This just makes my blood boil:

Adoption Agency Rejects Catholic Couples

The very first paragraph says it all:



(bold added for emphasis)

The state putting out license plates dealing with controversial political issues like abortion is a bad idea anyway, but this really takes the cake. This shows my problem with state/church entaglement in general. I hope this brings this issue to the attention of people who might not worry about government-funded "faith-based" organizations discriminating against non-Christians; now we have such organizations discriminating against other sects of Christians.

To be debated:

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?

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?

None whatsoever. This is also from the article:


The agency's website says all Bethany staff and adoptive applicants agree with the faith statement, which describes belief in the Christian Church and the Scriptures It does not refer to any specific branches of Christianity.

Anybody notice anything else wrong with this?

What about non-Christian religions? You know, like say for example Jewish? Or Native American? Hows about maybe Scientologists or Quakers? Jehovah Witnesses? Zoroastrians? Buddhists and Hindus too, and might I add Muslims?

This goes back to the old religious persecution that protestant faiths ran away from, then started right back up in the pre-US colonies. What is strange about this is the complete lack of persecution awareness from Bethany Christian Services, the outfit that the article focuses upon. What, just because we take your money and deliver no services for it, what's wrong with that?

It is called theft. There's a commandment about theft. Read your statue on the courthouse lawn, will yah?

Oh, but that's okay because, like, we outnumber all those other religions.

No, that is not okay. It is still theft, and it is still the persecution of others. This is morally and legally wrong, I don't care what church or what scripture is worshipped.

Edit addition: I'm expecting an argument that because the tax is on license tags, and driving is a privilege (not a right), and because you don't actually have to drive (it's a choice), that this is okay. I'm expecting this because it seems to be a common way of arguing these days.

Guess the same argument could be made for the income tax: no right to job, don't have to work a job, and so on.

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.

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?

NEVER, since government funded organizations should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, ethnicity, etc.

However, before we rush to summary judgement, we might need to know more about this "Choose Life" license plate program that provided the funds to this Christian adoption agency. Apparently, the group behind it is a non-profit IRC 501©(3) organization and donations to it are tax deductible; they successfully lobbied a number of states into allowing the sale of another speciality license plate tag, the "Choose Life" tag, the proceeds of which are used to fund and support adoption programs. How do these sorts of State license plate programs work? Does the State pick up all the costs and the regular license plate fees go to the program instead of the State treasury? Or is it arranged such that the State gets its usual fee, but the portion of the fee above and beyond the sale price and manufacture cost of ordinary/routine license plates get diverted to programs like Choose Life? Hence there is no cost to the State, and it is private individuals generating interest in having such plates beyond ordinary State plates? I've seen lots of other speciality plates on the road when I've travelled that supported other causes like wildlife preservation and others. Does anyone here have any information on how these programs work?

First off, I think it is absurd that the adoption agency refused to let the Catholic couple adopt. But the question is:

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 relevant question is whether the faith based organization is truly an arm of the government. I don't believe that any type of government fund or benefit necessarily transforms a faith based organization into an arm of the state. We have to balance alot of factors: is the organization funded completely or mostly by the state? does the organization have a monopoly over the service it provides?

It sounds like in this case, the organization gets some funds from the license plate program that obviously has a connection to the state. But I don't think that makes it an arm of the government.

Faith based organizations have the potential to provide valuable services to the community. We can't force them to go against their "mission" if the government connection is only indirect or tenuous.

This reminds me of the Catholic charity that closed down rather than provide birth control as part of its prescription drug benefit to its employees. It was a true loss to the community. Sometimes, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

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?[/quote]

Let's start with the problem's roots. This is exactly the can of worms many of us feared would be opened and will be repeatedly reopened if faith based organizations receive the massive funding Bush has suggested. Maybe we should take this as a warning against expanding funding for faith based charitable organizations.

Personally, I think public organizations should be publicly funded and private and religious organizations privately financed.

That said, (since it's already happening) I agree with Azure-Citizen that religion should never be a considered in determining the services and/or hiring mentioned in the question.

Allowing a religious organization of any kind to have one thin dime of goverment money for thier evangelizing is absurd- but hey, here we are-

What you are suggesting goes right back to my quote:

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.

This is precisely the kind of thing Thomas Jefforson was advocating against in Virginia when he coined the phrase "a wall of seperation between church and state"