Faith-Based Hiring: Discrimination or Discernment?

[Ethos]

According to the Department of Justice, there are more than 20,000 gangs and 1 million gang members in the U.S. These gangs operate in all states; they’re active in our inner cities, our suburbs, small towns, and even rural areas.

Given the scope of the problem, the federal government is prepared to work with anyone who can help, including faith-based groups like World Vision.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention proposed giving World Vision a $1.5 million grant to create an anti-gang initiative in New York and Washington, DC.

Given World Vision’s track record in helping people in need around the world, and given also the success of Christian groups like Prison Fellowship—we’ve had peer-reviewed studies that show that we’re effective in reducing recidivism dramatically—this seems like a very good fit.

The only problem is that World Vision, like other Christian groups, insists on hiring, well, Christians. It only hires those who “who agree and accept its Statement of Faith and/or the Apostles’ Creed.” At the same time, Congress has barred “discrimination by federal grant recipients.”

World Vision argued that the application of that ban to its hiring practices would constitute a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of their faith. It claimed that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibited imposing such a burden and asked for a waiver in this one area.


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11584096/

It's probably surprising to know that I support federal grant money in support of religiously-based programs (like this one). My one objection to such programs is if that money is in fact used to hire people based on discriminatory practices (like this one).

The commentary's conclusion is to support that discrimination because doing otherwise impacts the community in a negative way. That's a fine position to have, but I don't believe there is a justification here for breaking federal law. If a religious organization cannot find its way to hiring qualified people regardless of their personal faith, they should do so with non-federal money.

Ethos

[eugene40]

Well that is good. I mean you can't be a good person and be non religious. What a crock. Yank their funding.

[Winnb]

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11584096/

It's probably surprising to know that I support federal grant money in support of religiously-based programs (like this one). My one objection to such programs is if that money is in fact used to hire people based on discriminatory practices (like this one).

The commentary's conclusion is to support that discrimination because doing otherwise impacts the community in a negative way. That's a fine position to have, but I don't believe there is a justification here for breaking federal law. If a religious organization cannot find its way to hiring qualified people regardless of their personal faith, they should do so with non-federal money.

Ethos

They should not receive one penny of my tax money. They admit to being faith based, and they admit to discriminatory hiring practices.

No moolah.

[Ethos]

They should not receive one penny of my tax money. They admit to being faith based, and they admit to discriminatory hiring practices.

No moolah.

Except one act is illegal and the other is not.

You may not like the legal use of your tax money, but I don't think you want to go down the road of saying any use you disagree with should be prohibited - simply because it's "your" money.

Ethos

[Winnb]

Except one act is illegal and the other is not.

You may not like the legal use of your tax money, but I don't think you want to go down the road of saying any use you disagree with should be prohibited - simply because it's "your" money.

Ethos

Oh I agree. If I could stop the use of my tax money for any thing I didn't like... well I'd be a happier camper. And I realize that would allow everyone else to do the same.

But these folks are hiring employees (or not hiring actually) based on their religious affiliation.

I understand they do a tremendous amount of good in the world. And they can continue to do so. With their own money. :)

[Ethos]

Oh I agree. If I could stop the use of my tax money for any thing I didn't like... well I'd be a happier camper. And I realize that would allow everyone else to do the same.

But these folks are hiring employees (or not hiring actually) based on their religious affiliation.

I understand they do a tremendous amount of good in the world. And they can continue to do so. With their own money. :)

Well you'll notice I agree so far as hiring discrimination is concerned. Luckily there is a federal law to prevent such.

If that law did not exist, neither of us would have much more than our own opinions to stand on.

Ethos

[Groucho]

Since they are a religious institution, they can hire people based on their religious belief. It's kind of a work requirement...

However, when they are doing non-religious but still charitable work, then if they discriminate, I'd say there would be a problem. Who cares if the guy who washes dishes in the soup kitchen belongs to your religion or not?

[Ethos]

Who cares if the guy who washes dishes in the soup kitchen belongs to your religion or not?

That depends on whether you would want to eat off a plate washed by a non-believer.

Meanwhile it's not that a religious institution hires based on an applicant's religion, but that they are hiring people based on that applicant's religion using federal funding.

[Democritus]

That depends on whether you would want to eat off a plate washed by a non-believer.

Meanwhile it's not that a religious institution hires based on an applicant's religion, but that they are hiring people based on that applicant's religion using federal funding.

Normally I'd agree, but I think we need to take an objective view here. Gangs are still a problem in nearly every city. Here we have an organization that is apparently effective at treating that problem. They have a method that works when most methods don't. We need to be careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. We have a choice between allowing discrimination or allowing young adults to die.

[Ethos]

Normally I'd agree, but I think we need to take an objective view here. Gangs are still a problem in nearly every city. Here we have an organization that is apparently effective at treating that problem. They have a method that works when most methods don't. We need to be careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. We have a choice between allowing discrimination or allowing young adults to die.

Objectively there is a law being broken and you are allowing that by saying the ends justify the means. The problem here is "ends justiying means" arguments rarely remain objective in nature.

If there weren't a federal law on the books, I might (stress might) be inclined to agree.

Ethos

[eugene40]

Normally I'd agree, but I think we need to take an objective view here. Gangs are still a problem in nearly every city. Here we have an organization that is apparently effective at treating that problem. They have a method that works when most methods don't. We need to be careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water. We have a choice between allowing discrimination or allowing young adults to die.

But is that replacing one stigma with another. Don't hate your rival gangs based on irrational thoughts and rules because we are all "gods" children. Well except for these folks we won't let them work here. It is ok if you don't like them, "god understands"

[Winnb]

We have a choice between allowing discrimination or allowing young adults to die.

No we don't. It's not a zero sum situation. We have other choices.

We can continue to find ways to stop gang violence without giving money to people that discriminate in their hiring choices based on religion.

Allowing religious discrimination is just as bad as racial/age/gender discrimination.

No tax money for those clowns. I don't care how much good they do.

[Democritus]

Objectively there is a law being broken and you are allowing that by saying the ends justify the means. The problem here is "ends justiying means" arguments rarely remain objective in nature.

If there weren't a federal law on the books, I might (stress might) be inclined to agree.

Ethos

I think the problem is that we have conflicting laws. Either we give money to faith-based initiatives or we don't. We can't give them money and then demand that they stop being based on faith. We're talking about a problem that secular groups have hit their limit at solving. Ultimately we need to decide whether freedom from religion is more important than making a difference in the gang problem. As long as the government isn't discriminating against the groups applying for those grants based on their faith I'm willing to accept that it is for the greater good.

[Ethos]

I think the problem is that we have conflicting laws. Either we give money to faith-based initiatives or we don't. We can't give them money and then demand that they stop being based on faith.

Actually that's the primary restriction on accepting federal monies when you're a religious organization - you do so knowing and following certain rules. I personally don't believe changing the restrictions around who you hire is necessarily "stopping" your faith-based system... however if this is truly going to be a make or break problem, then you do not accept the funding. It's that simple.



We're talking about a problem that secular groups have hit their limit at solving. Ultimately we need to decide whether freedom from religion is more important than making a difference in the gang problem. As long as the government isn't discriminating against the groups applying for those grants based on their faith I'm willing to accept that it is for the greater good.

Eventually this is why I feel federal tax dollars given to religious organizations are a good investment. This is why I support these programs. However I will not support blatant prejudice in hiring for those programs. If an individual is qualified for a job, they should get it regardless of their personal faith. (At the same time they should refrain from complaining if people are trying to convert them.)

Does that mean some people won't be helped? I hope not. I hope a church would be willing to set aside their discriminatory hiring doctrines in this narrow set of circumstances in order to serve the greater good, as you aptly put it.

Ethos

[GWLush]

If they have faith why would they care who they hire?

[Ethos]

If they have faith why would they care who they hire?

Maybe faith is cumulative within a group. If one person is +100 on faith and another is -20, the organization as a whole ends up with +80.

I think you need a +94 to get into Heaven.

Ethos

[Democritus]

Actually that's the primary restriction on accepting federal monies when you're a religious organization - you do so knowing and following certain rules. I personally don't believe changing the restrictions around who you hire is necessarily "stopping" your faith-based system... however if this is truly going to be a make or break problem, then you do not accept the funding. It's that simple.




Eventually this is why I feel federal tax dollars given to religious organizations are a good investment. This is why I support these programs. However I will not support blatant prejudice in hiring for those programs. If an individual is qualified for a job, they should get it regardless of their personal faith. (At the same time they should refrain from complaining if people are trying to convert them.)

Does that mean some people won't be helped? I hope not. I hope a church would be willing to set aside their discriminatory hiring doctrines in this narrow set of circumstances in order to serve the greater good, as you aptly put it.

Ethos

And, in general, I agree. Faith isn't really a requirement for menial labor. That said, I'm sure some of their positions do have a very significant faith component. It would be kind of silly for them to hire an atheist as a priest.

I guess the article you posted sums up my opinion as well or better than I ever could.

Well, these and other critics are putting their vision of church and state ahead of actually helping people or serving the common good.

World Vision feeds, clothes, shelters, and provides medical care to poor people all around the world. They are among the first on the ground whenever disaster strikes. Why? Because of their faith. Likewise, their faith is why other groups build homes, minister to prisoners, and feed the hungry, regardless of race, color or creed.

Insisting that they hire people who don’t share their faith is asking them to cut themselves off from what motivates their efforts and makes them effective.

The obvious, if difficult, answer is for Christian organizations to refuse government money. Prison Fellowship, for example, accepts no federal funds. But there’s no reason to think that the problem will then go away. The anti-religion fanatics will next seek to strip Christian non-profits of their tax exempt status—and even access to those in need of our help—in order to pressure us and make religion a purely private matter.

In the end, the biggest loser will be the common good, as people who need help don’t get it, which is the cruelest kind of discrimination of all.

[serenity]

Frankly, it's a discrimination I can live with. I don't much care for it, but teh good they do must be taken into account.

There's a troubling slippery-slope argument that can be made; I understand that. The thing is, I'm opposed to the IDEA that I am accepting here. I'm just willing to make an exception in this case.

But until more non-religious groups step up to the plate...well, there it is, I guess.

[Eddie]

At least these groups appear to be legitimate. We`ve had examples when our government purchased services offered by organisations run by the scientology church... :eek:

[serenity]

Ah, the good old Scientologists. :)

I think they might be clinically insane.

[MikeD4o7]

Faith based groups shouldn't be given public funding, period.

[steveksux]

Well you'll notice I agree so far as hiring discrimination is concerned. Luckily there is a federal law to prevent such.

If that law did not exist, neither of us would have much more than our own opinions to stand on.

Ethos
That wouldn't be one of those laws passed by activist judges instead of the legislature, would it???

Randy