Help wanted, but only Christians need apply

A prominent refugee resettlement organization has enacted a policy that requires new employees to be Christian, triggering an exodus of Chicago staff members who denounce it as religious discrimination.

The former director of the Chicago office of World Relief, a global evangelical Christian charity that receives federal funds to resettle refugees, said she was forced out in January because she disagreed with how the policy was implemented. The agency also has dismantled mental health services for refugees in Chicago after losing staff and funding because of the hiring rule, officials said.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the hiring policy is legal. But opponents, including current and former employees, say it is hypocritical for an agency to discriminate when its mission is settling refugees — many of whom have fled religious intolerance in their home countries.

chicagotribune.com/classified/jobs/ct-met-world-relief-20100531,0,5426879.story

I'm surprised that an agency getting government funding can legally practice religious discrimination in their hiring.

A Christian Organization wanting to hire Christians isn't descrimination any more than accounting firms wanting to hire accounting majors.

I can't stand the Forced Association Laws that have become rampant in our society.

Usually Forced Assocition Laws are called "equality laws" so that the left can get away with their religious discrimination and oppression disguised as equality.

[quote="dnu, post:2, topic:197087"]
A Christian Organization wanting to hire Christians isn't descrimination any more than accounting firms wanting to hire accounting majors.

[/quote]

Not true at all. What business does Catholic Charities ( which collects a lot of donations) have to insist that its truck drivers are Catholic? The question is the type of position at the agency and if it involves dealing with church policy. So, teachers and administrators in the Catholic schools can be required to be Catholic, but not janitors!

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:3, topic:197087"]
Not true at all. What business does Catholic Charities ( which collects a lot of donations) have to insist that its truck drivers are Catholic? The question is the type of position at the agency and if it involves dealing with church policy. So, teachers and administrators in the Catholic schools can be required to be Catholic, but not janitors!

[/quote]

What is the legal basis for your statement. I know it is a common sense stance, but I want to understand the legality. The Civil Rights Act (1964) was only about race, color and national origin. I know the Fair Housing Act (1968) disallows discrimination based on religion for housing*, but what law prohibits hiring discrimination based on religion?

  • side note: I did some mortgage lending a while back, and learned that political affiliation is not a protected class, so if I were a landlord, I could apparently keep the liberals out! :p :D

See here:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

[quote="rlg94086, post:4, topic:197087"]
What is the legal basis for your statement. I know it is a common sense stance, but I want to understand the legality.

[/quote]

I think the courts have ruled in that manner. The law states:

"it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees...on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”

So is religion a BFOQ to drive a truck for Catholic charities? I don't think so.

[quote="rlg94086, post:4, topic:197087"]
The Civil Rights Act (1964) was only about race, color and national origin. I know the Fair Housing Act (1968) disallows discrimination based on religion for housing*, but what law prohibits hiring discrimination based on religion?

[/quote]

The civil rights act also mentions religion.

[quote="rlg94086, post:4, topic:197087"]
* side note: I did some mortgage lending a while back, and learned that political affiliation is not a protected class, so if I were a landlord, I could apparently keep the liberals out! :p :D

[/quote]

Landlords can legally refuse to rent to lawyers, too. That's a court ruling, also. Watch out for the rulings on 'pretext', though.

Thanks! That’s what I was looking for…and I agree with you regarding the truck driver. As I posted previously, it is, at a minimum, common sense reasoning. I just wanted to know what the law was. Is the quote you provided (without citation…shame on you! :tsktsk: F+ :wink: ) from a Supreme Court case, the Civil Right Act? Can you give me a reference?

[quote=Beau Ouiville]The civil rights act also mentions religion.
[/quote]

Oops! You’re right…my memory failed me. I guess I should have looked it up first.

[quote=Beau Ouiville]Landlords can legally refuse to rent to lawyers, too. That’s a court ruling, also. Watch out for the rulings on ‘pretext’, though.
[/quote]

Some of my best friends are lawyers. :smiley:

"Section 703 of the [Civil Rights] Act [of 1964], 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, provides as follows: “(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - “(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . . . . . . .
”(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) **it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees . . . on the basis of . . . religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification **reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise . . . .”

Cited in:

  • PHILLIPS v. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP.*, 400 U.S. 542 (1971)

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=400&invol=542

Thanks Beau. :thumbsup:

I will revise your grade, now that you have the proper citation… :wink:

I can’t see how World Relief is complying with this law. Even from a common sense standpoint, I can’t see how they would have a problem with a non-Christian working for them.

I can see the motivation. Sure it sounds horrible at first blush. But consider the religious issue a little closer.

As catholics, we are called to serve the poor. Why? I would propose that the reason we are called to do so is only tertiarily (did I make that up?) to meet the physical needs of the impoverished.

The PRIMARY purpose to for the needy person to experience the love of Christ in the giver. The secondary purpose is for the giver to encounter Christ in the poor person.

When christian charity organizations lose their particular identity as a Christ-centered outreach, most of the point has been lost. I've SEEN this first-hand. I've done short term youth ministry in dozens of parishes, rebuilt homes in urban Chicago, and been on diocesan poverty fighting mission trips in third world countries. Time and again, I've seen that when the ENTIRE team is motivated to do what they do out of love for Christ, incredible things happen. When the team loses critical mass and there are enough people there for the still noble, but secularized goal of providing for the needy, things fall apart and the organization gradually becomes no more effective than a government program.

When it is the real thing, the ENTIRE team prays together (absolutely including janitors and truck drivers), serves together, sacrifices together and winds up meeting Jesus together. Truly an awesome thing to behold.

I don't know this group nor if the above is what they are thinking. But it is a possible explanation for the policy. I'm sure there are many out there who would howl that such a group should be banned from receiving tax money. I think this is shortsighted. Religious groups that have a universally acknowledged public service as A goal (not necessarily their entire set of goals) SHOULD still be eligible for tax money as long as that portion of their mission that is secular is achieved as efficiently or better than a purely secular group does it. (And naturally, I think this should apply to schools too, but that's another can of worms....)

[quote="manualman, post:10, topic:197087"]
Religious groups that have a universally acknowledged public service as A goal (not necessarily their entire set of goals) SHOULD still be eligible for tax money as long as that portion of their mission that is secular is achieved as efficiently or better than a purely secular group does it. (And naturally, I think this should apply to schools too, but that's another can of worms....)

[/quote]

I think you want your cake and to eat it, too. Tax money then would involve too much delving into what the religion had as a public service goal, impermissibly having the courts review religious practices.

Further, many of the violent groups in this nation call themselves 'religions' to achieve some exemption from review by the federal authorities and so their properties will be tax exempt. I do not want to give such charlatans further incentive to attempt to mislead the public.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:11, topic:197087"]
Further, **many of the violent groups in this nation call themselves 'religions' **to achieve some exemption from review by the federal authorities and so their properties will be tax exempt. I do not want to give such charlatans further incentive to attempt to mislead the public.

[/quote]

For instance? ...and Islam doesn't count, because it really is a religion. ;)

[quote="rlg94086, post:12, topic:197087"]
For instance?

[/quote]

Have you heard of Matt Hale? He's doing 40 years now for threatening a federal judge as part of a lawsuit over his group's use of the name: "World Church of the Creator". He also had such racist, extreme views that the IL Supremes would not let him into the bar.

You don't remember the racist Montana ;'church' which was really a klavern? It used "World Church of the Creator", too.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:13, topic:197087"]
Have you heard of Matt Hale? He's doing 40 years now for threatening a federal judge as part of a lawsuit over his group's use of the name: "World Church of the Creator". He also had such racist, extreme views that the IL Supremes would not let him into the bar.

You don't remember the racist Montana ;'church' which was really a klavern? It used "World Church of the Creator", too.

[/quote]

No, I hadn't heard of them...that's why I asked "for instance?" Thanks.

Why? The funding agency need not look at ALL into what the religious activities are. They just need to look at the secular outcomes and check that efficiencies are in place.

If the group in the OP is winding up finding housing, language training and job search assistance to the refugee families in question for a cost less than the Department of Children and Family Services could, why do we care if the group is also seeking to glorify Christ, Muhammed or Buddha?

On the other hand if an Islamic school, for convenient example, took public money for operations and it was found that their students were showing subpar test results and further investigation showed that this was likely because they spent 3/4 of the day memorizing the Koran and learning to strip and clean AK-47s instead of the 3R’s, then you strip their funding purely because the PERFORMANCE standards are not being met. Not because you dislike Islam.

To me, this still meets the constitutional standard because the money is not being provided for the religious purpose. It is being provided to meet a consensus secular goal. The fact that it is overtly religious people working to meet that goal theough means and methods guided by their faith should not be an impediment to funding them IF they can do it better than the bureacrats can.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.