Church-state Groups Slam Obama On Hiring Issue

By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service

WASHINGTON (RNS) President Obama's status-quo stance on the controversial issue of faith-based hiring has drawn criticism from atheists and church-state watchdogs.

Responding to an atheist at a town hall last week at the University of Maryland, College Park, the president discussed whether religious groups receiving government funds should be permitted to make religion-related hiring decisions.

"I think that the balance we've tried to strike is to say that ... if you have set up a nonprofit that is disassociated from your core religious functions and is out there in the public doing all kinds of work, then you have to abide generally with the nondiscrimination hiring practices," he said Friday (July 22).

"If, on the other hand, it is closer to your core functions as a synagogue or a mosque or a church, then there may be more leeway for you to hire somebody who is a believer of that particular religious faith."

The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, called Obama's response "a departure from the opposition to such discrimination he unequivocally stated while on the campaign trail" in 2008.

The person who questioned the president, Amanda Knief of the Secular Coalition for America, also criticized Obama's comment.

"Unfortunately, the president didn't address the most egregious aspect of this policy -- that religious discrimination is occurring on the taxpayer's dime," she said.

A coalition of two dozen leaders who support the current policy recently sent a letter to Obama asking him to retain it.

Stanley Carlson-Thies of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, one of the signatories, was pleased with the president's defense of some faith-based hiring.

"That's allowed government partnerships with religious groups to flourish, for the good of those served and the good of our society," he said.

Comments

[tenaxproposit]

04:10 PM on 07/27/2011

Religious orgs should never have been tax free to begin with. How else are we going to be able to pay for the education needed to counter their viral ignorance.

[Lon]

03:41 PM on 07/27/2011

To evaluate Obama's comment it would help to know what kinds of hiring we are talking about. It seems to be silly to argue that a Catholic group that performs a social service should not be eligible for funding because they insist on hiring only Catholics to serve as priests. For some purposes religious based hiring is obviously sensible.

In other places there is no reason why a function could only be performed by a Catholic. So Obama's basic claim is obviously reasonable. But we don't fund the sermons given by churches, so it would be useful to know what kinds of cases this really applies to. I am assuming here that the point is to be offended only if something offensive is going on. If the hope is to find reasons to be offended, then I guess we have enough information.

[dirtdoc4]

03:20 PM on 07/27/2011

Only in the U.S. could a statement from a religous organization have a presumed influence on politics. Sad...

[SoapboxKing]

02:03 PM on 07/27/2011

Actually, since this money is intended to help the poor and needy and others such issues..
and since its being given out to many churches,faiths etc...
its actually leading to a massive duplication of effort at massive extra cost to the tax payer.

[NunyaBus99]

01:19 PM on 07/27/2011

If religious organizations feel the need to insert themselves into the political process they all should lose tax exempt status.

If a religious organization wants to discriminate hiring based on religion or even sexual orientation then they should not be allowed to receive tax payer money. Tax payers that want to donate directly to their religious organization, go for it.

Otherwise, don't discriminate in hiring practices. (although i would question why anyone would want to work for them if they are not religious and does not subscribe to its archaic persecution of people that are not like them)

[DangerousTalk]

01:15 PM on 07/27/2011

Can;t these churches just pray to their deity of choice for the funds? Why do they want me to pay for their religious public relations with my tax dollars?

[buggeroffyou666]

03:01 PM on 07/27/2011

God....can create a universe, cant balance a checkbook.
Guess theist shouldn't feel bad that prayers aren't answered. Moving mountains cost money.

[Lon]

03:41 PM on 07/27/2011

Since most churches do not think that God pays money for prayer, this does not seem to be a sensible suggestion.

[Bryce Miller]

12:53 PM on 07/27/2011

The irony would be humorous if religious influence were not such a serious issue for our country. Faith-based hiring is an immoral practice performed by those who would claim to be the ultimate authorities on morality.

[Countess]

12:32 PM on 07/27/2011

Religion has no place in government and faith-based hiring should be abolished and religions should be taxed for the money making businesses they are.

[Bryce Miller]

12:50 PM on 07/27/2011

Agreed. At the very least, these organizations should be restricted from having any influence on our government.

Tax-free revenue, government money, taxpayer dollars funneled back into their lobbying machines... These religious organizations have been having it all their way for far too long.

[graceaustin]

11:59 AM on 07/27/2011

I'm no constitutional expert, but neither am I stupid. The Constitutional framers made the separation of church and state clear. Bush and the GOP took the steps to break down the wall of separation, and my tax dollars have NO BUSINESS being used to perpetuate religious beliefs. If Obama doesn't get that, he has no business being President. And he needs to stop enabling the republicans to continue being the jerks they are by kissing their a@@es!

James Madison..."During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility (abject submissiveness) in the laity; (lay people) In both, superstition, bigotry, and superstition." Oh sure, the father of our Constitution would have said he didn't mean we shouldn't give public money to churches! He would have wanted to help perpetuate the BS coming from the pulpits.
I'm a little more than fed up with Obama going along with what conservatives have done.

[Bearthoven]

11:29 AM on 07/27/2011

I still have a real problem with this disparity.... Churches feel free to spout discriminatory rhetoric, involve themselves in the governmental discourse, and practice discriminatory employment under the guise of Religious Freedom. These same institutions hold out their hand for federal tax dollars, thus making them agents of the federal government, and cry foul when they are required to follow federal anti-discrimination and employment laws.

This is why I am a firm believer that the religious and the political should never mix. I do not want any church interfering in the running of our government and the making of laws, nor do I want the government involved in the pulpit. This also applies to any organization that claims to have a religious viewpoint or spouts religious dogma as a core for its agenda.

[detroitblkmale30]

09:34 AM on 07/27/2011

Good for him. That's the way it should be and infact is for many such organizations.

[UnderTheHedgeWeGo]

09:39 AM on 07/27/2011

They should hire who they like but get no tax payer money.

[detroitblkmale30]

10:06 AM on 07/27/2011

They should get tax payer money as they are providing services to tax payers and services that if they were not providing them, the local jurisdicition and or state (read taxpayers) would be paying for them.

[raker]

08:15 AM on 07/27/2011

All of the religion business happens on the taxpayer's dime. They don't pay taxes. The government ought to be making all their rules. Or, churches could pay their own freight and then do whatever they like. That would be fine with me.

[Lady In Silhouette]

06:17 AM on 07/27/2011

Religion and political affiliation should never be required for hiring practices. It is NO ones business. The primary reason should always be how qualified you are for the job. Years ago my husband, when applying for a county job, was told it would be 'better for him' to register republican as we live in a republican county, unfortunately. He did register repub, but he said, "They won't know how I vote. They can't make me vote republican".

[PatrickforO]

01:41 AM on 07/27/2011

Boy, everybody's slamming Obama right and left, eh? He still gets in there and keeps slugging, doesn't he?

[mrkurtzhedead]

04:35 AM on 07/27/2011

He deserves to be slammed from the left for his continuing betrayals, wars and broken promises. I don't care what the right thinks.

[graceaustin]

12:11 PM on 07/27/2011

I agree. In many cases he deserves to be slammed. People on the left don't carry blind allegiances, and conservatives are always taken back when they see that. (conservatives being lock step followers and all).