Theocracy Watch: Non-Christians need not apply
15 August 2006 by Sean
Uh-oh. Get your morning coffee… Or don’t. This is one of those blood boilers.
(Thanks to Abra for sending it in.)
Non-Christians need not apply
By ROBYN E. BLUMNER, St. Petersburg Times Perspective Columnist
Published August 13, 2006
Thanks to President Bush and his plan to Christianize the nation’s provision of social services, one’s relationship with Jesus Christ has become a real resume booster. As author Michelle Goldberg reports in her new book, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Bush has ushered in affirmative action for the born-again.
In 2005 alone, more than $2-billion in federal tax money went to faith-based programs for such services as job placement programs, addiction treatment and child mentoring. Overwhelmingly, this money went to groups affiliated with Christian religions.
This reallocation of social service money from secular agencies to religiously affiliated programs has also resulted in shifting employment opportunities. But some of these new employers have a shocking job requirement – only Christians need apply.Goldberg cited the publicly funded Firm Foundation of Bradford, Pa., as a blatant example. The group provides prison inmates with job training, something one would think any trained professional could do. Well, think again. According to Goldberg, the group posted an ad for a site manager. It said that the applicant must be “a believer in Christ and Christian Life today, sharing these ideals when the opportunity arises.” Apparently, experience and qualifications are secondary.
Transforming social welfare into conversion therapy was Bush’s design when he made faith-based initiatives the priority of his administration’s domestic agenda. And his success has been astounding.
Before Bush upended things, religious groups had always been enlisted by government as providers of social services. They just had to wholly separate their religious mission from their government-funded services. Under Bush, there has been substantial blurring of the line.
As to hiring, the law always allowed religious groups to discriminate on religious grounds – so that the Catholic Church could hire Catholic priests, for example – but that exemption did not extend to employees hired with public funds to provide social welfare. It was a simple, clear rule. If you took public money, you hired on the basis of merit, not piety.But Bush wiped away this calibrated distinction by issuing a series of executive orders early in his presidency approving taxpayer financed religious discrimination.
Some of the resulting collateral damage has been tragic. Just talk to Anne Lown. She worked for 24 years for the Salvation Army in New York City before resigning due to the hostility she felt toward her non-Christian beliefs. The office she ran had hundreds of employees with an annual budget of $50-million, almost all of which came from public sources. Lown oversaw foster care placements, day care services, residential services for the developmentally disabled and many other programs.
In Lown’s experience, the Salvation Army had always in the past been meticulous about keeping its evangelical side from mingling with its provision of social services, but all that changed in 2003. She attributes the change directly to Bush’s policies. A lawsuit filed by Lown and another 17 current and former employees of the Salvation Army alleges that religion suddenly pervaded the agency’s personnel decisions.
Lown says she was handed a form that all employees were expected to complete, asking for a list of churches she attended over the last 10 years and the name of her present minister. Lown says she was told that indicating “not applicable” was not an option. A lawyer for the Salvation Army says the form was modified after complaints were received.
But Lown said that atmosphere was fear-inducing for the professional staff.
She pointed to a mission statement that all employees were required to support as a condition of employment. It stated that the organization’s mission “is to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Margaret Geissman, who is also part of the lawsuit, claims that she was asked by a supervisor to point out gay and non-Christian employees, with the overt suggestion that there would eventually be a purge of sorts. The Salvation Army denies this.Despite the Salvation Army’s disclaimers, Goldberg cites an internal Salvation Army document describing a deal struck in 2001 with the White House. In exchange for the administration passing regulations protecting faith-based groups from state and local antidiscrimination regulations relative to gays, the Salvation Army agreed to promote the administration’s faith-based agenda.
Forget the proverbial wall. Here it is, church and state working hand-in-glove, with tax money and the government-sanctioned intolerance as the prize.
Meanwhile, money is flowing into religious coffers without anyone watching. A June report from the Government Accountability Office found that few government agencies that award grants to faith-based organizations bother to monitor whether the recipient is improperly mixing religion into their programs or discriminating against clients on the basis of religion. A few organizations contacted by the GAO even admitted to praying with clients while providing government-funded services. As to kicking out non-Christians on the staff, the Bush Justice Department says that it is perfectly okay.
Just another example of how, under this president, I hardly recognize my country anymore.
On the first anniversary of Sept. 11, the CEO of my company announced that there would be a brief moment of “prayer and reverence” at a company all-staff meeting. Dozens of employees simply didn’t show up. (The CEO actually cancelled the little pseudo-religious service.) But I live in heathen San Francisco. If I was in one of the situations described above, I might be down at the Post Office Firing Line working on my aim.
What gets me is that Dick Cheney could have a gay daughter and continue to be a part of all this shit. Discriminating against non-Xians and gays for job positions? What have we come to? I thought we were past all this shit several decades ago. At what point have you sold your (non-existent) soul, Dick? But their daddy/daughter relationship must be so fucking twisted, anyway.
15 August 2006, on 10:11 am
First I’d like to say I love the “simplified work application form”, too funny.
The rest of the article, not so funny. I hope something like that doen’t happen at more companies, like where I work. The head of our HR is a xian, and I wouldn’t put it past him to try something like that.
The part about Cheney is just sad. How does he mix his beliefs and politics and not sound like he’s degrading his own daughter?
15 August 2006, on 11:10 am
The thing about Cheney is, he has never struck me as particularly religious, if religious at all. Sure, he’s willing to go along with policies which directly effect his own daughter, but during the debate in 2004 with Edwards he as much said that he doesn’t always see eye to eye with Bush on some issues, but that he goes along with them. I think his main agenda is much more of a traditional neo-con one and he’s willing to ride his “boss’s” fundamnetalist revival to get what he wants, such as war in Iraq so his Halliburton buddies can clean up off of it. If religion is the tool that lets him further his agenda, then he’ll go along with it.
15 August 2006, on 11:49 am
The Republicans have sold their souls folks, and we’re paying for it.
15 August 2006, on 12:13 pm
The sad part is that if a Democrat is elected in 2008, this Faith Based Office will probably be entrenched by then. Sure, a Democractic president would likely modify it and dilute it somewhat, but it might be politically risky to dump the entire thing.
15 August 2006, on 1:24 pm
KR nailed it. Cheney just stays silent on these issues. He’s more into conquering countries. As if being silent is any better while the administration you work for is practicing such blatant discrimination. The man has no shame.
Then again, if Mary had any guts, she wouldn’t hide so much, either. Remember Ronnie Reagan? He eventually got a little guts. She should come out and say that her father is tacitly endorsing a kind of apartheid for gay people. Slippery slope his ass.
15 August 2006, on 1:50 pm
Atheists, Reproduce!
15 August 2006, on 2:07 pm
I have two little ones already Marcus, but alas that will be all.
15 August 2006, on 4:36 pm
It’s all about Money. Get elected. Pay off the electorate. Line your own pockets in an arms length deal that you control but are not directly involved with. No mystery I’m saddeened to realize that more Americans let it go as the cost of doing business.
I saw Michelle on C-span this weekend and am preparing another post about a different portion of this Kingdom Coming. She sure does bring out the best in US.
15 August 2006, on 5:00 pm
What makes me laugh is that there are xians who still wonder why people are starting to hate them.
I remember a post on a message board talking about the left behind books and he said the part about people hating xians was coming true, and all I remember thinking was, you brought it about on yourself.
It’s shit like this that makes people distance themselves and strike back, and yet these oblivious morons still have the gaul to cry persecution. Maybe we should ship them all over to some fundementalist Muslim countries and see how they like actually being persecuted.
15 August 2006, on 5:47 pm
Christianity has had a persecution complex ever since the rule of Nero and Julian the Apostate. Sometimes I wonder whether their bloody ghosts haunt them still. To be fair, Soviet Communism did give them something to justifiably be concerned about.
I recommend Gore Vidal’s novel on Julian, by the way. You will at times sympathize with him.
15 August 2006, on 5:55 pm
I don’t think Bush or Cheney are very religous, really. They just play into it to achieve their evil agendas. I saw Mary Cheney in an interview about her book. She wasn’t likable, I’d never buy her book.
I used to give a lot of stuff to Salv. Army and money into the buckets at xmas to help the poor. No more. I’ll give my unwanted stuff to Goodwill and my money to the animal shelters.
Keep supporting the American Atheists, and the ACLU and hope that there are enough lawyers and lawsuits to stop this kind of happy horseshit from happening in our lifetimes.
15 August 2006, on 6:31 pm
Man, that’s just bullshit. It’s amazing that this whole faith based shinola was not ruled unconstitutional on a fundamental level.
Can you say, McCarthyism”? Sure, I knew you could!
15 August 2006, on 6:41 pm
It won’t ever be ruled unconstitutional DBR. The rulers of this country are more concerned with maintaining their power than maintaining a government.
You rule this unconstitutional, you no longer stay in power. If a judge rules this unconstitutional, you find some way around it in order to stay in power.
The religious right in this country has our government by the balls because they control the majority.
I always thought democracy was supposed to protect the majority from the minority AND the minority from the majority.
15 August 2006, on 7:22 pm
What is it they call Mob Rule, ochlochracy? Something like that, though I’m partial to Oligarchy.
15 August 2006, on 9:49 pm
Then again, if Mary had any guts, she wouldn’t hide so much, either”
Totally, totally agree, Sean. Mary C gets no pass from me.
However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the class bias I see in the application (though I did laugh, I admit it). I think we can concentrate on people making choices to be stupid, or trying to remake social policy based on their ignorant beliefs, rather than focusing on their regional backgrounds. What d’ya think?
15 August 2006, on 10:43 pm
Also, does this mean that Christians MUST apply? What if you can prove that you’re no longer Christian. Please?
15 August 2006, on 10:58 pm
However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the class bias I see in the application (though I did laugh, I admit it). I think we can concentrate on people making choices to be stupid, or trying to remake social policy based on their ignorant beliefs, rather than focusing on their regional backgrounds. What d’ya think?
Catherine: I agree and thought of that as I posted it. I didn’t grow up with much, and I dislike class bias in the extreme. Then I just said “fuck it.” Fact was, I still found it funny — as you said. I’m vulgar and have bad taste sometimes, I guess! (Okay, all the time.) We can’t always be P.C., can we? Even self-proclaimed rednecks have found their own niche in comedy lately — making fun of… themselves.
16 August 2006, on 2:35 am
“I don’t think Bush or Cheney are very religous, really.”
Cheney, no. It is difficult to believe that man has a heart at all.
However, my reading of Bush is that he is genuinely religious, albeit of the bipolar kind who is a holy roller at church and in his daily bible study and a sinner the rest of the week.
16 August 2006, on 2:40 am
Atheists, Reproduce!
I have one already, a toddler being raised as an atheist despite objections from certain people.
Mostly off topic, but my wife and a friend of ours who has kids were hanging out and talking today while the kids were playing. Apparently the topic of who each would leave their kids with if both parents were to die came up. Our friend told my wife that we would be their top choice for guardians in the event of their untimely deaths but since we’re atheists, she couldn’t leave her kids with us. As my wife pointed out, our friends don’t attend church or even live a religious lifestyle. So, other than their son’s parents being dead and him living with us, his lifestyle would not change in the least. But since we’re atheists, well, that’s a whole other story. Thing is, I’ve never really liked the whack job, but her husband is my oldest friend, and he barely even pays lip service to being a xian while she claims to be, but like I mentioned only says she is. I told my wife that we would never leave them our kid because the wife is a complete and total hypocrite and she should’ve told her that. My wife isn’t nearly as fired up about things as I can be so it wasn’t really an issue for her anyway. Her response: “I wouldn’t want their kid anyway. Ours is cooler.”
16 August 2006, on 9:41 am
W. supposedly got right with gawd to cure his drinking, coking, and draftdodging- okay I just tossed the last one in there, and he strikes me as just simple enough to actually by the fundie snake oil. Cheney is far too Machiavellian to take it seriously and uses it only because it happens to coincide with his purposes. Either way, fuck ‘em both.
16 August 2006, on 11:12 am
Sean, I did say I laughed!!!! Yes, we can all be unPC at times. My main problem is in terms of Ann Coulter. I, on some level, dislike the criticism of her (the really mean stuff) that focuses on her looks and femaleness – god knows you don’t have to go any farther for ammunition than the mewlings of her brain – but sometimes I just say “Fuck it” and laugh. (You know, if she weren’t who she is, her looks wouldn’t strike people as being off, I don’t think.)
16 August 2006, on 12:27 pm
Catherine, my initial reaction to comments and postings about Ann Coulter on Gifs have been similar to your own. But if you look at other postings about male xians (T. LeHaye and J. Jenkins for example who push Rapture theology) there’s no prejudice based on gender. Political figures are often the brunt of image jokes and this is most likely because the political arena puts so much stock in “image” instead of real substance.
Ann Coulter presents her ideas in such an offensive fashion, with such vehement denunciations of anyone who uses critical thinking skills with any degree of success, that she has invited the most severe and outlandish response from those who are deeply offended by her remarks. Her decorum is far from politically correct. In my mind she has given permission to remove the gloves and fight dirty.
16 August 2006, on 12:42 pm
At my last job with an agency receiving government funding the majority of staff were xian. The executive director would email staff with religious messages considered “inspirational”. Since I was required to read her email messages as part of my job description, just in case one of them was actually related to the work we were paid to do, I found it extremely annoying. My contract was only for one year so I didn’t object formally, but I did make my displeasure known to other staff who for the most part seemed to agree with my concerns. We were all very overloaded with work and for the most part these long-winded messages only ate up time that could have been better spent accomplishing real work. I did notice that toward the end of my contract these messages seemed to dry up so perhaps word got back to the ED.
It doesn’t seem to matter how far “past all this shit” we get there’s always the potential for a sewage backup. Very stinky!
16 August 2006, on 1:17 pm
What irritates me is people that just assume that everyone feels the same way they do; whether it’s about god/religion, or the war in Iraq.
I am an independent contractor for a company. Another person that works for the company forwarded an email to all 30 or 40 people in the company recently. I can’t remember exactly what it said, but it was to the effect of supporting the Iraq War and that anyone who didn’t was unpatriotic.
I shot back an email — to everyone — asking if this was really a forum for war debate, because if it was, I had some things to say. Needless to say, they shut up.
My point is, why did this person assume that everyone in the company was for the war? If I had sent an email to everyone saying that Bush was a war criminal and the war is illegal, etc., those same people would have been offended. Yet I’m just supposed to listen to their views and agree?
16 August 2006, on 2:25 pm
Martian, I’m guilty of that myself. When I look at some of the people I know I think to myself that they seem like intelligent and reasonable people. So their views on politics and religion must be intelligent and reasonable as well. Then I find out that they go to church three times a week and have a W04 bumper sticker. Next thing you know I’m trying to defend the fact that the universe is not 5,000 years old and that all 6 billion of us didn’t arise from of some guy having sex with his rib. Soon after that, I’m duct taped to a tree and there’s a crowd of psychos grabbing stones.
16 August 2006, on 10:20 pm
“If I had sent an email to everyone saying that Bush was a war criminal and the war is illegal, etc., those same people would have been offended. Yet I’m just supposed to listen to their views and agree?”
Martian, you WISH that’s all you’d have gotten – their being offended. You’d probablyh have been shunned, if not fired. And Lynda, I wonder if you’d have been fired if you hadn’t had a limited contract yourself.
Also, Lynda, I pretty much agree about Ann Coulter, which is why I can’t get too annoyed, but I do feel the harm she does is the main thing, not her gender. When does a gender-specific word become a comment on women rather than on the person being criticized? On the other hand, I’m not above using a gender-specific term about a man who’s misusing power – and I won’t use it/them here out of respect for the guys who write on the blog. But it’s also true that there are many more powerful men than women at this point in history. Whatever . . . .
17 August 2006, on 8:44 am
[...] Theocracy Watch: Non-Christians need not apply [...]
9 September 2006, on 3:58 am
RE: Theocracy and Dominionism
Dominionism, The Other Autocratic Regime
http://beepbeepitsme.blogspot.com/2006/09/dominionism-other-autocratic-regime.html