Monday Madness: Faith-Based Discrimination

A little over a week ago (March 7, to be precise), I wrote a post about a policy that the Washington DC branch of Catholic Charities implemented earlier this month. Then, just a few days ago (March 11, to refresh our memories), I posted excerpts (and a bit of commentary) from the president’s advisory council’s report on Faith-Based charities. This post ties together the subjects of both of those posts. I’ll start with the Catholic Charities connection.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State posted a story today about a new practice that Catholic Charities (Washington, DC office) implemented immediately after announcing a major change to its health insurance benefit. In addition to being unable to add spouses to their health insurance plans, new employees at Catholic Charities (which receives about $22 million per year in government funds) are now required to sign a statement promising that they “will not ‘violate the principles or tenets’ of the church.”

According to a spokesperson for Catholic Charities,

“the new language ‘is more of an expectation than a condition. It’s letting people know this is the culture.’ Asked if that meant employees could speak or act against the church without being fired, Salmi said: ‘We can’t speculate on the hypothetical. It’s handled on a case-by-case basis.’”

A former vice president at Catholic Charities disagrees with this spin. According to him, “Putting it in a letter and requiring a signature, that’s a condition of employment. There’s no way to dance around that….”

Not having seen the actual statement myself, I can only report what others have said about it. According to Americans United,

It’s a sweeping statement – one that would allow Catholic Charities to dismiss employees for virtually any infraction of church rules, from failure to attend religious services and using artificial contraceptives to cohabitation and publicly criticizing church leaders.

While the better optimistic side of my nature hopes that the statement wouldn’t be used against employees in such a draconian manner, the reality-based side of me knows that it could happen. I don’t say this as a cynic, skeptic or anti-theist; I say it because I work in human resources and I know first-hand how even seemingly innocuous statements can be used against employees.

At this point, I’ll say that I don’t care who religious organizations hire to perform tasks related to their religious functions. It’s a no-brainer that churches should be able to hire Christian education directors, music ministers and the like who agree with and uphold the tenets of their faith. Moreover, the salaries of people holding such positions are usually paid for by funds the churches and organizations raise through their own efforts, with no infusion of government funds. But, religious organizations that want to serve their communities through social service programs – and who accept funds from any government bodies to fulfill those particular commitments – should be required to adhere to the same hiring standards as anyone else when filling positions related to those programs. The next story provides an excellent example of what I mean.

A religious agency called World Relief, which got its start feeding and clothing people during World War II, refused to hire a Muslim man because he is not a Christian. World Relief is prohibited from proselytizing recipients of its services, but can discriminate on the basis of religion in its hiring practices. Fluent in both Arabic and English, Saad Mohammad Ali applied for a position as a caseworker whose primary task would have been helping Iraqi refugees re-settle in the United States. Ali, who came to the USA as an Iraqi refugee two years ago and served as a volunteer with World Relief, was probably as good a candidate for the position as anyone. There is no good reason why a Muslim, Arabic-speaking person familiar with both World Relief and Iraqi culture could not fill the position of World Relief’s caseworker to Arabic-speaking Iraqis. There are many lousy reasons, but no good ones. Here’s the kicker: this organization that prefers employing Christians rather than people of other backgrounds who are qualified to deliver its services receives 70% of its funds from government sources. Think about that as you consider this little gem, courtesy of a World Relief spokesperson:

“At times we feel a lot of hopelessness so we spend a lot of time in prayer,” she said. “So and so can’t get a job, we can’t find them one and we ask God to lift things up in prayer.”

Wonderful. That’s the kind of practical re-settlement service our tax dollars are paying for. If World Relief were entirely self-funded, I wouldn’t give a damn who they hired and why. But, they are far from self-funded and I resent like hell that any of my tax money is paying for them to fill their payroll with drones who believe that prayer is a useful strategy for helping people find work.

The Washington Post reminds us that

As a candidate, President Obama sided with those opposing such hiring limits and vowed to stop them. But since Obama took office, the issue has remained under study by the Justice Department.

Since I don’t expect the Obama administration to stop studying this matter and start addressing it any time soon, I think I’ll go ahead and print that 176-page report the president’s advisory council gave him last week. I figure all those pages are equivalent to approximately one roll of toilet paper.

– the chaplain