Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Free to Hire, Not to Discriminate
Q: Dozens of major religious groups and denominations are urging Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. to renounce a Bush-era memo that allows faith-based charities that receive federal funding to discriminate in hiring. Should religious charities that receive federal grant money be allowed to discriminate in hiring?
The joint statement on hiring sent to the U.S. attorney general by Interfaith Alliance and others groups is an important one that should be seriously considered and acted upon. That said, it is also important to allow religious groups the same freedom that other groups have to pick and choose who their employees are. They should function under the same constraints as those that apply to other organizations receiving government funding. Thus, they should be allowed to select from among applicants those who they believe will benefit their work the most, but such criteria must not include race or ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, religious affiliation, etc. as a part of the process.
For example, a Jewish organization that receives federal funding for charity work it does should not be able to limit who it hires to only Jews, but at the same time should not have to hire someone who is anti-semitic. I have no doubt that other organizations receiving government funding similarly set criteria. For example, the NAACP will likely not hire someone who is openly racist, nor will Planned Parenthood hire someone who is vehemently against abortion. Yet, both these organization receive money from the government.
Unlike some of the other panelists, I see no inherent problem with religious organizations that do charity work receiving federal funds, provided there are safeguards in place so that whatever money is received is in fact used only for charity work and not for proselytizing. I realize that may be difficult to enforce, but I think it is possible. The funding of any organization not in adherence to federal guidelines should immediately be withdrawn.
While there are many examples of religious organizations that use charity work as a front for the promoting their religious beliefs, there are also many examples of religious organizations that do good charity work and do not use their efforts as a cover to promote an ideological agenda. One example is the Sisters of Charity, the organization founded by Mother Teresa. Others include the Salvation Army and the Red Cross. All these organizations have a grounding in a particular religious belief system, but generally speaking are able to do good works of charity that do not involve proselytization.
In actuality, private and religious charity organizations and NGOs often do much more to directly help the poor than do government organizations, and many do it more efficiently. Moreover, the word "efficient" rarely has relevance when referring to any government run organization. Rather than making blanket criticisms or condemnations of groups simply because they have a religious affiliation, we should try to judge each on its deeds and merits, in the same way that we should judge people, not on their religious affiliation or lack thereof, but on their deeds and merits.
By
Ramdas Lamb
|
September 24, 2009; 3:51 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Repent It Forward |
Next: Should Government Discriminate?
Posted by: outragex | September 25, 2009 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
On Jewish organizations, with which you are evidently unfamiliar. Secular Jewish organizations, funded largely by donations from Jews, hire anybody, do not check to see whether they're anti-Jewish racists, and since racisim is endemic in this country, such entities are in the employ of said organizations.
The NAACP is not a religious organization.
That said, I oppose both faith-based funding and nonprofit status for churches, temples, mosques, etc.
I would rather the money I am paying for said groups, including the Westboro Baptist Church, went to the 130,000,000 plus enslaved Dalit.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | September 24, 2009 8:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
This is a tough question about hiring, and I generally agree with the middle-of-the-road approach taken by Prof. Lamb.
I must disagree with your blanket statement however: "In actuality, private and religious charity organizations and NGOs often do much more to directly help the poor than do government organizations, and many do it more efficiently. Moreover, the word 'efficient' rarely has relevance when referring to any government run organization."
This statment is untrue and it is secular ideology. I have worked in government, non-profits, and business. I am proud to have worked with many non-profits, including United Way, Habitat, and The Salvation Army. I have started six non-profits. However...
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA, TANaF, public schools, public colleges, public hospitals, police, fire departments, child welfare, etc. do much more to help poor people than any non-profit, and they do it consistently for many years.
This is not to denigrate all the great charities out there, but it is very unfair to make patently untrue statements about government. How can a responsible professor make such a generalized and incorrect statement?
And, no I am not a government employee.