"No Catholics, Baptists, or Jews May Apply" (virgin, tradition)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0303-12.htm

MARCH 3, 2005
4:14 PM
CONTACT: Interfaith Alliance
Don Parker, 202.639.6370, ext. 111


US House Says "No Catholics, Baptists, or Jews May Apply" Religious liberty protection loses again with passage of HR 27

WASHINGTON -- March 3 -- Today, The Interfaith Alliance deplored the House passage of HR 27, the Job Training Improvement Act, which rolls back 40 years of civil rights and religious liberty progress by allowing a religious test for federally-funded jobs. This legislation is another example in the growing and ongoing assault on the First Amendment's religious liberty guarantees.

H.R. 27 represents a dramatic shift in government policy towards religion by repealing the language protecting people of faith and goodwill from religious employment discrimination. The original law, including the protections, was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in the Job Training Partnership Act. Since 1982 this program has been the largest Federal employment training program in the nation, serving dislocated workers, homeless individuals, economically disadvantaged adults, youths and older workers.

"The Interfaith Alliance urged members of Congress to support an amendment to HR 27 by Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia that would have restored civil rights protections," Gaddy said. "Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated. TIA opposed the bill without the Scott Amendment as an unjustified assault on religious liberty and civil rights protections. America's unemployed citizens and those who wish to train them should not be subjected to a religious test under a federal program."

Under this legislation, religious organizations would be empowered with federal dollars to put up signs saying "No Catholics, No Baptists, No Jews, No Muslims, No Presbyterians, No Methodists, No Episcopalians May Apply," Gaddy said.

"Passage of this legislation is part of an orchestrated effort on numerous fronts by some politicians and some religious leaders to establish one narrow view of Christianity as the favored religion of the United States government," said the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President of The Interfaith Alliance, and a Baptist minister. "They want to ignore or delete the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution by saying the Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion but not freedom FROM religion.

"Just this week, at a Washington conference on faith-based initiatives, President Bush outlined his agenda to continue his administration's repeal of religious liberty and civil rights guarantees. Also this week, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay declared that the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state," Gaddy said. "But how can we have freedom of religion if we don't have freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on us by government?"

In another assault on religious liberty, HR 235, the Jones Bill, seeks to convert houses of worship into partisan political organizations, endorsing political candidates while remaining tax-exempt.

Efforts to enact into law the president's illegal faith-based executive orders would sanction the spending of tax-payer dollars to proselytize those in need and to base hiring on a religious test.

According to an April 2001 Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll, 78 percent of Americans oppose allowing government-funded religious organizations to hire only those who share their religious beliefs.

The Interfaith Alliance (TIA) is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive and healing role of religion in the life of the nation and challenging those who manipulate religion to promote a narrow, divisive agenda. With more than 150,000 members drawn from more than 75 faith traditions, and 47 local alliances, TIA promotes compassion, civility and mutual respect for human dignity in our increasingly diverse society. www.interfaithalliance.org

[Feathers in Hair]

Whew, all these rights Americans have are so gosh- darn burdensome... I'm so glad the enlightened Bush administration is seeing fit to relieve us of so many of them.

[jamaesi]

Under this legislation, religious organizations would be empowered with federal dollars to put up signs saying "No Catholics, No Baptists, No Jews, No Muslims, No Presbyterians, No Methodists, No Episcopalians May Apply," Gaddy said.

When can we put up signs barring the Irish again? Oh please let it be soon!


I'm frustrated to the point of tears. Maybe I'll have something more constructive later. :/

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

If "enlightened" means being lit by the burning of books...

Nice play on words!!!

How can they relieve us of those rights, if these exactly these rights restrict them of doing so?
I don't know but eh HOW else can one read "Congress shall make no law......" Living documents or not.

Private organizations may discriminate. However, when they take government funds and works as agents of the government they may not discriminate.

It is not a separation of church/state issue. Whatever may be said as a state/church issue is overridden by the right and necessity of the state to maintain public order and other personal rights.

[jamaesi]

Private organizations may discriminate. However, when they take government funds and works as agents of the government they may not discriminate.

Amen. I have no problem with private/religious organizations and programs. However, when my money is going towards something, it darn well better be to a organization that isn't going to discriminate against me.

[kiwimac]

Man o man,

And you folks voted for this idiot?

Kiwimac

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by kiwimac

Man o man,

And you folks voted for this idiot?

Kiwimac

Neither time, nope. (And the majority of us didn't vote for him the first time, either. I don't know what was wrong with the people who did, but I feel a great sympathy toward them, since they're not going to be able to blame the mess we're getting into on anyone but themselves.)

(No, I'm not that harsh... I just don't understand this particular viewpoint, though I've tried.)