Don't Use My Tax Dollars to Discriminate

may i use this commentary room, madam Silybummarianum, to differentiate "herhangi bir basbakan" as "her house officer"?

“Don’t take the federal grant money” is unfortunately not good enough. This situation will be profitable and very tempting for the lowest religious characters to let it slip through. They just see it as a new recruiting opportunity.
Who’s going to control if religious organizations are proselytizing while giving out assistance? How is this control going to be implemented? How much will then have to be spent on control?
Way too many problems being created as a consequence of this decision...

During the previous administration, I worked for the federal contractor that provided technical support for the faith-based initiative known as the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF). Much was made about the Bush Administration’s innovativeness in providing public dollars to support the work of faith-based organizations. This was inaccurate. Government support through a network of grants and contracts has been provided to religious organizations for non-sectarian social services for the past 50 years.

What was new was allowing federal funds to be used to support religious and quasi-religious activities under the guise of social services. This happened with a wink and a nod through the Capital Compassion Fund and related faith-based initiatives. This cannot be allowed to continue in the Obama Administration.

Additionally, I witnessed first hand, technical assistance training on how CCF grantees could legally discriminate against people they didn’t want to hire based on religious predilections. As an American, I was and continue to be offended that taxpayer dollars would be used to exclude any group of people. This, as well, cannot be allowed to continue.

Yet, beyond these challenges, there is the wider, Constitutional issue of the separation of church and state. The previous administration – certainly not the most respectful of the Constitution in general – somehow believed that the separation clause was up for grabs. It is not.

We are all diminished when government can use its substantial weight to assault the Constitution by funding the peculiarities of religious entities. Let’s hope that President Obama, as a constitutional scholar, will safeguard these vital protections by curtailing the ability of any organizations – faith-based or otherwise – from using taxpayer dollars to discriminate against anyone.

I have written more on this issue on my blog: http://www.501cweb.com

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfLhnkme2mE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7arOqGZQGx4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xde21qShWYA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=agYGuaQ904E

"when blind dies, comes with an almond".

to USA, to Grand USA, to Grandest United States of America, on this Valentine's DAy.

Susan Brooks: It's not their money

Then why do they get to spend it? When you give to your church do you tell the church how it should spend their money?

Pharmacies are regulated by federal law and, as such, are the only available sources for the legal acquisition of prescription drugs. A woman doesn't have the option of going to the 7-11 across the street if she can't get her prescription filled in a federally licensed pharmacy.

Being a pharmacist isn't like managing a Mom-and-Pop grocery. Usually pharmacists work for large entities (either retail pharmacies or in-house hospital pharmacies). If you don't want to dispense certain drugs, then don't become a pharmacist. If you don't want to perform abortions, then don't become a gynecologic surgeon. But if you do anyway, don't expect to be able to force your personal beliefs and opinions on others by refusing to meet the requirements of your job.

kjohnson,

Women are being turned away from pharmacy counters?!

Not really. Sounds like the pharmacy does not carry the product the individual desires. Nor does the pharmacy likely carry fried chicken or jelly donuts. The woman is under no obligation to shop there, for any item.

How is it defensible (as you mentioned) in a constitutional democracy, to force a pharmacist to carry a product?

"If your faith-based organization wants to discriminate because of its beliefs, there is a simple remedy. Don't take the federal grant money."

Unfortunately, those churches already have our tax money; it's called "tax-exempt status."

I'd really like to see the federal government address the (related) issue of how religiously affiliated people can use their beliefs to limit how their taxes are used while those of us who are not religiously affiliated -- but hold our ethics equally strongly -- do not have the same influence.

Why can a religious anti-abortionist get away with saying "I don't want my tax dollars to fund abortions" while a non-religious pro-choice person has no such protections?

Religion is something you can have if you want it, and certain beliefs are realistically accommodated by the government. For instance, pacifist Quakers can be exempted from military service on an individual basis. Amish citizens may choose not to participate in Social Security and often opt to school their children only through the 8th grade. But these are waivers and exceptions that affect only the religious people requesting them and the communities they live in.

In contrast, when fundamentalist Christians claim the right under the U.S. Constitution to be considered for any job they're qualified for (e.g., pharmacist) while at the same time insisting that aspects of that job will be unacceptable to their religious faith (dispensing contraceptives) and expecting the government to make exceptions to permit their hiring, then their religious beliefs affect the lives of other people.

A woman who wants nothing more than to get a legal prescription filled can be turned away from a pharmacy counter in some states because of the pharmacist's personal beliefs.

How is this defensible in a constitutional democracy?