Under what circumstances, if any, should faith-based organizations which receive government funds be allowed to refuse to serve clients or refuse to hire employees on the basis of religion?
I think the question is improperly worded- "should faith based organizations EVER be allowed to recieve goverment funds"- the answer is not only "NO" but "I told you so" NO-
I have to say, I was just waiting for it- having grown up in a Christian fundamentalist house, were strict adherence to the bible was commanded- It was only a matter of time before one of these sects decided that the other sect was a "heretic" LOL- In my upbringing, the Catholic church was ALWAYS refered to as the "whore of babylon" - and have great animosity towards the Catholic church- DESPITE any public contradictions here.
I have pointed out many times the similarity in Christian fundamentalist thinking and behavior and Islamic fundamentalist sects like Wahibism- and here is one that is GLARINGLY true- what they say to thier congregations and thier public statements are sometimes very different things.
GW has the tiger by the tail here now LOL- it is only a matter of time before these "faith based" groups start demanding payment for thier support- they have been making very large payments since the 1980 election of Reagan- and now, that they wholly own the republican party- it is only a matter of time before they start demanding subserviance towards Christianity in every walk of life- indeed, we have already seen it- Judge Roy Moore's 10 commandments is one example- faith based initiatives are another.
Here is where the initial idea of "seperation of church and state" started- this issue, right here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html
THE CHURCH-STATE DEBATE: MASSACHUSETTS
After independence the American states were obliged to write constitutions establishing how each would be governed. In no place was the process more difficult than in Massachusetts. For three years, from 1778 to 1780, the political energies of the state were absorbed in drafting a charter of government that the voters would accept. A constitution prepared in 1778 was decisively defeated in a public referendum. A new convention convened in 1779 to make another attempt at writing an acceptable draft.
One of the most contentious issues was whether the state would support religion financially. Advocating such a policy--on the grounds that religion was necessary for public happiness, prosperity, and order--were the ministers and most members of the Congregational Church, which had been established, and hence had received public financial support, during the colonial period. The Baptists, who had grown strong since the Great Awakening, tenaciously adhered to their ancient conviction that churches should receive no support from the state. They believed that the Divine Truth, having been freely received, should be freely given by Gospel ministers.
The Constitutional Convention chose to act as nursing fathers of the church and included in the draft constitution submitted to the voters the famous Article Three, which authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice. Despite substantial doubt that Article Three had been approved by the required two thirds of the voters, in 1780 Massachusetts authorities declared it and the rest of the state constitution to have been duly adopted.
As you can see- there is not much difference from the practise then, and what GW and corp want to do today- tax folks to support the church financially.