World Vision: Non-Christians Need Not Apply

[DeSwiss]

Non-Christians Need Not Apply
World Vision hires only Christians under its $250 million in US government foreign aid grants. Obama promised to change that. So why hasn't he?

Global Post
By Krista J. Kapralos
Published: January 11, 2010 06:30 ET


Indonesian students sing a song during a trauma healing exercise organized by World
Vision at their school which was damaged in an earthquake at Kampung Timbalun in Padang,
West Sumatra province, Oct. 6, 2009. For decades, World Vision has fought poverty and
famine. Critics fault the organization for refusing to hire non-Christians to staff its
$250 million in annual programs funded by U.S. taxpayers. (Dadang Tri/Reuters)

BAMAKO, Mali — For a year and a half, Bara Kassambara kept his mouth shut. Every day, all of his coworkers paused for prayer time. There were frequent Bible studies, and constant talk about Jesus. Kassambara attended the required events, but otherwise quietly focused on his work: bringing clean water to rural Mali. “I think many people at World Vision just believed that I was a Christian,” said Kassambara, a Muslim in a predominantly Islamic country.

Fluent in English and with years of development work on his resume, World Vision hired Kassambara to work on the West Africa Water Initiative — a project to provide safe drinking water to stave off water-borne diseases that run rampant in the region. It was a rare hire for World Vision, Kassambara said; he only got the job because it was a temporary position. When World Vision stepped down as lead agency on the project in late 2008, Kassambara took a similar job with another organization.

“The goal of World Vision is clearly written: to promote Christianity worldwide,” Kassambara said. “I knew this was going on. I knew the rules of the game. If their goal is to promote Christianity, why should they hire a Muslim?”

World Vision, based outside of Seattle, is one of the largest recipients of development grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the federal government’s foreign aid arm. The organization received $281 million in U.S. grants in 2008, up from $220 million in 2007 and $261 million in 2006, according to World Vision documents. Those grants, amounting to about a quarter of the organization’s total U.S. budget, came in the form of both cash and food. The organization employs about 40,000 people worldwide.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/ngos/100110/world-vision-religion-foreign-aid">MORE

- Your tax dollars working and proselytizing for you.

Til kingdom come......
==============================================================================
DeSwiss


http://www.atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox





"Do not waste your time on Social Questions. What is the matter with the poor is Poverty;
what is the matter with the rich is Uselessness." George Bernard Shaw

[lazarus]

1. I am sick and tired

of having my tax dollars subsidizing fantasies. Churches shouldn't be tax exempt in the first place. But this, this is beyond the pale. Obama fails again.

[Fading Captain]

2. Is this the same group that Hinckley and the Lennon killer were involved with?

Maybe I am remembering it wrong.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

16. What group were Hinckley and Chapman associated with?

I wasn't aware they had any connection, other than both being fuck-nuts.

[Solly Mack]

3. If you're going to proselytize, do it on your own dime

[54anickel]

4. That's just so f'd up. Along with that whole OFBCI the Bush pushed through by executive order.

Then again, the Clinton admin opened the door with that Charitable Choice provision of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Wasn't that a piece of work? Get people off of welfare and onto "charity" without addressing the systemic causes of poverty to begin with.

This is just so wrong. The closing paragraph is priceless...talk about fucked up logic.

[struggle4progress]

5. Government shouldn't fund organizations that discriminate

[rd_kent]

6. Where are our "liberal christians" to denounce this?

[54anickel]

18. "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint....

When I ask why the poor have no food"... Would I dare? They may threaten to revoke my OFBCI funding!

That's one of the main reasons this "liberal christian" (I hate labels like that) is against Faith-based initiatives. I thought "the church" was called to be a prophetic voice for the poor and oppressed in a system that is stacked against them, not a part of that system. Charity too easily becomes a distraction and relieves a society from dealing directly with it's systemic ills.

Just my personal opinion though.

[zacherystaylor]

7. Same standards

If these organizations are going to recieve public funds they should abide by the same standards as the government abides by.

Unfortunately that may not be very good since the government has been corrupted.

[humblebum]

8. If there was an atheist organization that had the same mission,

I am sure that they could not be forced to hire religious believers.

[darkstar3]

9. Oh but they could, if they were taking PUBLIC money. n/t

[humblebum]

11. Actually they could not as long as they did not discriminate

in the services being provided. That's how the system works.

[darkstar3]

12. Actually, that's NOT how it works at all.

You see, all government organizations and any organizations receiving public money are subject to review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This means that they are not allowed to discriminate in any way in their hiring practices, and that includes based on religious affiliation.

Period.

[humblebum]

13. Better call and remind them then 'cause that's not the way

they've been ruling.

[darkstar3]

14. Current enforcement problems do not represent the letter of the law.

and in case you weren't paying attention, the enforcement problem is exactly what's being discussed here.

[humblebum]

15. The letter of the law is not even clear. The Civil Rights Act

upholds the practice.

[darkstar3]

17. Like hell it does.

The Civil Rights Act in no way trumps this. Let me just quote a very important passage for you:

The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

If you think the Civil Rights Act somehow makes this unclear, then you're gonna have to show me how.

[humblebum]

20. Well, evidently you have not read as far as you should have -

"The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization’s civil liberties and does not constitute “discrimination” under federal law. Faith-based organizations have a federally protected right to maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire. These organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in federal programs should not be forced to give up that right.
The landmark federal law on religious discrimination in employment specifically protects the civil liberties of faith-based organizations in Section 702(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it states: “This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.”

The freedom to hire those who share religious beliefs was upheld in a unanimous 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, in which the Court observed, “A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden “effect” … it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence.”

[darkstar3]

21. What you're missing here

is that none of the religious organizations referred to in these acts and precedents were, at the time, taking public funds provided by ALL taxpayers. When public funds are involved, it is "fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence.” Government money being used to promote religious discrimination does indeed violate the Establishment Clause.

The EEOC trumps the Civil Rights Act when it comes to the HR practices of government and publicly funded organizations. In fact, the ONLY organizations that are exempt from the rules of EEOC are private religious entities, and foreign subjects. You will see that clearly if you re-read your above post, and further investigate the EEOCs website.

[humblebum]

22. That's why I said before that "The letter of the law is not even clear"

The rulings are going to be vague and ambiguous for a reason. That reason is that the Establishment clause is followed by the Free Exercise clause.

[darkstar3]

23. Where is the ambiguousness?

It's quite clear. The line is drawn between public and private funding.

There is only one reason to conflate the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, or to even blur the very clear line between them: An attempt to perform your Free Exercise on my dime.

[humblebum]

24. If there was no ambiguity in legal interpretation, we would not need judges,

courts, and lawyers.

DIRECT AID TO FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS
UNDER CHARITABLE CHOICE PROVISIONS OF H.R. 7
THE COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2001

Congress may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, extend the religious exemptions under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to faith-based organizations receiving direct payments of federal money under the charitable choice provisions set forth in section 1994A of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001.

The fact that a faith-based organization is organized as a tax-exempt, nonprofit entity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code does not affect the organization’s ability to invoke the religious exemptions under sections 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[darkstar3]

25. An unconstitutional law created by Bush's crony congress

and rubber-stamped by him into action in order to further shove their faith down the throats of the unwilling, and further erode the separation of church and state. This is exactly the kind of law that would be overturned if challenged and brought to the level of the Supreme Court, which is precisely what should be done. This World Vision case seems to be just as good a vehicle as any. Time to get busy.

I'm confused about something, though. You seem awfully adamant to show legal support for World Vision's perceived right to discriminate in their hiring practices while receiving public money. It doesn't seem to matter to you that these actions clearly violate the Establishment Clause by forcing individuals to provide funds for religious organizations which they would not be allowed to join. Do you support religious discrimination, or are you simply arguing for the sake of argument?

[humblebum]

26. I would feel the same way about an Islamic or secular organization

doing the same work. World Vision does not discriminate against those to whom it provides services. World Vision should pull out if it forced to change its hiring practices.

[darkstar3]

27. So yes,

you support religious discrimination.

The fact that they don't discriminate in the services they offer doesn't matter. They are still participating in religious discrimination, and they are using my money while they do it. That is unacceptable. If they feel as you do and wish to pull out of public funding rather than change their hiring practices, then that is their prerogative, but when the taxpayers are footing the bill, even in part, discrimination of any kind is unacceptable.

[lazarus]

10. but

do you have a problem with their taking tax dollars to proselytize?

[Goblinmonger]

19. Why would an atheist organization

have a goal "to promote Christianity worldwide"?

If you are talking about helping the poor, there would be ice cubes in hell before an atheist organization would get funding like that under Bush's regime.

[rd_kent]

28. .