Skip to comments.Editorial Correction on 'Obama's Ungodly Youth Corp"
Posted on 04/27/2009 7:15:04 AM PDT by OneVike
In an article linked to FreeRepublic, I made an erroneous statement about the legislation (HR1388) Obama signedon April 21st.
I need to clarify that statement and this is my attempt to do so. We always demand that the MSM come clean when they misrepresent facts in the way they write articles. I have come to the conclusion after thoughtful deliberation that I need to set the record straight on a claim I made in my article.
What follows will be a clarification of my article about the legislation pertaining to Obama's Youth Brigade.
To everyone who might have a problem with a certain statement in my "Obama's Ungodly Youth Corp" article. That statement was, "All members of the Corp are not allowed to no attend church services of any kind and never are they to witness about their faith to others.
I'll begin by admitting my error in the way I worded my claim. I offer no excuse accept to say I should have used the phrase, "Could be interpreted by a court that non volunteer religious related activities are banned".
In my preparation for writing the article, I looked at two very important facts behind the creation of this Bill:
1.) What most legislators probably thought the intent of the law was, compared to;
2.) What was the original intent of the author and creators of the Bill. (Obama and his administration)
The intent of many of the legislators who voted for the Bill was to limit the volunteer services to completely secular endeavors - in keeping with the authors understanding of the constitutional requirement for religious neutrality. However the original intent of the Creators of the Bill was to ban all participation in religious activities regardless of when that activity took place. Remember Courts are constantly ruling upon "original Intent" when they interpret a law.
In my article I should have pointed out the original language before it was changed to give the reader an understanding of the authors original intent. In court, a judge will look at original intent of the legislation like Justice Black claimed he did in his landmark case. In this present case of HR1388, the original intent of the authors was to ban all religious activity regardless of when it took place.
You will notice that the original language in the Bill was as follows;
SEC. 132A. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- "A participant in" an approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:
Now in the revised legislation the phrase ""A participant in" was removed, and now says;
(a) Prohibited Activities- An approved national service position under this subtitle may not be used for the following activities:
Now, I agree the original language was dropped from the final Bill, and that is where I made the error in my claim. I stand corrected on this.
However, my point is when you look at the "Original Intent" of the legislation and you look at the history of the court since Justice Black wrote his majority opinion. Remember, Justice Black claimed that while it was not written in the constitution, Thomas Jefferson's letter proves what the intent of the Constitution was toward religion by the Founding fathers. Even though Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as a United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, Justice Black wrote his opinion on what Jefferson wrote in a letter to a church.
So you can see how Justice Black used his understanding of what the "original intent" was, by making his opinion based on something that had no bearing at all on the writers of the constitution. That is how we got the "Separation of Church and State" clause we are bound by. Since then activist judges have gone out of their way to find any reason to claim the intent of a law is what they want it to be.
These activist judges have shown time and time again that they have no problem using non Constitutional literature to base their opinions on such intent, just as as Hugo Black did. For us those of us who pay attention to the Supreme Court, we only have to look at a few members of the current members of the Supreme Court who admit they look to foreign laws to base their opinions upon. (These Judges prove the saying that "some people are educated beyond their intelligence") I ask you, where in the constitution, or even in the federalist papers, does the Founding Fathers say we should look to foreign laws to interpret what they themselves wrote? That is why I worry what a court may rule about on this legislation.
One more thing to think about on "original intent" and this legislation. Obama only needs one more liberal Judge on the Supreme Court to tip the balance in his favor. Now I admit that I made an error in my assertion about the extent of this Bill's control, but with the precarious balance on the Supreme Court, we are only one bad ruling away from being what I erroneously claimed in my article.
Now I would like you to take in consideration this next bit of information that proves without a doubt that this legislation is unconstitutional already. The very wording in the portion of this bill in question makes it unconstitutional.
When you look at what the EEOC says about limiting religious freedom in the workplace, you will come to the same conclusion I have. Courts have upheld the rights for free religious expression even in the workplace as long as they do not interfere with anyone's ability to properly carry out their task. Here is what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), says on religious freedom at the workplace.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964
prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:
* Employers may not treat employees more or less favorably because of their religion.
* Employees cannot be required to participate -- or refrain from participating in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees.
* Employers may not retaliate against employees for asserting rights under Title VII.3
Now, we know that liberals often claim that proselytizing at work is not allowed. However, while the law is constantly changing with every new court challenge, it is currently permissible to a point. An employee does have a right to engage in religious conduct to the extent that it is not an undue hardship on the employer. Harassing another employee is likely to be an undue hardship. The bar proving harassment is a fairly high - but not an impossible - standard. So, while the line between permissible proselytizing and workplace harassment is blurry, important factors that bear on the analysis include,
* the pervasiveness of the proselytizing
* its impact on coworkers (e.g., harassing them) and work performance (including profitability)and
* the capacity and willingness of the employer to take steps to accommodate the aggrieved parties, such as by moving the proselytizing employee and the offended employee to different work stations.
The Supreme Court, and lower courts have routinely upheld the language of the EEOC regulations on Freedom of religion in the workplace. The language in the legislation that Obama signed into law is not only unconstitutional, but it goes against the very laws put forth by the EEOC.
What this Bill represents is the over-reaching of an administration that wants to get it all done in the first 3 months, so we end up with an 86 page, shoddily written document that leaves way too much open for interpretation. It is my belief that this legislation is unconstitutional in the way it is written, and will face a court challenge in the future. If history is any indicator we can expect different judges to rule differently. I for one will not be surprised if this legislation eventually leads to more religious persecution by the government.
I did post a similar clarification in the comment section on PS. Let me know what you think.
Let me know if you would like to be added or remove you from my ping list.
Ping a ling. Yes, please add me to your list. Thanks, OneVike!
You caught my attention when you mentioned the EEOC. Years ago, I attended numerous courses put on by Specter and Hames, the writers of EEOC laws. One statement they made that caught my attention was they were conducting these courses because the laws they helped write, were actually being used against companies. They were attempting to educate managers in companies as to how to protect themselves. Interesting courses.
Do you have any titles of said materials and the full names of the authors? I gather historically the real meat of the EEOC was put in place through regulations under Nixon.
It always struck me that there was a huge commercial niche just waiting to be filled by some legal/PR entrepreneur to defend against these shakedowns. I’m no expert, but I always got the distinct impression that corporate legal departments always, reflexively advised their clients to simply bend over and pay the mordida. Same with PR departments. Perhaps because they were of the same background as the “Civil Rights” leeches and were even in cahoots.
I recall flipping through Nick Nichols’ “Rules for Corporate Warriors: How to Fight and Survive Attack Group Shakedowns” and being fascinated but it was rather sloppy and geared only towards environmentalist shakedowns.
I don’t have any data left today. That was some time ago. These two guys were great at educating people though, black and white. Case in point.....if you had one white person and one black person that you wanted to hire but could only hire one...what would you do? Especially since they were both qualified and you were afraid of being sued by the minority if you didn’t hire him. The answer was so simple it was amazing. Flip a coin......at least that’s what you tell the judge. Maybe you could google Spectre & Hames....I hope the spelling is correct.
Please add me to your list-THANKS!
I’ll stay on provided it’s not a heavy-volume list. :’) Thanks.
Thank you - would like to remain on your ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.