I'm not terribly interested in the Faith Base Initiative topic, particularly since it doesn't have a big impact on Foreign Affairs.
I will say that a legitimate concern over F.B.I. partnerships with government is that they are/can be positioned to take over existing secular service delivery, and in doing so, all sorts of thorny issues tend to crop up, particularly so because F.B.I. funded programs enjoy a peculiar immunity from many hiring discrimination laws.
One case that comes to mind is the story at "Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children" -- a big issue several years ago. KBHC provides significant social services in that state, and is largely funded by government. An example issue was sparked by the firing of a lesbian youth counselor. Long story short - KBHC won in court - so in effect federal funds are going to an organization which practices hiring discrimination.
The rednecks out there, the less than truly Christian, will say "so what".
And I say - how many red-neck dont-care if-a-lesbo-gets-fired folks know a single mother with children born out of wedlock. How many Catholics know divorced "catholics" who haven't obtained a religious divorce? How many know people that they would not hire if only they had an excuse? Just roll your objection into religion and you can get away with all the discrimination you desire, if you are running a F.B.I. funded program.
Can't happen? Of course it can.
Do you happen to be a skilled professional in a field in need... but the wrong religion? Or maybe just the wrong flavour of religion (hey we don't want no Anglican's here at XYZ Mission...)
Late in 2001, Alan Yorker applied for a job at the United Methodist Children's Home in Decatur, Ga., a facility that provides services for youngsters in foster care. The home receives 40 percent of its budget from Georgia taxpayers.
Yorker is a well-regarded psychotherapist, but he was quickly shown the door. Why? The directors of the facility had found out he is Jewish. They were blunt: No Jews would be hired.
kansas.com
Discrimination, enshrined in law. Lovely.
Religious organizations have long been exempted from the provision in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that forbids religious discrimination by employers, on the grounds that they would otherwise be forced to act against their beliefs when hiring personnel. But starting in 1996, Congress began passing "Charitable Choice" legislation allowing religious organizations to discriminate while accepting public funds for welfare-to-work and, more recently, drug-treatment programs. And although criticism is mounting, supporters of faith-based initiatives are attaching similar provisions to a host of additional social programs, from crime prevention to hunger relief to housing grants. Recently on "Face the Nation," Stephen Goldsmith, a White House adviser, explained that such organizations will indeed be allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, but only "on the basis of religion."
What Goldsmith did not say is that religion can often bleed into other categories, like gender, sexual orientation and race. "If you can discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't take much imagination to discriminate in other ways," said Congressman Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia. Indeed, several courts have ruled that the Title VII exemption would allow Christian schools to fire female teachers who give birth out of wedlock. Others have determined that religious institutions can refuse to hire applicants whose views on abortion differ from theirs.
nytimes.com
Foreign affairs link: mistaking his (Bush's) will for His will seems to be a trademark for this administration, in domestic and foreign policy affairs. |
