1 1
ryoder

Job opening with the county; Only Christians may apply

Recommended Posts

As an ordained minister of the Gospel of Christ and having served as chaplain in several organizations, I look at it this way. The office of chaplain is for Protestant and Roman Catholics. The Hebrew faith has the office of Rabbi. The Muslim faith has the office Imam. Buddhists have the office of Bhikkhu and so on.

IOW, it is a nuisance lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

As an ordained minister of the Gospel of Christ and having served as chaplain in several organizations, I look at it this way. The office of chaplain is for Protestant and Roman Catholics. The Hebrew faith has the office of Rabbi. The Muslim faith has the office Imam. Buddhists have the office of Bhikkhu and so on.

IOW, it is a nuisance lawsuit.

Great.

Do these jails have a Rabbi, an Iman and a Bhikkhu?

 

Given the way this country disproportionately incarcerates minorities, it would probably be better to have an Iman in the jail instead of a chaplain.

And, as the lawsuit claims, requiring a government employee to be of a certain faith is a pretty clear violation of the 1st A.
The defendants in the suit don't seem to be disputing that part.
Just the part that their job application inappropriately insisted that applicants be Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

As an ordained minister of the Gospel of Christ and having served as chaplain in several organizations, I look at it this way. The office of chaplain is for Protestant and Roman Catholics. The Hebrew faith has the office of Rabbi. The Muslim faith has the office Imam. Buddhists have the office of Bhikkhu and so on.

IOW, it is a nuisance lawsuit.

Well, in the US military, "chaplain" does include imams and rabbis.

Wendy P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

As an ordained minister of the Gospel of Christ and having served as chaplain in several organizations, I look at it this way. The office of chaplain is for Protestant and Roman Catholics.

The US military disagrees with you.

Quote

The Hebrew faith has the office of Rabbi. The Muslim faith has the office Imam. Buddhists have the office of Bhikkhu and so on.

A Rabbi working in a prison is a chaplain. An Imam working in a prison is a chaplain. A Bhikkhu working in a prison is a chaplain.

Quote

IOW, it is a nuisance lawsuit.

It's a valid lawsuit resulting from a clear violation of the constitution.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:

It is a lawsuit that goes to the heart of the First Amendment, which some of us consider important.

Wel, ya gotta remember that some people consider the 'freedom of religion' part of the 1st A to mean that they are free to shove their religion down everyone's throats, including ignoring and suppresing other religions. 
Many of those people also view 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of assembly' the same way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

It is a lawsuit that goes to the heart of the First Amendment, which some of us consider important.

To a person who no longer values democracy why the heck with the First Amendment matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all religions are the same. The ad was requesting Christian applicants for the office of chaplain. It was specific not general. It probably should have been worded "Christian" chaplain position open.

If I owned a garage and advertised for an auto mechanic I would not be interviewing outboard motor mechanics.

Again I state it is only a nuisance lawsuit.

I guarantee that if the ad was for a chaplain and only Muslims should apply, no Christian would be suing anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

If I owned a garage and advertised for an auto mechanic I would not be interviewing outboard motor mechanics.

And the constitution would not care.

 

5 minutes ago, RonD1120 said:

Again I state it is only a nuisance lawsuit.

It will not go to court because they will back down. It is clearly not legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RonD1120 said:

Not all religions are the same. The ad was requesting Christian applicants for the office of chaplain.

Which is unconstitutional. (And you're wrong. The ad was requesting chaplains, the application form was demanding Christians)

Quote

It was specific not general.

Yes, it's specifically unconstitutional.

Quote

It probably should have been worded "Christian" chaplain position open.

If you want to get sued. Guess what, they're being sued.

Quote

I guarantee that if the ad was for a chaplain and only Muslims should apply, no Christian would be suing anybody.

You are living in a fantasy world. Not only would multiple Christians be suing, it would be the headline news story on Fox, OAN, Breitbart, NYP for months and they'd be billing it as the death America as we know it. And you would be in full agreement with them.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2021 at 7:02 AM, RonD1120 said:

Not all religions are the same. The ad was requesting Christian applicants for the office of chaplain. It was specific not general. It probably should have been worded "Christian" chaplain position open.

If I owned a garage and advertised for an auto mechanic I would not be interviewing outboard motor mechanics.

Again I state it is only a nuisance lawsuit.

I guarantee that if the ad was for a chaplain and only Muslims should apply, no Christian would be suing anybody.

You didn't actually read the story, did you?
The job ad was for 'chaplain'. 
The application included the statement affirming Christian beliefs & practices

It doesn't matter if 'all religions are the same' or not, although the Abrahamic faiths have more in common with each other than most adherents are willing to admit.
The 1st A is pretty clear on this.
Supreme Court rulings have made it even clearer. 
For a government entity to show favor of any religion over another is not acceptable.

Your 'mechanic' analogy is so far off base, so irrelevant, that it's hilarious.
Not terribly surprising, but funny none the less. 

And, as noted above, if the application included a requirement for the applicants to sign a statement affirming allegiance to Islam, the entire Christian/Alt Right universe would lose their minds. 

Do you remember when a mosque (actually a cultural center) was planned in NYC near the World Trade Center site?
Do you remember the outrage? The lies? The hatred & bigotry?
The lawsuits?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

"For a government entity to show favor of any religion over another is not acceptable.

Your 'mechanic' analogy is so far off base, so irrelevant, that it's hilarious."

 

 

Actually, the analogy is PERFECT. This is not showing favor of a religion; all religions should equally enjoy this protection. What we have here is a BFOQ--a bona fide occupational qualification. An endorsement of and adherence to the particular faith in question is an absolute requirement to perform the job competently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rcdrury said:

Actually, the analogy is PERFECT. This is not showing favor of a religion; all religions should equally enjoy this protection.

The protection of the First Amendment does indeed apply to all religions.  If you offer a government job and you say "nope, only Christians can apply" prepare yourself for a successful lawsuit.

You may dislike the US Constitution, but for a lot of us, it's pretty important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, billvon said:

You may dislike the US Constitution, but for a lot of us, it's pretty important.

I swore with my life to defend it; however, your response didn't address my claim that a chaplain's religion is a BFOQ. It is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, rcdrury said:

I swore with my life to defend it; however, your response didn't address my claim that a chaplain's religion is a BFOQ. It is.

The First Amendment is really quite simple.  The applicable part is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  That means that the US Government, or any of its parts (including the Armed Forces) cannot specify a specific establishment of religion as a requirement for any position, power or right.

Again, you can decide that you don't want to follow the First Amendment, that your religion is so important to you that you oppose it.  Fine - get it repealed.  Until then, follow the US Constitution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Again, you can decide that you don't want to follow the First Amendment...

You've made a great case for disallowing chaplains, but as long as they exist, their job descriptions include sectarian qualifications. If the existence of chaplains does not violate the First Amendment, having parameters consistent with their function doesn't either.

Edited by rcdrury

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rcdrury said:

I swore with my life to defend it; however, your response didn't address my claim that a chaplain's religion is a BFOQ. It is.

Your claim has already been addressed. It is not. Chaplains of any faith are expected to minister to inmates of any faith. Hell, the article linked in the OP fundamentally disproves your claim.

First, the Islamic man in question is already a volunteer chaplain at the prison and has been for some time. How come he's qualified to do the job for free but not to do it for pay?

Second, the owner of the company contracted to provide chaplain services to the prison is saying it's all a big misunderstanding and of course they would employ a Muslim. How is that possible if being a Christian is a BFOQ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jakee said:

Second, the owner of the company contracted to provide chaplain services to the prison is saying it's all a big misunderstanding and of course they would employ a Muslim. How is that possible if being a Christian is a BFOQ?

Sounds like he's just trying to walk it back and avoid a lawsuit rather than standing on principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, rcdrury said:

Sounds like he's just trying to walk it back and avoid a lawsuit rather than standing on principle.

Exactly. Why would he be trying to avoid a lawsuit if what he was doing was perfectly legal, and it’s a clear, constitutional and necessary BFOQ for his chaplains to be Christian? 

After all, now he’s taken this position he’s going to have to hire non-Christians for Christian jobs! How is his business going to function?

Edited by jakee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rcdrury said:

Actually, the analogy is PERFECT. This is not showing favor of a religion; all religions should equally enjoy this protection. What we have here is a BFOQ--a bona fide occupational qualification. An endorsement of and adherence to the particular faith in question is an absolute requirement to perform the job competently.

Ummmmm...

No. Posts #5 & #6 address this.

"Chaplain" is not an exclusive occupation of Christians.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rcdrury said:

You've made a great case for disallowing chaplains, but as long as they exist, their job descriptions include sectarian qualifications. If the existence of chaplains does not violate the First Amendment, having parameters consistent with their function doesn't either.

The existence of chaplains does not violate the First Amendment.  Hiring them for government jobs based on their religion does.

Again, we don't say say "whites only in this position, because white troops will never follow a black officer" any more.  (Although a great many people tried that.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1