http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/obama.faith.based/index.html if you don’t know already.
It’s an interesting issue. We all know discrimination is bad, but at a certain level jobs require certain things. You need a teaching credential to teach in public schools; you need to know how a computer works to head up an IT department. But should religion be one of those requirements if the job in question is for a faith-based charity?
On the surface, I think they nailed it in ‘64: yes, a faith-based charitable organization is perfectly within its rights to only hire applicants of a matching faith. I mean, nondiscrimination is one thing, but should churches be forced to hire Jewish ministers (or priests, if that’s your thing) because to do otherwise would be discriminatory? Obviously not. And I’m fine with faith-based charities doing likewise.
I do have a caveat to that, though: if CNN isn’t making up that stuff about organizations using that clause to discriminate against LGBTQ hirings, then a crackdown needs to go down and fast. Religious hiring practices are one thing, but your religion being prejudicial isn’t an excuse to turn away members of your own faith and claim that they’re a different one. You want fiath-based hiring practices, fine, but it’s not an excuse to be homophobic.
All that said, I actually think that there are more important discrimination practices than faith-based that need a long, hard look. Ageism is one, as is cultural discrimination against certain names. (Note that I’m not talking about LGBTQ discrimination as less important than these; it’s not.)
I have not the slightest problem with faith-based organizations hiring based on faith. That’s, um, how it works.
But the fact remains that the FBI bridges the gap between separation of church and state by giving the church money. The state can thus choose to give only to organizations with nondiscriminatory hiring policies.
Faith-based organizations don’t HAVE to take the money. No one is saying that all faith-based organizations must be nondiscriminatory–’64 ensures that. But it’s like with public colleges: the government that gives the money has a responsibility to ensure that it conforms to federal policy on pain of withdrawing the funds. If the organization doesn’t like that, then they just have to not-take federal funds.
Put another way, it’s like Bush’s stem-cell research initiative: he didn’t say that you CAN’T do stem cell research. Only that you don’t get federal money for it. It’s the government’s prerogative to decide how its money is spent as long as it does not conflict with existing federal law (for instance, if it gave money only to Catholic organizations).
I hope Obama lives up to his campaign commitment on this one.
Comment by Chai — February 5, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
It doesn’t violate the Establishment clause if federal funds go to ALL faiths.
Comment by tsuyoshikentsu — February 5, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
Which is why the FBI is allowed to exist in the first place. Your point?
Comment by Chai — February 5, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
That as long as the FBI isn’t favoring one religion’s charities over the other, it doesn’t matter if they hire their workers based on religion.
Comment by tsuyoshikentsu — February 5, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
I don’t see how that follows. This has nothing to do with the Establishment clause.
Comment by Chai — February 5, 2009 @ 3:37 pm