Bush administration okays religious discrimination in hiring
The New York Times has the story:
In a newly disclosed legal memorandum, the Bush administration says it can bypass laws that forbid giving taxpayer money to religious groups that hire only staff members who share their faith.The administration, which has sought to lower barriers between church and state through its religion-based initiative offices, made the claim in a 2007 Justice Department memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel. It was quietly posted on the department’s Web site this week.
The statutes for some grant programs do not impose antidiscrimination conditions on their financing, and the administration had previously allowed such programs to give taxpayer money to groups that hire only people of a particular religion.
But the memorandum goes further, drawing a sweeping conclusion that even federal programs subject to antidiscrimination laws can give money to groups that discriminate.
In his third debate with Obama, McCain said twice -- in the context of the moderator's question on abortion and Supreme Court appointments -- that "elections have consequences."
I'd not heard that phrase in the context of court appointments and litmus tests. What he seems to have meant is that when voters elect a candidate they are voting to allow the elected official to exercise their constitutional powers. McCain was saying it should people elect presidents to, among other things, choose justices who are both qualified and inclined to agree with their perspective.
In this case -- Bush elected to the executive -- Bush is implementing what he sees as a policy preference of the American people as reflected in their choice of him twice to pull the levers of the executive branch.
All signs point to the American people electing Obama. Elections have consequences.
Posted by John B. Chilton![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 18, 2008 10:22 AM
All signs point to the American people electing Obama. Elections have consequences.
John, I hope you know just how many of us in the "rest of the world" pray this is true!
David Allen
Posted by David |dah • veed|![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 18, 2008 10:49 AM
Elections have consequences. Yes, but those elected take an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the land. That should preclude the executive branch ignoring laws it finds inconvenient or objectionable. At a minimum the Administration's policy skates on very thin ice, seeming to violate the important principle of church-state separation.
Posted by George Clifford![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 18, 2008 12:16 PM