What's Important 28
Twenty-eighth in a series.
From John McCain talking to the New York Times:
Q: Do you think religious organizations that get federal funding to deliver social services – faith based organizations – should be permitted to take faith into account in deciding who to hire. You saw Obama’s proposal.While I would have to agree with him that "faith-based organizations have been one of the more successful parts of the Bush Administration" (if only because the rest of it has been such an unmitigated disaster), the answer isn't to keep them going. The answer is to do other stuff properly! And Obama's position (not one I entirely agree with) isn't "basically the same" because Obama does believe that if you take federal money you adhere to federal standards.
Mr. McCain: I support faith-based organizations and I support a lot of the things that the president did. I was in New Orleans after Katrina and I went to their Resurrection Baptist Church and I saw volunteers from all over America working and helping in the clean-up, and the work that they did and talking with people like Governor Jindal, he said they did great work. I would continue along the model of what the president has done. And I certainly applaud Senator Obama’s, what I heard of his position basically the same.
Q: I think the one difference is whether or not as a condition of getting these monies, that these organization say they will not take into account religion or other factors in hiring decisions.
Mr. McCain: Obviously it’s very complicated because if this is an organization that says we want people in our organization that are Baptists or vegetarians or whatever it is, they should not be required to hire someone that they don’t want to hire in my view. Listen, this is the kind of the issue that goes on with the Boy Scouts, it goes on with a number of other issues. I think the president’s faith-based organization has been successful and I support what he has done
Q: I guess the way opponents describe it means that these groups are allowed to discriminate in hiring.
Mr. McCain: I can only answer it to say that I think faith-based organizations have been one of the more successful parts of the Bush Administration and I would continue it.
McCain never addresses that part of the equation. He only says "should not be required to hire someone that they don’t want to hire". I don't disagree with him. If organizations are so picky, though, they shouldn't take federal money - and the government certainly shouldn't give it to them.
Labels: election, freethought, gayrights, mcbush, politics, race
4 Comments:
-
At 1:33 PM, July 16, 2008
boyandgirlscoutsdotcom had this to say...
-
-
At 6:31 PM, July 16, 2008
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
At 8:03 PM, July 16, 2008
boyandgirlscoutsdotcom had this to say...
-
-
At 9:06 PM, July 16, 2008
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
<-- Older Post ^ Home Newer Post -->Although I'm a Boy Scout leader who supports the right of the organization to choose its own hiring practices I agree with your view that the federal government should be allowed to set the rules when they give money out to groups. My difference is that I think the government should be allowed to say that they are not going to interfere with the hiring practices of the groups, too. So, they can pick and choose.
The whole practice of giving money to faith-based institutions is to take a program that was started, tested, and has proven to be successful and make its good impact more widely enjoyed. As long as the government is not favoring one faith out of proportion to its public usage there shouldn't be any problem with utilizing a winning program.
Louisiana just cut funding to successful Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts programs (http://www.boyandgirlscouts.com/funding/possible-vice-president-vetoes-scout-funding/) and that's the state's right, but it shouldn't be a forced decision nor should it try to implement public policies on private or faith-based organizations.
I think you're trying to have it both ways. When it comes to discriminatory hiring practices, the federal government either allows them or doesn't. It's really that simple. Saying "we're not going to interfere" is exactly the same as saying "we're going to permit it".
And that's just something that shouldn't be subsidized by federal money, no matter how good the program is. That's not "implement[ing] public policies on private or faith-based organizations", it's "implement public policies" period. Nothing requires your organization to hire people it despises. But public money should not fund that decision. Nothing forces your organization to get public money - if you were forced to operate as a public organization, you might have a complaint. But you don't.
You simply want to be able to discriminate AND get public money to fund your program. The government can find other places to spend its money - places that don't discriminate. And that's how it should be.
Because your "successful Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts programs" aren't successful for everyone in Louisiana; there are people who simply "need not apply". For a federally funded program, that's wrong.
YMMV, and obviously does.
I don't want public money for Scouting. I think that would be awful for the program. I'm arguing that faith-based institutions are a reasonable place for the government to fund programs in targeted areas.
I'm only looking at the success of the program and I think there should be limits, too, but I'm willing to let our representatives make that determination. I think the Nation of Islam is a blight on our country and religion both, but if they've got a drug rehabilitation program that works and does not discriminate against anyone, I don't care if they require their adminstrators to be Muslims as long as they don't require their clients to be Muslims, too.
Your all or nothing approach simply results in nothing changing. The government will never be able to put together a program to emulate another that will be as successful as the original. It wastes money and time. Most of these faith based programs rely on people freely giving their time and sometimes their own money for a cause they believe in. Government grants only attempt to build on the success already proved by them.
I think it's a case by case situation which is why I prefer small, targeted assitance rather than statewide or nationwide support.
But public money for NoI allows them to use their own money to continue the programs you object to, which means the government is subsidizing them.
I don't deny that faith-based organizations can do good. I just believe that if they want public money they should adhere to public standards.
Mixing government with religion is bad for both.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]