World Vision allowed to hire only Christians

[mandym]

WASHINGTON (BP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the hiring rights of World Vision and other federally funded, faith-based groups by refusing to review a lower court decision in favor of the international relief organization.

The high court announced it would not accept a case in which former World Vision employees sued the organization for firing them when it was discovered they did not agree with its doctrinal statement.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=36296

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This sets a VERY important precedent to avoid similar cases throughout Europe which are going the other way. Good decision.

 

[mandym]

How would it set precedent in Europe?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How would it set precedent in Europe?

It doesn't. It sets a precedent in the US to protect from what is happening here.

 

[mandym]

It doesn't. It sets a precedent in the US to protect from what is happening here.

I see.............

 

[Magnetic Poles]

If you take money from the taxpayers, then the government should have the right to have a say how it is used on behalf of the taxpayer. If you don't wish to have that, then don't be on the take from the taxpayers.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin from Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754

 

[mandym]

If you take money from the taxpayers, then the government should have the right to have a say how it is used on behalf of the taxpayer. If you don't wish to have that, then don't be on the take from the taxpayers.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin from Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754

No one takes money from the tax payers here. That is silly

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No one takes money from the tax payers here. That is silly

You must have missed the opening sentence, which is the crux of the issue...

WASHINGTON (BP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the hiring rights of World Vision and other federally funded, faith-based groups by refusing to review a lower court decision in favor of the international relief organization.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Salty]

If you take money from the taxpayers, then the government should have the right to have a say how it is used...

and just who is "the government" much of the money I pay into taxes is not used in a way I see fit. Unfortunately, "the govt" is now codding to those who insist anyone with more money have a responsibility to support them - even if said individuals are too lazy to work.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

and just who is "the government" much of the money I pay into taxes is not used in a way I see fit. Unfortunately, "the govt" is now codding to those who insist anyone with more money have a responsibility to support them - even if said individuals are too lazy to work.

Going off topic eh? So would you support federal funding of a charity run by Muslims?

 

[righteousdude2]

When I Ran A Christian School, I Hired....

....only born-again believers. The people that sent their children to the school (pre through grade 6) had expectations that we were a Christian school. Nothing less than professing believers would do for me.

I should note that I didn't turn people away for their religious affiliations, as long as they could confirm in their written and verbal testimony that they were born again.

This was in the early 70's so I never had a problem. Today, I'd probably be facing law suits for discrimination.

What a sad thing when an employer can't hire who they want. :tear:

 

[Havensdad]

Going off topic eh? So would you support federal funding of a charity run by Muslims?

Nope. The Federal Government should not be funding anyone, period. If they decide to use a religious organization like World Vision, though, with its established resources, then they should be forced to allow the charity to run its organization as it sees fit.

The states are free to establish their own religious rules as they see fit. In the early days, the varying states had their own established religions; some were Anglican, some were Presbyterian, and so on.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Nope. The Federal Government should not be funding anyone, period.

Agreed!

If they decide to use a religious organization like World Vision, though, with its established resources, then they should be forced to allow the charity to run its organization as it sees fit.

The states are free to establish their own religious rules as they see fit. In the early days, the varying states had their own established religions; some were Anglican, some were Presbyterian, and so on.

Sorry, but no. While there were state religions, they have been rendered unconstitutional by case law. For a good article on this, go to http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

 

[Havensdad]

Agreed!

Sorry, but no. While there were state religions, they have been rendered unconstitutional by case law. For a good article on this, go to http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

Sorry, but I disagree. Activist judges reinterpreting the constitution does not undo its original intent. The writings of the founders and the authors of the constitution envisioned a land where people were free to practice their own religion, in part, by establishing localized governments and groups of individuals of particular religions. Excluding religion from all government, is in fact a de-facto establishment of atheism.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Sorry, but I disagree. Activist judges reinterpreting the constitution does not undo its original intent. The writings of the founders and the authors of the constitution envisioned a land where people were free to practice their own religion, in part, by establishing localized governments and groups of individuals of particular religions. Excluding religion from all government, is in fact a de-facto establishment of atheism.

You may disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that the body of case law is a legitimate part of our system. The judiciary interprets the law by way of rulings in specific disputes over how it is applied.

 

[mandym]

precedence or case law should never undermine the original intent

 

[Magnetic Poles]

precedence or case law should never undermine the original intent

I understand that is your opinion, but it doesn't line up with how it is. The founders set up a judiciary for this purpose. Law is an ever evolving thing, refined as cases settle ambiguities and areas of dispute. Your view of the law is not factual nor practical. We are not bound by intent of the dead, but as a living society can decide how the law applies.

 

[billwald]

Then other non-profits should be permitted to ban the hiring of Christians? Pro-abortion clinics, for example?

 

[Ruiz]

Then other non-profits should be permitted to ban the hiring of Christians? Pro-abortion clinics, for example?

I think everyone should be able to hire whoever they want. However, the 1st Amendment protects religion in a special way. The state cannot make us or prohibit us from our religious activity.

 

[Salty]

Then other non-profits should be permitted to ban the hiring of Christians? Pro-abortion clinics, for example?

I agree 100%

An employer should have the right to hire (& not to hire) or fire anyone for any reason they so deem