I'm actually fine with (non-governmental) employers being able to discriminate based on religion: it would mean that I also have the right to decide who I hire based on their logical abilities. ^_~
This is simply unethical. I won't even bother addressing it further.
Why? Can I choose not to hire someone as a janitor who believes that he must sing to his mop constantly while he works on the grounds that it would be annoying? Can I choose not to hire a weekend support worker who won't work Saturdays for religious reasons? Can I choose not to hire a mathematician who believes that four is greater than five?
I should be able to take into consideration all of the self-elected traits a person exhibits in deciding whether or not I will bring them under my employ.
Why? Can I choose not to hire someone as a janitor who believes that he must sing to his mop constantly while he works on the grounds that it would be annoying? Can I choose not to hire a weekend support worker who won't work Saturdays for religious reasons? Can I choose not to hire a mathematician who believes that four is greater than five?
I should be able to take into consideration all of the self-elected traits a person exhibits in deciding whether or not I will bring them under my employ.
You are driving at issues that directly effect the ability to do a said job. Religion is personal and should not effect your hiring purposes. As an employer, you can set your office hours - if an employee cannot meet them for any reason, then you have a right to fire them. What is to stop Liberals from not hiring Conservatives or vice-versa because they feel the person's logical abilities are flawed in one aspect of their life that has nothing to do with their ability to do a job. A person may believe in the flying spaghetti monster and be a great CEO, they are two separate issues. It is illogical for people to eat more than they need, so if people do not have the "correct" body mass, does that mean they will make poor doctors, lawyers, carpenters, etc? Everyone has some aspect of their lives or has made a decision that is illogical, or can be called into question by others. You will have no employees if you look for only those that are completely logical all the time.
Which qualities do you measure about a person based on their choice of religion?
The amount of bullshit they believe in and their ability to think critically.
I look at this from the other direction. If you are not a member of the religion why would you want to work for that religion?
Because it might pay well.
Good answers!
As long as the job you take does not put you in a position to interact with the public your religion should not have any impact on your job. Who cares if the guy washing the dishes at a Jewish Temple is Christian?
Having to hire someone of an opposing belief system into a public facing position is clearly wrong. A rabbi is not in a position to lead a christian church.
The problem with the boy scout case (where I agree with the dissent) is that discussions about sex and sexuality are supposed to be referred back to the parents and not discussed within the troop. With that being the organization's policy it does not matter if the troop leaders are straight or gay.
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
That is a rather sexist statement to make. Was it men or woman who voted for the Nineteenth Amendment to be added to the US Constitution?
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
That is a rather sexist statement to make. Was it men or woman who voted for the Nineteenth Amendment to be added to the US Constitution?
That is the point, IT IS SEXIST! People should not be hired based on gender, ethnicity, class, political beliefs, religious beliefs, handicap, etc. as long as they can do the job. I wasn't saying that men haven't worked for women's rights, I was just saying that a not-for-profit that helped female victims of domestic abuse SHOULD NOT be allowed to hire only women to work in their organization. Get a clue and pay attention.
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
That is a rather sexist statement to make. Was it men or woman who voted for the Nineteenth Amendment to be added to the US Constitution?
Thst is the point, IT IS SEXIST! People should not be hired based on gender, ethnicity, class, political beliefs, religious beliefs, handicap, etc. as long as they can do the job. I wasn't saying that men haven't worked for women's rights, I was just saying that a not-for-profit that helped female victims of domestic abuse SHOULD NOT be allowed to hire only women to work in their organization. Get a clue and pay attention.
But those are personal issues, and should not be under scrutiny in professional situations.
Personal issues that have very real ramifications in their actions. Would you feel free to not hire someone who admits they are lazy?
No, but how does someone's religion necessarily impact their ability to perform their job well. People keep pointing at religious people and calling them illogical, but EVERYONE is illogical. I am an atheist and I see the argument against religion, but SEPERATION of religious belief and ability to perform a job happens every day and is essential! Freedom of religion is essential! Also, no one is allowed to ask about religion in an interview, so how the hack would you know if your employee subscribed to any particular belief system?
I can think of one case where discriminating against someone based on their religion does make sense: Scientists who study evolution.
It's possible to separate personal beliefs from taught material, believe it or not. Generally, I would agree that a scientist who believes in God should be right out, but if they can keep the two sufficiently separate, why throw out what could be a useful resource?
If someone keeps their beliefs truly personal, and can adequately separate their personal feelings from their job, then they'll have no problems. Most people suck at doing that, and that's why we have problems.
My biggest beef with the government funding of religious endeavors is that they tend to be favored over secular endeavors. In my perfect world, funding would distributed purely based on the merit of the program itself, and the government would be 100% blind to its religious ties. I don't care what motivates somebody to help someone out; if you're helping someone out, that's good enough in my book.
What good is a belief if you hold it but live as though it were not true?
I don't know. Some people find solace in it. As long as they behave rationally, I don't really care.
I can see separating intellectual beliefs from functional beliefs. Like, intellectually speaking, I can't believe in free will, but functionally speaking, I believe because it makes life a lot more pleasant overall.
What good is a belief if you hold it but live as though it were not true?
It's not a belief. It's just a lie a part of your brain tells itself. If you truly believe something, you will live by it. If you don't live by it, you are living a lie.
What good is a belief if you hold it but live as though it were not true?
It's not a belief. It's just a lie a part of your brain tells itself. If you truly believe something, you will live by it. If you don't live by it, you are living a lie.
Maybe that's true in a perfect world. In the real world, people often have to make copromises.
If a person subscribes to Voodoo, but wants a job at a Baptist college, there's nothing wrong with him keeping his Voodoo beliefs to himself while he's actually at the college.
If a person subscribes to Voodoo, but wants a job at a Baptist college, there's nothing wrong with him keeping his Voodoo beliefs to himself while he's actually at the college.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a person who acts in direct contradiction to their so-called beliefs. Let's use your voodoo example. Let's say a person believes in voodoo, and believes that working at the baptist college will bring a great curse on them. If they then go to work at the college without any fear, but still claim to believe that voodoo, they don't really believe.
Obama’s initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:
* Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction. * Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve. * Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs. * Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives. * Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding. Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not - whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.
Here is agood writeup on the Faith-Based organizational issue.
I realize now this is all just some more classic doublespeak. He says he's going to expand the faith initiatives, this makes religious people happy. Then he says all the stuff in the AP quote that Luke just posted. That makes all the non-religious people happy.
It's just how politicians roll. His campaign sat and thought about this for a long time before they said anything. They construct the statement in such a way, that they have something to say to anyone who goes after it. If a religious person goes after it, they have one thing to say. If the anti-religious people go after it, they say another thing.
In the end, I agree with that "good write-up" you linked to. Even if they can successfully enforce and manage the use of that money, it's going to help out religious groups. Why not just take all the faith-based initiative money and give it to secular do-gooders instead? Oh, because it's much harder to doublespeak that move.
Welcome to American Politics, Scott Rubin. Hope you survive the experience.
And you wonder why I maon and groan when you people treat this stuff like it's not a joke.
We live in a world where being the ideal politician will not get you elected. So what do you do? Lie to people to get elected and then do what you want anyhow. I have no illusions that Obama is just another politician; I've come to accept that all politicians will do things like this. They play a game, because that's how the public works.
Welcome to American Politics, Scott Rubin. Hope you survive the experience.
And you wonder why I maon and groan when you people treat this stuff like it's not a joke.
It isn't a joke, it is what it is. You either play the game or you don't
Yeah, politics can seriously affect a person, his liberty, his finances, and his family (including his grandchildren), but since politicians aren't perfect and there are no perfect candidate choices, it all can be ignored.
If McCain is elected (God forbid!) and appoints two or three more Justices like Roberts and Alito, I don't think anyone will see the humor in the "joke".
It isn't a joke, it is what it is. You either play the game or you don't
The more and more I learn about the game, the less I actually want to play it. It's getting to the point where apathy is setting in...
Unfortunately, if noone of quality plays the game, we are all screwed. I know Obama is just a politician and he'll have to play the game to become president, I still have "HOPE" that most of his ideas and positions survive a run for the president. Otherwise I'll go back to watching the West Wing again :-p
There is a reason why we don't have like 100+ people running for office each time...
Scott's views on politics are similar to his views on the environment. He thinks that if the effects these things have are not immediately visible to him in the short-term, they don't matter. He likes to think of himself as being apart from the system.
Give up on the idea of democracy? Try a new system?
I agree 110%. That's the only solution I've ever seen as being viable. Tear it down and start all over again.
It'd be foolish to think that any governmental system can last indefinitely. Society changes with time; as such, it makes sense that the system governing said society must also change with time. The problem is that the system has a vested interest in remaining exactly where it is.
I agree 110%. That's the only solution I've ever seen as being viable. Tear it down and start all over again.
One piece of evidence, minor as it is, is Digg. Digg functioned perfectly when a self-selected, generally aware, small number of dedicated people had control over the content. Once the masses joined in, it became flooded with useless garbage was completely ruined. This seems to happen with every instance of democracy on the Internet: I've never seen an Internet democracy succeed.
Comments
I should be able to take into consideration all of the self-elected traits a person exhibits in deciding whether or not I will bring them under my employ.
What is to stop Liberals from not hiring Conservatives or vice-versa because they feel the person's logical abilities are flawed in one aspect of their life that has nothing to do with their ability to do a job. A person may believe in the flying spaghetti monster and be a great CEO, they are two separate issues.
It is illogical for people to eat more than they need, so if people do not have the "correct" body mass, does that mean they will make poor doctors, lawyers, carpenters, etc? Everyone has some aspect of their lives or has made a decision that is illogical, or can be called into question by others. You will have no employees if you look for only those that are completely logical all the time.
As long as the job you take does not put you in a position to interact with the public your religion should not have any impact on your job. Who cares if the guy washing the dishes at a Jewish Temple is Christian?
Having to hire someone of an opposing belief system into a public facing position is clearly wrong. A rabbi is not in a position to lead a christian church.
The problem with the boy scout case (where I agree with the dissent) is that discussions about sex and sexuality are supposed to be referred back to the parents and not discussed within the troop. With that being the organization's policy it does not matter if the troop leaders are straight or gay. That is a rather sexist statement to make. Was it men or woman who voted for the Nineteenth Amendment to be added to the US Constitution?
If someone keeps their beliefs truly personal, and can adequately separate their personal feelings from their job, then they'll have no problems. Most people suck at doing that, and that's why we have problems.
My biggest beef with the government funding of religious endeavors is that they tend to be favored over secular endeavors. In my perfect world, funding would distributed purely based on the merit of the program itself, and the government would be 100% blind to its religious ties. I don't care what motivates somebody to help someone out; if you're helping someone out, that's good enough in my book.
I can see separating intellectual beliefs from functional beliefs. Like, intellectually speaking, I can't believe in free will, but functionally speaking, I believe because it makes life a lot more pleasant overall.
If a person subscribes to Voodoo, but wants a job at a Baptist college, there's nothing wrong with him keeping his Voodoo beliefs to himself while he's actually at the college.
It's just how politicians roll. His campaign sat and thought about this for a long time before they said anything. They construct the statement in such a way, that they have something to say to anyone who goes after it. If a religious person goes after it, they have one thing to say. If the anti-religious people go after it, they say another thing.
In the end, I agree with that "good write-up" you linked to. Even if they can successfully enforce and manage the use of that money, it's going to help out religious groups. Why not just take all the faith-based initiative money and give it to secular do-gooders instead? Oh, because it's much harder to doublespeak that move.
Very well, Abortions for none! [BOO]
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others! [YAY]
Welcome to American Politics, Scott Rubin. Hope you survive the experience.
It sucks, yes. So what do we do instead?
If McCain is elected (God forbid!) and appoints two or three more Justices like Roberts and Alito, I don't think anyone will see the humor in the "joke".
There is a reason why we don't have like 100+ people running for office each time...
It'd be foolish to think that any governmental system can last indefinitely. Society changes with time; as such, it makes sense that the system governing said society must also change with time. The problem is that the system has a vested interest in remaining exactly where it is.
What does that say about our real democracy?