On Faith Based Initiatives
We had an interesting discussion about Obama’s support for faith based initiatives here recently, but I’ve got something to add to the debate which I think deserves a post of its own. It seems to me that those who agree with Obama that the government should make it illegal for faith based organizations / charities to hire people based on their religions don’t quite understand the US Constitution.
Chuck Norton explains the situation quite well. The US Supreme Court and other courts have acknowledged, time and again, that religious organizations can ‘discriminate’ (with regards to who they hire) based on religion. It’s called “the freedom of expressive association.” It’s a constitutional right.
Obama’s suggestion therefore, is in breach with the US Constitution. According to this document - which does not contain some nice guidelines; instead, it contains rules about what the government can and cannot do. rules not to be broken - people have the right organize themselves as they see fit, and the federal government is not allowed to interfere. If a religious organization hires people based on religion, they’re free to do so; they are protected by the US Constitution.
If one, therefore, supports Obama’s plan, one should just come out and admit that one is more than willing to shove the constitution aside when one finds a point in it one does not agree with. That can be your opinion, but you should be honest about it. Of course, this would greatly damage your position in other debates; for the left too often makes the case that something is in breach with the Constitution (on issue related to national security especially). The opponents will say ’so? You already made clear that the Constitution doesn’t matter.’
Shoving aside the Constitution is a dangerous development; it opens the door to all kinds of abuses. Those abuses can then not be corrected.
And no, just because the government gives money to such charities does not mean that the Constitution can then be ignored. The Constitution is always the most important law of the land. It has to be obeyed at all times. Since there’s no ‘unless the governments supports those organizations in one way or another’ clause in the Constitution, Obama’s plan is illegal (and I’m pretty sure that the US Supreme Court would destroy the law shortly after its passed; and not by a 5-4 majority either; probably 6-3 or even 7-2).
It’s also important to point out that religion is at the very core of these organizations. It’s on what they are founded. You’re basically arguing that capitalist organizations should be forced to hire socialists… even though their entire organization is meant to unify capitalists (who then try to solve certain problems). Obama’s plan, then, destroys the very foundation of said religious organizations.
Like I opined yesterday. This is some scary stuff coming from Obama.
Where is the outrage that has been so prevalent from the left/democrats over this. Those who wrap themselves in the constitution and demand seperation of church and state are now mysteriously silent on one of the most blatant disregards for the Constitution in years.
Those who beat Bush on Fisa, Torture, DC gun ban etc….etc… are now absent in this debate other then some weak okay then………well mabey…….I see what he’s trying to do.
I support faith based iniatives. I support small government and people working together to help people in this country. I do not support Barak Obama attempting to pull faith based charities under one roof and then having the US government oversee their activities. Telling them they cannot preach to the masses with the governments money. Can only use the money for secular activities. Must hire and fire according to the Ultimate NANNY STATE rules.
And this coming from of all freakin things………..Barak Obama who was???
A constitutional law professor. Lord have mercy!! I believe this is a pretty blatant example of a candidate who understands he is going to blow the GOP out of the water in November and he is already in Emperor mode.
RRRocks is quite correct, Obama used to be a constitutional law professor thus there is no question at all that he knows this. It could be that he is just saying that to mollify the far left and knows it won’t fly, or perhaps he is willing to make a fight of it and undermine the First Amendment. Either is possible. A simple perusal of my web site or http://www.thefire.org chronicle the constant battles to protect the First Amendment from the lefts constant attempts to censor.
Michael your analysis on how the Supreme Court would react is spot on. In the last two decades the Court has been VERY hawkish in protecting the First Amendment (withe the exception of campaign finance laws and since that dreadful ruling the Court has started to pick away at that law). Once again Michael the quality of your political science education proves to serve you well. The simple truth is that you have a superior understanding of the nuances of the American political scene than the vast majority of American political science majors.
Thanks Chuck, that’s a tremendous compliment.
Then again, I’m more interested in these things than most people, even then most people who study American Studies, or related studies.
Also don’t forget that I studied law for two years; during this time, I focused a lot on American Constitutional law.
Uh, come again? You want to allow a religion to preach using government money? I wasn’t aware religion was supposed to be a government subsidized institution. In fact, I thought it was the opposite.
I am assuming then, with your support of government-funded proselytizing, that you’d have no issue with a mosque receiving government funds to preach to people? Or a temple. Or the many denomination of Christianity, some of which may not agree with yours?
After all, you’ve got to be fair. It’s really an all or nothing proposition in my mind, if we’re going to be subsidizing faith now. Don’t forget the establishment clause.
And, and by the way, for all the deriding Obama on "putting faith-based charities under one roof" Obama makes it pretty clear this is exactly how it’s done now!
Basically, it means you can not use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. This is from the White House on Faith Based Iniatives.
Now my point is simple. Barak Obama has said the same thing. We want you to not preach to those you are helping……..fine. I agree.
The difference between the two is that Obama wants to give you money and then make you follow federal guidelines. Bush did not. Huge difference. Obama wants to tell you who you can hire and fire thus effectively pulling you under the federal government and regulating even more stuff.
Nanny Stater.
Ok lets talk about the establishment clause. Thomas Jefferson attended church services in the Capitol Building. Take a good look at George Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclimation and the resolution Congress passed about it. The Foudners were clear that it is the duty of government to promote religious values because our form of government would only work with a moral and largely religious people. Promoting religious values that compliment the traditions the country was founded on in no way establishes a religion or creates a "Church of trhe United States" that you must attend. Call me crazy, but I consider George Washington to be somewhat of an authority on the matter.
Just because you are allowed to do something under the constitution, doesn’t mean a contract can’t limit your ability to do that.
For example, I have freedom of speech, however, a contract can legally require me to shut up about certain topics, and I can legally be fined if I don’t comply.
In the same way, Obama (or any other president) can’t prevent religious institutions from discriminating, but he can give money only to those who promise not to, and hold them to that promise.
Your last paragraph is a bit crazy. If these organizations core mission is to spread a particular religion, then the government has absolutely no business funding them. If instead, these organizations are religious in name, but their goal is to help society at large, then by all means the government should support them, and also, those organizations should be willing to accept help from people who share the same society benefiting goal, regardless of their background.
This is just one more way for the Nanny Staters to get more welfare to the needy. Who is benefiting here? Not the Churchs. They are non profit oranizations who can only spend the money on works to help people in need.
Thus what we have is just another Veiled attempt at providing more welfare to those in need when we ought to be in the business of balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
Kevin H, since the government has to guarantee equal justice and equal protection, for the government to make a contract with a stipulation to surrender first amendment freedom of expressive association rights for people of faith, is discriminatory against people of faith. It is religious bigotry and in violation of not only the rules of common decency, but the First Amendment as well. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths so many on the left will go to supress others who have religious, cultural and political views that they dont like.
I just find it a simple double standard. The super-left yelled when W came up with faith-based initiatives, now Obama wants the same thing and it’s okay?
Chuck, if even attempting to curb any right were illegal, then the government couldn’t sign on to any non-discolure agreement, or litigation waiver (due process), or just about anything. Basically every single contract involves someone giving up a right to something. That’s just how it works.
Even Rosenberger V Univ of Virginia was a 5-4 decision, and that dealt with speech directly rather than just hiring practices. It could be that the current court would strike down hiring practice limitations, but it is far far from automatic.
Also, this is NOT a Constitutional issue. Hiring practices of religious intitutions are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, not the constitution. Therefore even if it were deemed illegal as an executive order, Congress could make it legal by a simple majority vote.
Oh, and the 4 dissenting votes on Rosenberger v. Univ Virginia are still on the court, so a 6-3 or a 7-2 decision is never going to happen.
Kevin, I disagree with your constitutional interpretation. Just because the Court has not ruled on this exact hiring question under this specific circumstance, does not mean that it isn’t or cant be a constitutional issue. The Court has ruled on some of the peripherals of this issue in a way that seems consistent with my argument in my view. I appreciate your argument nonetheless.
and, Boy Scouts of America v Dale was ALSO a 5 to 4 decision. Dissenting there is even more extreme, as it didn’t deal with public funds OR hiring, rather simply the right to associate.
Government sponsorship of Scout Troops has never been directly tested in the Supreme Court, but it looks highly questionable as special exception by congress has been deemed required to get BSA access to public school and city money.
And remember, that just for allowing the BSA to exclude gays as members. Hiring laws are generally accepted as much stricter than association laws. I think it’s pretty clear that a simple congressional vote could bring Obama’s vision into being.
I’m not sure that the issue is something anyone would want to take to the supreme court. You want free government money they follow our rules. I see no problem with that.
The really decitful tact being taken here is that in the current funding practice one must get in line, find a grant and apply for it. People like the reverend Wright are going to be rejected because of the amount of non controversial applications for grants.
Under Obama’s plan those who are standing in the Rev. Wrights way and groups like him which are highly political while being a church would have no problem accepting the hiring and firing laws contingent upon receiving loads of money to do the work of the democratic party.
This in effect will creat a giant 527 for the democratic party so that political churchs can under the cover of this program proselytize not religious converts but POLITICAL CONVERTS.
Those groups currently getting the grants would drop out as they would not want to fall under federal guidelines.
What a guy this Obama.
Hi Kevin, I agree that hiring laws are more restrictive then association laws, but that is in the context of the private sector so it can fall under commercial activity using Congresses power to regulate interstate commerce (at least that is the justification they like to use since the stack the Court threat during the new deal). However in the case of church groups, missions, or the Scouts, they have a cultural, social, political, or religious mission and First Amendment coverage of THAT is a no brainer. You read the decision in the Rosenburger case. It seems pretty clear that as long as the charity money is given neutrally among non religious charities and religious charities the establishment clause doesnt apply.
I don’t doubt that if the government wanted to distribute money even among many different religious charities then that would pass constitutional muster, and is basically the current policy.
But your reasoning goes a bit further than that. It says that the government MUST distribute money equally to religious organizations even if those organizations don’t meet a government selected criteria. I can see how the Civil Right’s Act stands in the way of this particular requirement, but again that can overruled by a simple majority of congress.