|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 11/05/2007 : 00:39:26
|
I'd noticed in watching some video about the Ken Ham's Creation Museum that one of the employees interviewed mentioned that only Christians are hired.
I've no idea how this fits legally with a non-profit status, but I do find it just another offensive thing about Ken's little Museum of Disinfomation.
This is at the bottom of each and every job description on their "Jobs" page: Items needed for possible employment
* Resume
* Salvation testimony
* Creation belief statement
* Confirmation of your agreement with the AiG Statement of Faith |
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 02:07:42 [Permalink]
|
G.W. Bush legalized religious discrimination in hiring practices when he authorized US tax money to be given (faith based initiatives) to religious organizations.
He did it, as he has done most things in his time as president, by fiat(executive order). There was even a justification for why this discrimination was legal posted on the whitehouse website.... might even still be there.
I'm sure we had some lengthy discussion about it a few years back.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 08:04:13 [Permalink]
|
In A Few Words About Creation Science, an essay I wrote using the Institute for Creation Research as an example of how unscientific their “research” really is, I wrote:
To be a member of one of these “research” groups one must have an advanced degree in some field of science and sign a statement of faith. The statement begins as follows:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and we believe it to be inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To students of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
The statement concludes with other points, involving God's direct creation of the Earth and all things in six days, Noah's flood, Adam and Eve, sin and salvation through Christ. |
My guess is that even before Bush relaxed the fair employment standards, no one who worked at their museum was exempt from signing the same statement of faith, whether it was legal to ask them to do that or not. Plus, who would want to work there if they didn't believe the crap? (Not that that has anything to do with legal issues.)
What I find funny is their perversion of science, while at the same time trying to give creationism scientific respectability. Armed with an unwavering and not at all tentative conclusion, which science demands, they have the nerve to call what they are doing science.
And they get away with it because way too many people don't understand how science works, including the president.
Sad.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 08:44:16 [Permalink]
|
| I agree that institutions which receive public money should not be allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices (for obvious reasons - they are using the tax dollars of everyone) but I'm not sure an institution that is just recognized as a non-profit should be held to such standards. I guess I think this way because it isn't all that difficult to be recognized as a nonprofit, and as long as a group is doing some sort of charitable service, even if it is only for their specific community, that is worthy of tax exemption. My Humanist group has nonprofit status even though our primary mission is considered a social menace by certain religious groups. But we also do some charitable work, have educational forums, and we don't endorce any political candidates or parties. Should we also lose our nonprofit status? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 12:09:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree that institutions which receive public money should not be allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices (for obvious reasons - they are using the tax dollars of everyone) but I'm not sure an institution that is just recognized as a non-profit should be held to such standards. I guess I think this way because it isn't all that difficult to be recognized as a nonprofit, and as long as a group is doing some sort of charitable service, even if it is only for their specific community, that is worthy of tax exemption. My Humanist group has nonprofit status even though our primary mission is considered a social menace by certain religious groups. But we also do some charitable work, have educational forums, and we don't endorce any political candidates or parties. Should we also lose our nonprofit status?
|
Do you discriminate in hiring? If you do, you should lose that non-profit status, IMO. If, not, no.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 16:13:40 [Permalink]
|
The law, before Bush's executive order, prohibits any employer (non-profit or not, tax exempt or not) for discriminating based on race, religion, sex, etc. Something about equal opportunity employment.
You re-open this particular can of worms (as it has been) and you risk people creating equally specious justification for not hiring blacks, jews, women, etc..
Tolerate it at your own risk.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 17:51:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree that institutions which receive public money should not be allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices (for obvious reasons - they are using the tax dollars of everyone) but I'm not sure an institution that is just recognized as a non-profit should be held to such standards. I guess I think this way because it isn't all that difficult to be recognized as a nonprofit, and as long as a group is doing some sort of charitable service, even if it is only for their specific community, that is worthy of tax exemption. My Humanist group has nonprofit status even though our primary mission is considered a social menace by certain religious groups. But we also do some charitable work, have educational forums, and we don't endorce any political candidates or parties. Should we also lose our nonprofit status?
|
Do you discriminate in hiring? If you do, you should lose that non-profit status, IMO. If, not, no.
|
And that would go against the workings of many churches who only employ people of their own faith. The Federal government and existant case law provides that a religious organization which enjoys 501(c)3 status may discriminate it's employment practices to exclude those who do not ascribe to their belief system. They cite the 1st Amendment.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 18:51:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree that institutions which receive public money should not be allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices (for obvious reasons - they are using the tax dollars of everyone) but I'm not sure an institution that is just recognized as a non-profit should be held to such standards. I guess I think this way because it isn't all that difficult to be recognized as a nonprofit, and as long as a group is doing some sort of charitable service, even if it is only for their specific community, that is worthy of tax exemption. My Humanist group has nonprofit status even though our primary mission is considered a social menace by certain religious groups. But we also do some charitable work, have educational forums, and we don't endorce any political candidates or parties. Should we also lose our nonprofit status?
|
Do you discriminate in hiring? If you do, you should lose that non-profit status, IMO. If, not, no.
|
And that would go against the workings of many churches who only employ people of their own faith. The Federal government and existant case law provides that a religious organization which enjoys 501(c)3 status may discriminate it's employment practices to exclude those who do not ascribe to their belief system. They cite the 1st Amendment.
|
Seems to me (just my preference, not a legal opinion) that such exemptions to discriminate should at least be limited to the core activities of a religion. (It's bad enough there, actually, but I'm willing to compromise.)
A tax-exempt, but money-making activity like the Magical Museum of Pious Fraud should not be extended this "privilege" to discriminate. This "museum" apparently qualifies for tax exempt status, while at the same time it discriminates in a bigoted, sectarian manner. Real museums (or commercial theme parks) would never be allowed to do this -- much less while receiving tax exemptions. The exemption is far too loosely applied. Looks like the law needs fixing, unless this is mainly a matter of the IRS's regulatory opinion.
Even if there is no good chance of changing the laws soon, the Creation Museum should be hammered constantly for this bigotry. There's no real justification for it. A pious Catholic who was willing to do his or her job at Marf's Humanist organization should not be barred from a job there. In fact, I highly doubt that they would discriminate in the first place.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/05/2007 18:55:16 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 19:02:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree that institutions which receive public money should not be allowed to have discriminatory hiring practices (for obvious reasons - they are using the tax dollars of everyone) but I'm not sure an institution that is just recognized as a non-profit should be held to such standards. I guess I think this way because it isn't all that difficult to be recognized as a nonprofit, and as long as a group is doing some sort of charitable service, even if it is only for their specific community, that is worthy of tax exemption. My Humanist group has nonprofit status even though our primary mission is considered a social menace by certain religious groups. But we also do some charitable work, have educational forums, and we don't endorce any political candidates or parties. Should we also lose our nonprofit status?
|
Do you discriminate in hiring? If you do, you should lose that non-profit status, IMO. If, not, no.
|
And that would go against the workings of many churches who only employ people of their own faith. The Federal government and existant case law provides that a religious organization which enjoys 501(c)3 status may discriminate it's employment practices to exclude those who do not ascribe to their belief system. They cite the 1st Amendment.
|
Seems to me (just my preference, not a legal opinion) that such exemptions to discriminate should at least be limited to the core activities of a religion. (It's bad enough there, actually, but I'm willing to compromise.)
A tax-exempt, but money-making activity like the Magical Museum of Pious Fraud should not be extended this "privilege" to discriminate. If this "museum" qualifies for tax exempt status and discriminates in a bigoted, sectarian manner that real museums (or commercial theme parks) would never be allowed to do, at the same time, the exemption is far too loosely applied. Looks like the law needs fixing, unless this is mainly a matter of the IRS's regulatory opinion.
Even if there is no good chance of changing the laws soon, the Creation Museum should be hammered constantly for this bigotry. There's no real justification for it. A pious Catholic who was willing to do his or her job at Marf's Humanist organization should not be barred from a job there. In fact, I highly doubt that they would discriminate in the first place.
|
I think you might be able to challenge their 501(c)3 status based on the consideration that they provide no service of value to the population. But then again, neither do churches that are too poor or of insufficient congregation to perform services of general value other than pastor visits to the infirm or various ceremonies of ecclesiactical (sp) worth to their adherents. Although, arguably the churches do perform a real service to their members instead of preaching to the choir.
The operative word is "may" in this case. If a Catholic charity wishes to discriminate in hiring, they may do so. If a Quaker organization wished to discriminate, they may. Humanist organizations can discriminate against fundies in their hiring practices (primarily because they would be evangel-terrorizing the staff, instead of any work) if they so choose.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 19:08:12 [Permalink]
|
V_D wrote: Humanist organizations can discriminate against fundies in their hiring practices (primarily because they would be evangel-terrorizing the staff, instead of any work) if they so choose.
|
Maybe that explains Marf's silence on the matter, then.
 |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 21:22:16 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | You re-open this particular can of worms (as it has been) and you risk people creating equally specious justification for not hiring blacks, jews, women, etc.. |
This strikes me as a slippery slope argument. People choose to devote their lives to a particular religious institution. It makes total sense that religious institutions would benefit from and therefore want employees that practice that particular religion. For that matter, it makes total sense that Hooters wants to hire attractive young women with big boobies to be servers. Are we going to have female actors sue because they couldn't get the part in a conventional production of Hamlet? Actually, I don't think the can of worms was ever totally closed. I don't think anyone ever filed suit against calls for auditions that specify certain characteristics for certain roles. That said, given society today and the state of race relations, I don't see any decent and civil reason why someone's race should be a consideration and I see every reason why equal employment should be much more rigorously enforced when it comes to race.
| Tolerate it at your own risk. |
Fostering tolerance and a truly pluralistic society is a difficult balance. There are always going to be people saying that the law has gone too far or not far enough, no matter how wisely it is framed and consistently it is enforced. I'm not sure what the right way to go about it is, but the concerns raised in this particular discussion don't set off huge alarm bells for me personally.
Mooner wrote: | Maybe that explains Marf's silence on the matter, then. |
Half a day equates silence? Sorry, man, I can't spend all day at my computer like you ;-)
Anyway, to answer you question, my Humanist group doesn't have any employees. We run on volunteers. As for the national org, the American Humanist Association, I have no idea, but I imagine non-Humanists wouldn't be all that interested in applying. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2007 : 22:23:49 [Permalink]
|
Religion is protected:Protected groups, in terms of employment laws, are groups of people that are distinguished by special characteristics such as their race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age (over 40), disability or veteran status. These particular groups are protected under federal antidiscrimination law, which mandates that people in one of these protected groups cannot be discriminated against in any facet of employment, including hiring, promotion, training, discipline, pay, and termination. State laws may protect other groups, such as individuals in different age groups, people who are smokers and individuals with a particular sexual orientation. AiG's hiring policies are clearly illegal, but there's nothing to be done about it until someone actually tries to get a job and is refused on religious grounds. Then, they'll have to have enough money to hire a lawyer and take their case to at least a couple of courts against AiG's well-paid attourneys. The government won't get involved until some actual, demonstrable harm (the denial of a job) has been done by the policies as written.
Let's say the Vicious Atheists of America (a non-profit organization) offers a secretarial job to the general public. A nice devoted Catholic boy answers the ad, and is best qualified of all applicants. The VAA's hands are tied by antidiscrimination law: they've got to hire him. And if he just does his job, the VAA will be no worse off.
If he doesn't do his job, and (for example) spends most of his work day preaching to his coworkers, then they have a legal reason for dismissal: failure to do the job he was hired for. It doesn't matter that he was proselytizing, it only matters that he wasn't secretaryizing.
Similarly, it does not matter if the AiG hires a "devout" atheist for any of the jobs listed, so long as the person can do the job listed. Their demands for a particular religious affiliation are illegal, period.
About two years ago, I was given the task of hiring someone. I'd never done that before, and asked my managers for help. I was given a company handbook on hiring which said in no uncertain terms that if I even asked about a prospect's religion or age or veteran status or any other "protected" info, I was putting my own job at risk. The antidiscrimination laws are that serious: a single misstep opens the company up to a lawsuit, and so if you screw up, they'd rather just fire you than spend millions fruitlessly defending your stupid decision. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 00:40:42 [Permalink]
|
Marf said:
| For that matter, it makes total sense that Hooters wants to hire attractive young women with big boobies to be servers. |
I live only a short distance from the original Hooters, hell, there are half a dozen in short driving distance from me too. One even close enough to walk to from my home.
And they were sued by guys who wanted to work there. Hooters lost the original trial, but it was overturned later on appeal (based on men being hooter's servers would harm the buisiness, or something along those lines).
As Dave_W has pointed out, discrimination based on religion is illegal.
Hard to imagine anyone besides the loonies supporting and advocating discriminatory hiring practices, oh, wait, nevermind.... they are the only ones who do.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 01:03:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Mooner wrote: | Maybe that explains Marf's silence on the matter, then. |
Half a day equates silence? Sorry, man, I can't spend all day at my computer like you ;-)
Anyway, to answer you question, my Humanist group doesn't have any employees. We run on volunteers. As for the national org, the American Humanist Association, I have no idea, but I imagine non-Humanists wouldn't be all that interested in applying.
|
It's true, sadly, and as Bill has been repeatedly sensitive enough to point out, I do have too much time on my hands.
I don't think the arument that a non-Humanist wouldn't want a job at the national Humanist office is really valid. Plenty of people just need jobs. Not all religious people are crazy-ass fanatics who would not be able to fit in.
Hell, there are a lot of good journalists who work for bad publishers. Within limits, a job is just a job to many of us, rather than an ethical statement. But I go along with what Dave wrote about religion being a separate issue from doing a job well. I really do think the Humanists would hire a good employee of religious faith, if they felt that person was going to do good work. Good people have nothing to fear from non-discrimination.
But that rat bastard Ken Ham is a discriminating bigot, and won't follow the Constitutional laws of the adopted land he's pledged allegiance to. His hiring practices are an outrage, and he should be held to public contempt for them.
I'd gladly pay into any legal fund that wanted to sue the bastards. Even losing in court would be a victory, by exposing the bigoted dark side of AiG to public scrutiny.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 11/06/2007 01:08:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2007 : 08:04:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
But that rat bastard Ken Ham is a discriminating bigot, and won't follow the Constitutional laws of the adopted land he's pledged allegiance to. His hiring practices are an outrage, and he should be held to public contempt for them.
I'd gladly pay into any legal fund that wanted to sue the bastards. Even losing in court would be a victory, by exposing the bigoted dark side of AiG to public scrutiny.
|
They would simply remove the "requirement" (not unlike the Requirement read by the Spanish Conquistadors, no?) and then only hire the ones they wanted and no one would know why.
Is the state they operate in a "right to work" state? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Jew? Atheist? Muslim? Agnostic? No job for you!
