should be none of the government’s business.

    Dave

  • The Searcher

    Amazing to see this has turned into a discussion about gayness!

    Since we’re digressing from the original topic, how does everyone feel about Alberto Gonzalez’ new “obscenity task force”. Now THAT is a blatant example of legislating subjective morality.

  • Shark

    two quick points:

    1) Please replace stealth GOP euphemism “faith-based” for “religion/religious”.

    2) re. Hiring – by the time Bush & Co. get through, religious organizations might be THE ONLY “businesses” hiring in America.

    [Shark heading to Wal-Mart to buy cheap crucifix made in China — and praying to God to forgive him for lying on his next job application.]

    3) GOP Slogan for 2008: “VOTE FOR THE AMERICAN TALIBAN”

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Here’s the comparison which might win you over. Think about the sodomy laws. Do you believe that the government has a right to tell you what kind of sex to have in the privacy of your own home? By the same measure, why should the government be able to tell a church who to allow within the privacy of its own staff or congregation?

    Um because the government gives the church my taxpayer dollars but doesn’t give me taxpayer dollars for my bedroom activities.

    But, I’m not advocating telling a church who to allow in it’s staff or congregation. I said already, let them stew in their own bigotry and hatred to their hearts content.

    It’s the federal funding that is the problem.

    Rudicus, you said:
    it was exclusively put forth so that the Bush Administration could funnel as much money as possible to Christian religious groups

    Ever since Bush’s faith-based initiatives came out, 100% of them have gone to Christian or interfaith ministries. No other religion has received any government funding in faith based initiatives. I saw this on a program on TV called God in Government. (Link Channel). And a large part of that disbursement went to African American churches in inner cities, with a consequence, whether intended or not, of having large amounts of them switch over to Bush in the last election.

    The Democrats lost a large base in their religious folks when the government starting handing out cash to the churches.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Amazing to see this has turned into a discussion about gayness!

    It’s about government funding discrimination, which of course would include gay people.

  • http://jmaximus.blogspot.com John Bil

    Your right to say that these churches shouldn’t be taking federal money if they discriminate based on religion. Religion is the enemy of civilization and needs to be destroyed at all costs. That said, as long as they are NOT taking any federal money they should be able to hire or not hire anybody they want.

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    My sentiments exactly.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>1) Please replace stealth GOP euphemism “faith-based” for “religion/religious”.<<

    Actually, let’s replace both of them with ‘private charity’. How about that?

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Um because the government gives the church my taxpayer dollars but doesn’t give me taxpayer dollars for my bedroom activities.<<

    Not necessarily relevant. They have certainly attempted to legislate your private activities in the past. As for the government giving churches taxpayer dollars, so long as they are given on the basis of the ability of the religious group to provide needed services to the general community, where is the problem?

    Dave

  • http://www.rudicusreport.blogspot.com Rudicus

    This one is easy, the problem is that at best, these organizations are promoting a specific religion which violates church and state separation and at worst are openly discriminating people.

    Under your idea, Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” fame could open a head start program for children and my, your and Steve’s tax dollars could be going to fund a hate group so they could indoctrinate children into their hate group under the guise of religion – if that works for you then super.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m pretty sure that hate-group indoctrination doesn’t actually qualify as a charity under any existing definition. We’re talking about charities which serve the general public in a non-discriminatory way and are run by groups which may have membership restrictions, but don’t actively preach hate. I’m pretty sure that the same government bureaucrats who currently figure out who is and isn’t a charity can tell hate groups from legit groups just as well.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    I’m pretty sure that the same government bureaucrats who currently figure out who is and isn’t a charity can tell hate groups from legit groups just as well.

    Actually, with hate tracking centers like the Southern Poverty Law Center listing the Family Research Institute as a hate group (distantly related to Dobson’s Family stuff), as well as the other thread posted here recently (comment 49 specifically) which shows hate speech by Falwell and Robertson, et. al….

    No, I’m not convinced at all that self-identified Christians who are in political office and dishing out taxpayer money to their faith exclusively, have any concept of what qualifies as a hate group.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Again, Steve. They are NOT dishing out money to their faith exclusively. The Nation of Islam receives considerable government funding for its charity projects. The fact is that most charities in the US are Christian because most religious people in the US are Christian. That doesn’t mean the legislators are showing favoritism.

    And as you point out, with groups like the SPLC tracking the hate groups then making sure only the good guys get money should be child’s play.

    Dave

  • TBJ

    Dave,
    You have all the right in the world to defend your precious government.

    Basically, and to simplify this argument, this is what’s going on:

    I am paying taxes, part of those taxes are used to fund organizations that discriminate against me.

    See anything wrong in that?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>I am paying taxes, part of those taxes are used to fund organizations that discriminate against me. <<

    But that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking only about funding their specific charitable activities, not funding the organization in general.

    Think of it this way. You’re building a building. You need carpentry done. You go out and hire a carpentry company. You don’t need to worry about their hiring practices. They’re a company unto themselves and that’s their business. Same thing here. Think of the private charities as sub-contractors hired by the government to provide specific charitable services on the government’s terms. They aren’t going to be allowed to discriminate in the services they provide, but who they hire is really not any of the government’s business.

    Another example. Let’s say you’re a purchaser for a government agency. You put out a purchase order for 10 computers at low bid. The low bidder happens to be a company owned and run by a religious cult. Does that make any difference in whether or not you buy from them? No. All you care about is that they can provide the computers at the most eompetitive price. You don’t ask who they hire or whether they pray at the coffee machine.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    Again, Steve. They are NOT dishing out money to their faith exclusively.

    There’s one comment from Americans United that would be appropriate here:

    HHS has reported that about 500 groups applied for subsidies through the Compassion Capital Fund, but only 25 received grants. While several faith-based charities received money, all of the religious recipients were affiliated with Christian ministries, most of them evangelical.

    The rest of the article talks about Pat Robertson and his hate speech, but how he got 1.5 million, it talks about how Dare Mighty THings gets 2.2 million and is an ‘overseer’ of the whole faith based mess, but Dare Mighty THings is an evangelical Christian conversion center for inmates.

    While you might dismiss AU as biased, I don’t, rather I see this whole faith based mess as disasterous, trampling on separation of church and state, and all-around government sponsorship of hate and discrimination. So let’s just disagree.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    All I can tell from this is that they’re being pretty selective about who they give money to. If the criteria for that selectivity are reasonable ones then it would be a good thing.

    The faith-based concept COULD be disastrous in practice. It all depends on how it’s managed. As an idea I find it very attractive, nonetheless. And keep in mind that I’m an atheist and I’m saying this. I find the idea of farming out some of the government’s social welfare responsibility to private charity. Anything that reduces the government’s role has to be good, at least in theory.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Steve, I’ve started doing some preliminary research on who the grant money is going to, and I’ve already found a number of secular community groups, and quite a few Jewish groups. So it’s certainly not all evangelicals.

    Dave

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    You’ll need to provide references to ease my mind.

    As an idea I find it very attractive, nonetheless. And keep in mind that I’m an atheist and I’m saying this.

    I don’t think they are out to target atheists so I think we still will have a different perspective.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    But atheists are the next best thing to satanists, aren’t we?

    Anyway, here’s a very short list from a government site. It’s detailed so it’s obvious what the groups are. I’ve got a longer list, but most of the groups on it need to be looked up to figure out exactly what they are.

    Dave

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Why would a muslim family send it’s kid to a Christian based preschool??? Why would a Christian family send it’s kid to a Muslim based preschool???

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “That’s right, we can already freely discriminate against gays…”

    How are gays discriminated in this country???

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Why would a muslim family send it’s kid to a Christian based preschool???

    If there weren’t a Muslim school available, I don’t see a problem with that. Islam holds Chirst in very high regard as a great Prophet and Teacher. As a matter of fact, Islam looks upon Mary in a more respectful way than Baptists.

    Why would a Christian family send it’s kid to a Muslim based preschool???

    Why not? We have much to learn from the teachings of Mohammed (s.a.w.). Understanding and appreciating diversity is what makes this country great. It’s intolerance and closed-mindedness that will rip this civilization apart.

    How are gays discriminated in this country???

    With all due respect, sir, look in the mirror. You are the poster boy for relentless discrimination against gays. And, that’s not a flame or personal insult. It is a fact based on your sage writings.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    First off) a private school is privately owned so they can deny education to anyone they want.

    Second) private schools shouldn’t be getting no government grants. That is why it is a “private” school.

    And I discriminate against gays??? How???

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    How are gays discriminated in this country???

    One example: it’s legal in many states for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In other words, you can be fired for being gay, no matter how well you do your job. Just being gay is enough to get you fired.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    >>Why would a Christian family send it’s kid to a Muslim based preschool???<<

    I’m an atheist and send my kids to a Christian school. I trust my kids to be smart enough to figure out religion for themselves.

    Dave

  • http://gratefuldread.net Natalie Davis

    Indeed. I am not Catholic yet sent my kids to Catholic schools. In fact, there were a couple of Muslim kids in my daughter’s classes.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    >One example: it’s legal in many states for an employer to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In other words, you can be fired for being gay, no matter how well you do your job. Just being gay is enough to get you fired.< For you to be fired for being gay you would have to have been caught in a gay act or let everyone know you were gay. I would fire them too.

    >I’m an atheist and send my kids to a Christian school. I trust my kids to be smart enough to figure out religion for themselves.<

    So why are you so made about the 10 commandments in government areas and saying Under God in schools??? I thought people were smart enough to figure religions for themeselves.

    That is why it is called a CATHOLIC SCHOOL, they only want CATHOLICS there. Private schools can discriminate all they want. It is PRIVATE from the government.