Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection
WallBuilders ^ | 04/2009 | David Barton

Posted on 06/04/2009 7:38:21 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a “case-by-case” basis.

Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as Catholic Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values – for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don’t have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.

Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment’s guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any “religious corporation, association, education institution, or society” could consider the applicants’ religious faith during the hiring process. The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations....

(Excerpt) Read more at wallbuilders.com ...


TOPICS: Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues; Religion & Politics; Worship
KEYWORDS:
...when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.

On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a “case-by-case” basis.

....the White House’s announcement of President Obama’s commitment to “pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.” This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their ministry staffs.

The administration’s third attack on religion occurred in the President’s stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities “(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission.”

The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama’s 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving.

The fifth attack is the White House’s announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences.

1 posted on 06/04/2009 7:38:22 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

will people resign their jobs over this?


2 posted on 06/04/2009 7:50:10 AM PDT by GeronL (http://libertyfic.proboards.com <----go there now,----> tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Saving


3 posted on 06/04/2009 7:56:08 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I hope all those hand-clapping, "slain-in-the-spirit," "sanctified" Black churches are happy with their man now. Of course, why wouldn't they be? Conventional moral issues aren't on their radar screen.

Meanwhile, Alan Keyes is an "uncle tom" because he's opposed to killing unborn Black children. Maybe they should make abortion a sacrament at Black churches.

4 posted on 06/04/2009 7:58:33 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vesamu 'et-shemi `al-Benei Yisra'el, va'Ani avarekhem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

5 posted on 06/04/2009 8:29:16 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
So, I just want to make sure I understand this. You think it is right, fair, just, that religious employers should be able to make employment decisions based solely on the beliefs of the candidates being considered and should be able to hire only people that share their beliefs and, I presume, they should be able to fire those people whom they find out do not share their beliefs.

But if a pharmacy owner wants to fire a pharmacist because they won't distribute legal medications prescribed by a doctor, which is just another way of saying that the employee doesn't share the owners beliefs, the owner is a bad, evil, religious bigot?

have I got that right?
6 posted on 06/04/2009 8:43:11 AM PDT by theknuckler_33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theknuckler_33

I don’t know about Alex Murphy, but I think it’s right.

And the example you give of the pharmacist who won’t distribute a legal medication— are you thinking of abortifacients?


7 posted on 06/04/2009 8:49:46 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

I was thinking birth control actually.


8 posted on 06/04/2009 8:54:19 AM PDT by theknuckler_33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: theknuckler_33

I do not think a pharmacy owner should be able to fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense birth control, abortifacients, ets.

I was fortunate to be a Catholic nurse working under the protection of the conscience clause.


9 posted on 06/04/2009 8:57:23 AM PDT by Judith Anne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: theknuckler_33
I see nothing wrong in this. Presumably a Catholic Hospital should be able to not hire any employee they believe is for euthanasia, or pro-abortion.

That undermines the practical effects of the employer's beliefs.

10 posted on 06/05/2009 3:43:40 PM PDT by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson