This is what happens when you have Republican leaders who don't respect separation of church and state.
The House voted Sept. 22 to allow religious institutions running preschools to practice religious discrimination when making hiring decisions -- and still receive federal Head Start funding.
The Associated Press
reports the amendment passed 220-196, essentially split along party lines.
Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the House Education Committee, said the bill ensures that faith-based centers "aren't forced to choose between relinquishing their identities or being shut out of the program altogether."
But that's just empty conservative spin. In reality, Boehner is saying that the bill ensures that faith-based centers aren't forced to choose between religious discrimination and being shut out of the program altogether.
Taken a step further,
ending protections against religious discrimination just opens the door for another member of Congress to propose ending protections against racial discrimination. Or discrimination against the disabled. And ending those protections would be just as ludicrous as ending the protection against religious discrimination. The only difference -- conservative Republicans, working on behalf of the religious right, have no interest in fighting the other discrimination protections.
Does one have to be Catholic to teach in a Catholic pre-school? Jewish to teach in a Jewish pre-school? In most cases, yes. And that's why Catholics apply for Catholic school positions and Jews apply for Jewish school posts. But does an English as a Second Language teacher need to be any particular religion? What about an art teacher? A music teacher? Let's be clear, the provisions don't only affect full-time teachers -- they affect part-time staff, volunteers, and any other "hires."
The Republican-led plan would allow for religious schools to discriminate against worthy applicants of other religions. The schools could ask what religion an applicant is -- going against other federal guidelines -- and then, for the sake of not "relinquishing their identities," could justify not hiring worthy candidates of other religions, solely because of their religion.
***
To be sure, the House (and potentially the Senate, which is considering similar legislation) are following the directive of President Bush, who in May
announced an executive order setting such a policy for federal administrative agencies. He then wrote a letter encouraging the House and Senate to remove "hiring rights" restrictions affecting religious schools.
"Hiring rights," as you may have guessed, is the Orwellian (aka
Luntzian) term for allowing religious schools to discriminate.
You have to wonder why such a provision was necessary. According to civil liberties experts, in the 33-year history of Head Start, no participants -- religious or otherwise -- have been hindered by the provision.
Why was it necessary? Because our
Minister in Chief is beholden to the religious right, which has for more than two decades made a concerted effort to weaken, if not eliminate,
separation of church and state.
***
Democrats voiced their displeasure on the House floor.
Rep. George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the Education Committee, said the religion provision marred an otherwise strong bill. "That is wrong," Miller said. "It is a violation of our civil rights laws and it has sunk the chances of making this important bill a truly bipartisan bill."
"Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL).
***
Should the legislation proceed as expected, a court battle may follow.
"Head Start should be about putting qualified teachers in the classrooms, and not about using public money to require people to pass a religious litmus test,"
said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office.
In addition to the ACLU, and a broad coalition of over 100 religious, education, civil rights, civil liberties and social service providers, the National Head Start Association opposes the attempts to roll back the civil rights protections, and has stated that it will oppose the underlying bill if the amendment is adopted.
***
This item first appeared at
Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
