H.R. 27 and Religious Discrimination

[Partha]

Below is the link to H.R. 27.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.+27:

The text in Section 127 is quite clear.

Section 188(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2931(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:

`(2) PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION REGARDING PARTICIPATION, BENEFITS, AND EMPLOYMENT-

`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with any such program or activity because of race, color, religion, sex, (except as otherwise permitted under title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972), national origin, age, disability, or political affiliation.

`(B) EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a recipient of financial assistance under this title that is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities Such recipients shall comply with the other requirements contained in subparagraph (A).'.

So, in other words, it's legal for churches and faith based companies to take taxpayer money and discriminate against nonbelievers without penalty if this becomes law.

“We do not impose any religion; we welcome all religions"

Sure, ya do. George. Sure ya do.

[Aabe]

I guess to know that, we need to know if ANY other religions, like buddists or islamists or ect. Are using vouchers for their own faith based schools. Then we need to have a percentage breakdown of that religion in the population, finally you would need to adjust for the length of time the religion has been in this country. Catholics probably have been establishing schools before our country was formed for example.

Looking at the raw numbers of "christian based" schools versus those of other religions is a lie without the benchmarks.

[Arathena]

So, in other words, it's legal for churches and faith based companies to take taxpayer money and discriminate against nonbelievers without penalty if this becomes law.

“We do not impose any religion; we welcome all religions"

Sure, ya do. George. Sure ya do.

So, you would force, say, a Baptist Church not to reject the application of, oh, a Satanist for a minister position on grounds of religion?

[Relbeek Einre]

How about the refusal by a Baptist public relations group to hire a Jewish secretary?

[Arathena]

I don't see much of a problem with that, either, if the Baptists feel that her religion will get in the way of her performing the job in an acceptable manner.

[Relbeek Einre]

I don't either, really... unless the group is accepting government money.

Then I have a problem with it.

[Aabe]

Beek guess thats where we differ. My church probably wont sponsor any schools. I really dont care is islamic schools or cathic schools sprout forth in abundance ( as long as they dont break any laws ). You call it governement money, but if the people werent taxed for it in the beginning and had it available to spend anyway, whats the difference?

[Relbeek Einre]

Who says it's necessarily schools?

And if, as you say, no government money goes into schools in particular, that means a family below the poverty line will receive no vouchers, since they pay no taxes, thus defeating the purported purpose of vouchers.

[Aquinas]

The law is fairly clear in this area. Any employer is allowed to discriminate against any candidate of a protected class (religion, race, gender etc…) who does not meet what is commonly referred to as a "BFOQ." That is a: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. This is a pretty high standard, i.e. being a woman has been ruled to not be a BFOQ for to be a server at Hooters. A religious institution employer may discriminate on the basis of religion for any position that requires the employee to be a believer- i.e. pastor, elder etc... Secretaries, janitors, or any position of the like cannot legally be reserved for believers.

[SicTimMitchell]

Discrimination happens in the entertainment industry all the time, and rightfully so.

Abe Vigoda can't sue because he didn't get the lead in "Fat Albert." (Although I, for one, would have been first in line at the box office.)

[Eidolon Faer]

Okay...first of all, what religious institutions are getting taxpayer money? It helps a bit to know what we're talking about.

Secondly, what's to stop a competing religion from starting their own taxpayer-funded group to provide a similar service...

For example, if you can't get work at the Baptist parochial school, you can go to the Mormon one, the Satanist one, or the Militantly Athiest one...and if you like crosses hanging upside down in buckets of urine, I daresay you'll have an advantage, since you can find work at either of the latter two.

Besides, given the sad state of affairs in many public schools, I can think of quite a few parents who'd be willing to convert to Shintoism if it meant their kid would be able to read, write, and balance a checkbook by the time he graduated.

[jookkor]

er wasnt the crosses in urine guy catholic?

[Torakus]

I am completely confused by this HR. The text added, doesn't even seem to apply to the law it is being inserted in.

By the way, this only effects USC 2931 (Workforce Investment Act of 98). It effects Job Corps type programs that are federally funded.

What I find funny is it basically says religous organizations who receive federal money under this Act are exempt from discrimination rules. Then follows by saying they are not elligible for federal funds:

(3) Prohibition on assistance for facilities for sectarian
instruction or religious worship
Participants shall not be employed under this chapter to carry
out the construction, operation, or maintenance of any part of
any facility that is used or to be used for sectarian instruction
or as a place for religious worship (except with respect to the
maintenance of a facility that is not primarily or inherently
devoted to sectarian instruction or religious worship, in a case
in which the organization operating the facility is part of a
program or activity providing services to participants).

The best I can come up with, is that this new wording applies completely to religous based Job Corps type programs that receive federal funding. Basically saying when they go out looking for people out of work, who they will employ in the program, they don't have to accept applications from people of other religions or denominations. Since the people doing the placement would neccissarily work for the church itself, the church receives no monies for them.

I don't think this is half as scary as Democrats are trying to make it look. I don't know if it is right or not. The biggest question is, do you want these very good social assistance programs that are administered by religous organization to go away over their ability to select which out of work people they will assist?

Torakus

[Partha]

My biggest question is, do you want to turn over social assistance programs to folks who can turn you down because of religion?

[Torakus]

Partha,

I don't think that is a question at all. Of course it is not reasonable to do that. But I think the federal government has to balance it with the realization that these religion based organizations are doing something that is in keeping with the spirit of the Act, they are doing it in good faith, and it is having a positive impact on the communities in which they operate. Stripping them of federal funding because they choose not to actively recruit people outside their faith for participation in these programs, would be counter productive. Its not like we are talking about federal funds that are being abused. If that were the case, there is language in the law to deal with it. They have to meet a fairly stringent set of criteria to qualify for the funding anyway.

Tora

[Partha]

Stripping them of federal funding because they choose not to actively recruit people outside their faith for participation in these programs, would be counter productive.

If they can't offer their employment to all Americans, why should they get tax dollars? It's not only Christians that pay taxes, you know.

[Relbeek Einre]

I'm not interested, as an agnostic, in financially supporting programs or organizations specific to particular faiths.

If it's like Catholic Charities, who give to anyone, that's another issue, of course.

[Torakus]

I don't think you get what this amendment to the code is for.

These organizations are not out pounding the ground to find people to include in these job training programs. They are programs that are offered through churches that are offered to members of the church. Its a way of helping their own.

Even if you both are so callous as to not recognize it, the federal government does recognize that they are providing a good service to the community and that they can only do so if they are shielded from frivolous litigation based.

Take your blinders off. Not everything religous is bad. Next thing Partha will be calling for an end to the job corps because a large part of the work they do is trash removal and other dirty grunt work on military bases. ZOMG job corps supporting the Bush's evil military machine.

Tora

[Relbeek Einre]

Torakus, don't you start misrepresenting me too.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm not interested, as an agnostic, in financially supporting programs or organizations specific to particular faiths.

If it's like Catholic Charities, who give to anyone, that's another issue, of course.

But you have no issue with programs that use government funds to promote jobs for people of a particular race or particular gender?