Skip to comments.The White House Attack on Religion Continues: Repealing Conscience Protection
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 dont have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendments 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 ...
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 Houses announcement of President Obamas 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 administrations third attack on religion occurred in the Presidents 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 Obamas 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving.
The fifth attack is the White Houses 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.
will people resign their jobs over this?
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.
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?
I was thinking birth control actually.
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.
That undermines the practical effects of the employer's beliefs.