Posted on 03/01/2007 9:06:23 PM PST by Alex Murphy
An Anniston man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Salvation Army, contending he was illegally passed over for a position because he is Catholic.
The suit filed on behalf of Anthony J. Clark contends he sought a social work opening in spring 2005 after already having worked for the Salvation Army for almost two years.
The Salvation Army is a charity that operates as an evangelical effort of Christians. Its Web site says its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs without discrimination.
Salvation Army officials in Anniston declined comment and referred calls to the organization's Jackson, Miss., office.
Mark Jones, a spokesman for the Salvation Army Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi divisional headquarters, said it's the organization's policy not to comment on personnel matters.
The suit said Clark sent a letter to his supervisor on May 17, expressing his interest in filling the position in Anniston. Clark, the suit said, had worked as a part-time social worker from November 2003 to December 2003. He subsequently worked full-time from January 2004 to May 2004 because of another worker's illness.
The suit said despite having three letters of recommendation, another person who had only part-time seasonal experience was hired when a full-time position came open.
The lawsuit said when Clark asked why he wasn't hired, his supervisor, Maj. Larry Hambrick, replied he was not a practicing Christian.
When asked if he was a Christian, Clark said he was a Catholic and was then informed that was why he was not selected for the position, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said Clark complained to the Salvation Army's national headquarters, and left the organization on Aug. 19, 2005.
Birmingham lawyer John Saxon called the Salvation Army a wonderful organization that does faith-related work. But Saxon said the social work position was a non-ministerial position.
"They are not exempt from civil rights laws," Saxon said.
Jesus owns my company.
His interview question is: "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
"Who is he sir, that I may believe in Him?"
"It is He who is now speaking with you."
"Lord, I believe."
If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.
I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers.
Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather [suffer yourselves to] be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that [your] brethren. - I Cor 6:1-8
Thanks for posting that - I was getting ready to post the same thing!
Excellent point.
Perhaps the man FULLY understood their perspective. Perhaps they'd had the conversation many times. Perhaps this was simply a bitter old soul
Dear P-Marlowe,
"And if you think the reponse is an indication that they have a bad attitude are you going to hire them?"
What is presented here as what occurred in the interview, or in the encounter post-interview, isn't any indication of a bad attitude.
If he wasn't hired because he gave the answer, "I'm a Catholic," then that is anti-Catholic bigotry. Under no circumstances would I have marked the answer, "no" to the question, "Are you a practicing Christian?" after having received that answer. Under all circumstances, I'd have inquired further.
"If you ask 'Are you willing to work long hours' and they answer 'I'm a Presbyterian' are you going to accept that as a yes?"
I'd inquire further, because I wouldn't presume to think I understood the answer.
However, my initial guess would be that the fellow is saying, "Look, I'm a dreary, all-work-no-play Calvinist. I don't have a life outside my work. What do think?"
;-)
sitetest
Well, K told me I could be the MAN in my company.
Dear xzins,
"Perhaps..."
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
That isn't what the article says.
It says that upon replying that he was a Catholic, he was told, that is why you weren't promoted.
There is no evidence that he was told, "You have a bad attitude."
Now, if the article is in error, and we are presented with a different set of facts, then we'll have to deal with those facts.
But for the sake of the discussion, it's reasonable to take the article at face value.
sitetest
Perhaps is perfectly legitimate.
We have a synopsis that doesn't necessarily capture the dynamic.
We have the circumstantial evidence of the law suit that followed, and how that is certainly an act that speaks to something else going on in that setting.
Don't hide it.
She did so only grudgingly, didn't she?
But, I'm glad she gave permission. Otherwise you'd be only half a man.
The tragedy would be that, additionally, at your age, your advanced age, that also makes you only half the man you used to be.
Two halves = one whole.
And then you wouldn't be a man at all. You'd be invisible.
You do not know if you would call it unChristian to sue?
Then you ought to do a bit of research in the Bible.
People who respond "Yes, I am a Christian" would understand the contention that the use of a secular court is not right.
Campion: That's trickier.
No it's not. You probably forgot about this posting from a little over a year ago.
“Have you been born again?” the Fundamentalist at the door asks the unsuspecting Catholic. The question is usually a segue into a vast doctrinal campaign that leads many ill-instructed Catholics out of the Catholic Church. How? By making them think there is a conflict between the Bible and the Catholic Church over being “born again.”
To be honest, most Catholics probably do not understand the expression “born again.” Yes, they believe in Jesus. And yes, they try to live Christian lives. They probably have some vague awareness that Fundamentalists think being “born again” involves a religious experience or “accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.” Many cradle Catholics, too, have had their moments of closeness to God, even of joy over God's love and mercy. They may even have had “conversion experiences” of sorts, committing themselves to take their faith seriously and to live more faithfully as disciples of Jesus. But the cradle Catholic probably cannot pinpoint any particular moment in his life when he dropped to his knees and “accepted Jesus” for the first time. As far back as he can recall, he has believed, trusted and loved Jesus as Savior and Lord. Does that prove he has never been “born again”?
Not “the Bible way,” says the Fundamentalist. But the Fundamentalist is wrong there. He misunderstands what the Bible says about being “born again.” Unfortunately, few Catholics understand the biblical use of the term, either. As a result, pastors, deacons, catechists, parents and others responsible for religious education have their work cut out for them. It would be helpful, then, to review the biblical — and Catholic — meaning of the term “born again.”
Dear xzins,
"We have a synopsis that doesn't necessarily capture the dynamic."
That's true. But the evidence at hand only points at bigotry. If there is other evidence, let it be presented.
"We have the circumstantial evidence of the law suit that followed, and how that is certainly an act that speaks to something else going on in that setting."
I don't think that the lawsuit means squat, other than that the fellow has a broader idea of what is protected by employment law than I (or you) think the law actually protects.
As for the injunction against suing other Christians, Catholics don't view the Salvation Army as an institutional part of the Church. I'm not sure that suing the Salvation Army would count, for us, as suing believers in the secular courts.
Furthermore, the evidence here suggests anti-Catholic bigotry. As a Catholic, I have a hard time viewing the person who made the comment as being a particularly good Christian. I'm thinking Nancy Pelosi-level, here.
Finally, in that the Salvation Army doesn't recognize the authority of the true Church, as ascribe to by this Catholic former Salvation Army employee, it isn't like the Catholic fellow could settle the dispute in the Church. Unless the Salvation Army is going to start adhering to rulings made by Catholic tribunals?
sitetest
"And then you wouldn't be a man at all. You'd be invisible."
And the kids aren't anything to look at either.
So if, in the course of an interview for a position with a Christian ministry, you were asked the question: "Are you a Born-Again Christian?", your answer would be "NO"????
.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
"...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12 KJV)
Not fair to repeat material from last week.
That reminds me.
We were supposed to have an AlGore, eco-indulgences, Friday Neener thread.
Johann "Algore" Tetzel came to town selling eco-indulgence, carbon credits. How many carbon credits does it take to get out of global warming purgatory? Who is the modern Martin Luther of the truth that the earth has gone through many cycles or warming and cooling. How many theses does it take to screw up an eco-wacko? Where is our modern day Wittenburg door?
I see. Protestants are supposed to figure out what catholics mean when we ask about born again, saved, etc., but catholics in interviews aren't expected to do the same.
I'd just forgotten the rules. Sorry.
/sarcasm
Great, you have been designated to set it up!
We can do climate jokes and al-gore jokes and environmental whacko jokes along with the usual pastor and lawyer jokes.
Should be fun.
{!}
Lord Protector and all that rot.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"So if, in the course of an interview for a position with a Christian ministry, you were asked the question: 'Are you a Born-Again Christian?', your answer would be 'NO'????"
In that I'd suspect that my interlocutor had a misunderstanding of the Gospel, I don't think that I'd answer either "yes" or "no," as to answer either way is to accept as valid and true that which is false. And that would be a lie.
I'd likely answer:
"Everyone who was validly baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is born from above - or 'born again,' as you put. Everyone who was validly baptized is a Christian, unless they've explicitly renounced the faith.
"I was validly baptized when I was four weeks old. Thus, yes, I'm born from above, by water and the Holy Spirit."
sitetest
Dear xzins,
"Protestants are supposed to figure out what catholics mean when we ask about born again, saved, etc., but catholics in interviews aren't expected to do the same."
Certainly not.
However, interviewers ARE supposed to follow up answers that are ambiguous to them with clarifying questions.
It's not a Christian thing.
It's a common sense thing.
sitetest
"validly baptized"
And the next question would be "what do you mean by 'validly baptized'"?
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.