Conservative Hypocrisy... again... AA vs Charities

[Sava]

finally MtG restores order with relevant points!@

[PLATO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


So you think the Nation of Islam should have to hire whites and Jews? How about the local Jewish temple having to hire NOI members? How does the state have the right to compel such practices in organizations covered by the Establisment Clause? (hint, it cuts both ways).

General religious discrimination is an entirely different issue from forcing religious organizations to hire those who do not share, or who may even actively oppose, their beliefs.

Quota systems in AA are nothing but a lame bureaucratic excuse to cover for failing to address the underlying inequalities which lead to the disparities AA is allegedly intended to remedy.

On target and on topic!

for both

[Sava]

In response to MtG...

The religious organizations in question receive federal funds for education. Those private organizations you mentioned, can hire whoever they want. But if government tax dollars fund an organization, they should be subject to equal opprotunity regulation. For these organizations to be exempt, the government should stop giving them money.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Sava
if government tax dollars fund an organization, they should be subject to equal opprotunity regulation.

Why? If an organization is contributing to the greater good of society, why wouldn't you want your tax dollars supporting it?

[Sava]

Why? If an organization is contributing to the greater good of society, why wouldn't you want your tax dollars supporting it?

If they can't follow the rules... tough sh1t!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
But if government tax dollars fund an organization, they should be subject to equal opprotunity regulation. For these organizations to be exempt, the government should stop giving them money.

If the government is generally supporting their operation, yes. If the government is giving grant money related to participation in specific progams only, then the guiding criteria should be whether they fulfill the requirements of the program for which they are receiving grants.

If they manage to shelter and feed the homeless or teach little kids to read with equal or greater efficacy than other qualified programs, that should be the only issue.

[Sava]

Money is money... how it is spent is generally irrelevant. Either we have seperation of church and state, or we don't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

"money is money" does not apply in government. Both the nature of the funding mechanism, and the ways in which money can be used in a specific program, are subject to a lot of complex rules and different treatment.

Eligibility for participation in specific grants is an entirely different issue than ongoing receipt of general government funds or preferences.

You're whistling Dixie through the wrong orifice anyway, this is already in line with SCOTUS rulings.

[Sava]

this is already in line with SCOTUS rulings.

So? The SCOTUS isn't some uber-moral entity. Slavery was legal and it took a war to get rid of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The SCOTUS isn't some uber-moral entity.

It's an uber-legal entity though .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
So? The SCOTUS isn't some uber-moral entity. Slavery was legal and it took a war to get rid of it.

Yes, slavery was legal. The law changed.

What you're *****ing about wrt head start program funding is legal. If you want to change the law, go ahead, but the constitutionality of the existing law has already been tested.

[Sava]

Sorry, I'm a silly idealist who thinks that the SCOTUS should uphold what is right, and not just what is written law.

[Kuciwalker]

I've only skimmed the first post, but I repeatedly refuted Sava's point about religious charities in the thread about it (so did MtG). The religious charities thing is not saying "you must discriminate", it's letting RELIGIOUS organizations hire based on RELIGION... imagine that! Duh. Or do you think a catholic church, for example, should have to have certain quota's of other religions...

EDIT: I see MtG has continued to make that point, using his Nation of Islam example... I like that one

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry, I'm a silly idealist who thinks that the SCOTUS should uphold what is right, and not just what is written law.

Yeah, that would be a rational system. Hey, people, let's get 280 million opinions on what's "right."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Sava
Sorry, I'm a silly idealist who thinks that the SCOTUS should uphold what is right, and not just what is written law.

We're a nation of laws. Get over it.