My New Column

[LowerCaseRepublican]

This is my new column that will be running in the Herald News on Friday Oct. 21. I figure I'd give the good old Soxtalk faithful a sneak peek and a chance to read it first.

 

http://lennybrucefan.tripod.com/id47.html

[JUGGERNAUT]

Some how I knew a column from you would take aim at Christians :rolly

 

It's common sense & pretty simple to understand. An institution founded upon a Christian, Muslim, Lutheran, Baptist, Buddhist, Hinduist, or any other religious denomination has the right to hire teachers & faculty

members who share that faith.

 

It's NOT discrimination as you see it because the institution itself is FOUNDED upon the faith. Without the faith the institution would not exist.

 

Yet we so often see LIBs & Dems stick their nose in other people's business simply because they hate the existence of God in schools. Why would a person even seek such a job if they did not share the same faith? Simply because they are mean-spirited & unkind individuals who seek to cause trouble for the masses.

 

There are plenty of jobs available to said individuals at public schools. Leave those that are FOUNDED upon a faith to the faith-borne.

 

It's common sense & it exists in most nations outside of this one

Edited October 14, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Heads22]

Some how I knew a column from you would take aim at Christians :rolly

 

It's common sense & pretty simple to understand.  An institution founded upon a Christian, Muslim, Lutheran, Baptist, Buddhist, Hinduist, or any other religious denomination has the right to hire teachers & faculty

members who share that faith.

 

It's NOT discrimination as you see it because the institution itself is FOUNDED upon the faith.  Without the faith the institution would not exist.

 

Yet we so often see LIBs & Dems stick their nose in other people's business simply because they hate the existence of God in schools.   Why would a person even seek such a job if they did not share the same faith?   Simply because they are mean-spirited & unkind individuals who seek to cause trouble for the masses. 

 

There are plenty of jobs available to said individuals at public schools.  Leave those that are FOUNDED upon a faith to the faith-borne.

 

It's common sense & it exists in most nations outside of this one

 

As long as they're faith-based and the government shouldn't stick it's nose in, I'm sure you wouldn't care if federal funding was pulled.

[Heads22]

Oh, and I'm sick of liberal being used as an insult. Very f***ing sick of it.

[Balta1701]

Straw man. No one is saying that religious schools shouldn't be allowed, nor is anyone saying that religious schools shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. The only statement in that column is that head start funds, which come from the public and are bound by the rules of government, should not be used in schools which use discriminatory policies.

[Heads22]

Straw man.  No one is saying that religious schools shouldn't be allowed, nor is anyone saying that religious schools shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.  The only statement in that column is that head start funds, which come from the public and are bound by the rules of government, should not be used in schools which use discriminatory policies.

 

 

Someone paid attention when they covered fallacies in speaking classes....

[Balta1701]

Someone paid attention when they covered fallacies in speaking classes....

Actually, Juggs is just reminding me of them as we go along.

[JUGGERNAUT]

As long as they're faith-based and the government shouldn't stick it's nose in, I'm sure you wouldn't care if federal funding was pulled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And as long as the faith-based don't make use of public schools I'm sure you won't mind if we don't tax them for it. After all wouldn't it be discriminatory to tax those who don't want to support public schools in the first place? :rolly

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And as long as the faith-based don't make use of public schools I'm sure you won't mind if we don't tax them for it.  After all wouldn't it be discriminatory to tax those who don't want to support public schools in the first place?  :rolly

Juggs. Many of my friends are Christians. And I don't really like the assertion you're making (pot.kettle.black re: you b****ing about the whining Dems all the time) I wasn't targeting all Christians. I was just talking those that are too ignorant to realize there is no Constitutional protection for using religion as a means to discriminate in jobs where federal funds are funding the program.

 

Head Start is an extra-assistance program to poor areas. Most are held in community buildings but sometimes they are held in houses of worship. Since federal funds fund this program, the buildings must follow the anti-discrimination laws set forth by the US government. They must, if they accept federal funds, not use religion/race/sex/disability etc. as reason to hire or fire a worker.

 

You had an excellent straw man regarding private schools, Christians et. al. All I spoke about was the asinine nature of the rollback of civil rights in Head Start. But nice try, Juggs.

[JUGGERNAUT]

You will only get in trouble if Mods do their job as that definitely constitutes a personal attack. Seeing that you edited the post it's a moot issue now. In general posters should stick to debating the argument & refrain from personal attacks but for some natural selection seems to have led to a pre-disposistion that makes it a part of their very nature.

 

What you fail to understand & continue to fail to understand is that the majority of Americans do NOT believe in the establishment clause as you do. This has been measured time & again & is why there have been two attempts to pass a faith-based amendment to overrule the anti-religious rulings set forth by a questionable USSC.

 

So where you associate the Govt as an implication that religion does NOT matter & should not matter most Americans do not.

 

These institutions are NOT just any institutions. They are insitutions FOUNDED upon a religious faith. If not for that religious faith the institutions WOULD NOT exist. That's why it's ridiculous to assert that such institutions should be FORCED to employ people not sharing the same faith in order to recieve Head Start money.

 

If we are talking about fairness where does the money from Head Start come from?

Tax payers. On the subject of taxes in support of public education imposed upon those who send their kids to private schools is as unfair as it gets. If we are talking about fairness then allow these parents to claim that cost as a local tax deduction. The cost of Head Start pales in comparison to the added burden these parents are shouldering.

Edited October 14, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

Head Start is really just the tip of the ice berg on this issue. Many politicians including Daley himself are moving in the direction of school vouchers, tax deductions, & other monetary assistance to private & parochial schools.

 

The USSC has upheld this direction so long as the education in question for the most part serves a secular purpose.

 

Now of course with that being the direction hiring practices are going to be called into question. It's inevitable & an issue the courts will have to address at some time. Considering Roberts & Miers are staunch conservatives on this issue it's likely faith will be considered an exception from general hiring practices WHEN the institution itself is faith-borne. That distinction does make a difference.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Hey Juggs, if the majority of people at Soxtalk didn't want you around -- would you keep posting?

 

I mean, if you're all for majority rule then you should really be game for a simple poll.

 

So, let's take your assertion to its logical extension -- the World Church of the Creator. It is a church after all. Would you say that it is ridiculous that they hire Jews, blacks, gays, etc. if they were promoting Head Start at their building?

[JUGGERNAUT]

I take issue with the quote at the top of your article as well. Such a quote is discriminatory in nature & lacks tact. I doubt very much it would be used often.

 

Instead you are likely to hear this "My apologies, but you lack a certain characteristic that by all measures of standards available to us we have found to be very important to our parish, school, or community. We have found that professionals posessing this characteristic generate the best results for us."

 

It amounts to the same thing only it takes a macro perspective on the issue instead of an individual one. That's really what separates liberal from conservative these days: Individual vs group rights. Conservatives believe the courts have destroyed the balance by shifting radically to the individual side. The balance needs to be restored. Liberals care very little for group rights unless it's a group they believe in (PPH).

 

Generally speaking if the community for which an institution serves predominantly favors a faith-borne employee it's pretty obvious hiring a non faith-borne employee is going to be less productive. Thus the rejection is based on productivity & not religion per-se.

 

If the liberals ever gain enough support to where you can't discriminate on the basis of productivity, God help us. Thankfully we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.

 

=====================================================

 

Though you clearly meant it as a personal attack I will respond to your analogy.

If I were an APPLICANT for a job here at SOXTALK & the person in charge of that decision convinced me common sense wise that my hiring would be harmful to the community & therefore make it less productive I would not think of it as discrimination or contest the decision. It would be foolish for me to do so.

 

It amounts to my saying to the rest of the community accept me for who I am because the law says you must. Ridiculous. The law is only as strong as the people's faith in it.

Edited October 14, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Steff]

I vote yea.

[Soxy]

I vote yea.

I vote hurray!

 

Nice article Apu.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

And as long as the faith-based don't make use of public schools I'm sure you won't mind if we don't tax them for it.  After all wouldn't it be discriminatory to tax those who don't want to support public schools in the first place?  :rolly

 

Good point.

 

I'd be all for parochial and private schools having to abide by rules that they could not "discriminate" (I'm using that term loosely since I wouldn't consider it discrimination when the schools themselves are faith-based) based on faith...as long as taxes that go to public schools were optional.

 

Parents choose to send their kids to private schools. I doubt they would mind if all of the teachers and those who work there were of the same faith as what the school is based on, and I would imagine that it could even be preferred. Parents also pay taxes that go towards education, so I see nothing wrong with them getting some of that money placed towards their children's education, regardless of the hiring rules of the schools, especially since it is where they are choosing to send their kids.

 

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

[EvilMonkey]

This repeal seeks to sacrifice one of the most successful social programs at the altar of scoring paltry political points with the fundamentalist Christian Righ

Question: How would this 'sacrafice' the program? if anything, it will make theoverall program stronger as there will be more places available.

 

Another question: Your opening quote, was it an actual quote, or something you made up to increase the dramatic appeal of the article?

[Mercy!]

 

 

[Queen Prawn]

Good point.

 

I'd be all for parochial and private schools having to abide by rules that they could not "discriminate" (I'm using that term loosely since I wouldn't consider it discrimination when the schools themselves are faith-based) based on faith...as long as taxes that go to public schools were optional.

 

Parents choose to send their kids to private schools.  I doubt they would mind if all of the teachers and those who work there were of the same faith as what the school is based on, and I would imagine that it could even be preferred.  Parents also pay taxes that go towards education, so I see nothing wrong with them getting some of that money placed towards their children's education, regardless of the hiring rules of the schools, especially since it is where they are choosing to send their kids.

 

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Question:  How would this 'sacrafice' the program?  if anything, it will make theoverall program stronger as there will be more places available.

 

Another question:  Your opening quote, was it an actual quote, or something you made up to increase the dramatic appeal of the article?

If this is put in, it will greatly increase the time that Congress will have to take to reauthorize it. (because the Senate likely will not allow for that language to be in the re-authorization) Funny story is that Rep. Boehner voted for re-authorizing HS in 1994 and 1998 without trying to add this sort of stuff. It wasn't until he got the marching orders re: faith based initiatives that he tried any of this. Not to mention that potentially, if this passes the Senate intact with the Boehner rider in it, thousands of HS teachers all over the US could be fired from their positions -- not because they don't work effectively with children but because they don't pray to the same deity as their boss. The teacher's faith should have nothing to do with their work in Head Start because religious indoctrination is not brought up in a state school system -- which Head Start is part of (since it is federally funded)

 

And the quote is made by me -- I was taking what the legislation in the re-authorization is really trying to do & verbalize it bluntly.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I doubt that very much. Again you are categorizing faith-borne persons in the same context as the oppposite group & they have little in common. Faith-borne are more likely to be loyal to their institution & the people who work their. If a faith-borne person is happy with the work the non faith-borne have done I'm confident they will retain these people. If they are not happy with their work then this simply gives them a legal right to say sayonara in favor of someone they have confidence in that will do a better job.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Earth to Juggs: RELIGION CANNOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO FIRE PEOPLE IN FEDERALLY FUNDED PROGRAMS.

 

They have no legal right to fire a person because they don't have the same religion. The church in the setting of Head Start is merely a building with four walls and a roof. There is no discussion of religion with the students and there is no discussion of religion with the teachers/bosses. They have no legal right to fire somebody because they don't pray to the same invisible man in the sky as their bosses do because religion plays no role in the job that they are performing.

[EvilMonkey]

One thing you may have overlooked, in many schools the people working the HEad Start program are already employed by the schools for teaching. In most instances, people are not hired only for Head Start.

 

As for your quote in your article, it is very misleading by placing it there without attributing it to anyone. It makes it sound like someone has actually said, when in reality, it was you who said that.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who said anything about firing them for religious reasons? Surely not I. If you read my last post & concentrate on the words you'll see I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying a non-religious person performing poorly can't hang on to their job with the threat of a discrimination suit. If this passes it will allow the faith-borne institutitions to fire them for poor performance more easily.

 

I further added that the loyalty such insititutions show to their employees is a good indicator that non-religious people performing admirably in such places have little to fear.

[JHBowden]

I think we should be rid of the separation of church and state and start taxing churches.