Religious groups may hire on basis of religion

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from former employees of the Christian relief organization World Vision who lost their jobs because they no longer believed in the organization’s statement of faith.  This means that Christian organizations are not violating discrimination laws when they hire only Christians.

The U.S. Supreme Court let a lower court decision stand Monday that Federal Way-based nonprofit World Vision can hire only Christians to work in its U.S. operations.

The largest nonprofit in the state has the right to hire or dismiss employees based on their religious affiliation, the court ruled by allowing the lower court decision to stand.

The four-year court fight was initiated by three former World Vision employees who were fired because they didn’t agree with World Vision’s U.S. statement of faith, which World Vision says is a condition of employment.

In August, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that World Vision could legally discriminate in hiring based on religious affiliation. The court, upholding a lower court ruling on a discrimination suit, said World Vision qualifies as a faith-based humanitarian organization and is exempt from the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court Monday affirmed that appeals court decision by refusing to hear the case.

via Supreme Court: World Vision can hire only Christians – Puget Sound Business Journal.

In a related issue, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday on the case involving an LCMS school that fired a called teacher for her health problems.   At issue is  whether a church body can designate a called teacher a “minister,” even though she teaches non-religious subjects, and so invoke the  “ministerial exemption” from disability and other anti-discrimination laws.

A tea party of the left

Since the middle of September, some 1000 protesters have been demonstrating on Wall Street, denouncing big business and high finance, calling for more regulations on banks and corporations, an end to housing foreclosures, and more taxes on the rich. The protest movement is called Occupy Wall Street.

The protests have been growing.  This weekend 700 demonstrators were arrested on Brooklyn Bridge.  The movement has spread to Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, and other cities.  Celebrities from Roseanne Barr to Michael Moore are supporting the cause.  So are intellectuals such as Salman Rushdie, Noam Chomsky,  and Cornell West.   Reportedly, some labor unions are considering getting involved.

Occupy Wall Street is claiming kinship with the Arab Spring.

See Occupy Wall Street – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Is this potentially the tea party of the left that liberals have been calling for?  Do you think this will bring new life to political liberalism?  Is there actually an underlying kinship between those who protest big government and those who protest big business?

Predator drones for bad guys

A predator drone killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida leader, propagandist, and recruiter.  Complicating the matter is that he and one of his minions also killed in the Yemen attack were  American citizens.   Some are concerned that executing an American like this is a violation of our constitutional rights for due process and a fair trial.  Others say that al-Awlaki is a textbook example of a traitor who is fighting on the side of his country’s enemies and that being killed in this quasi-military operation is what happens in war.  It has nothing to do with the legal system.

Some of you have already been arguing about this is another post (rather than staying on topic), but let’s take this in another direction.  Do you think predators should be used in law enforcement?

In which of these cases would you support their use?

(1)  Against the Mexican drug lords who are terrorizing Mexico (in consultation with that country’s authorities)?

(2)  Against domestic organized crime leaders?

(3)  In situations that call for deadly force, such as against snipers or holed-up killers, as another weapon in the arsenal of SWAT teams?

(4)  To patrol dangerous neighborhoods?

(5)  As a high tech cop on the beat, used mostly for surveillance but carrying a weapon?

(6)  Used for surveillance but without the Hellfire missile?

How would you handle the constitutional issues?  Is this just another weapon or just another tool, or are there particular legal or moral problems with it?

Help us draw some lines.

via Anwar al-Awlaki: Is killing US-born terror suspects legal? – CSMonitor.com.

Wisconsin’s big weekend

This was being called the biggest sports weekend in the history of Wisconsin, my former state.  And in each contest, Wisconsin was victorious.  The Milwaukee Brewers won two playoff games over the Arizona Diamondbacks.  The Wisconsin Badgers welcomed Nebraska to the Big Ten by demolishing the nationally-ranked Cornhuskers.   The Packers pounded the Denver Broncos.  And the Milwaukee Marathon was won by a guy from Marquette.

For a brief, shining moment, Wisconsin teachers and Congressmen, tea partiers and Occupy Wall Streeters will be united in a feeling of common sports euphoria.

Doubling down on my prediction

Earlier I predicted that no matter how bad the economy is that President Obama will win a second term.  I’ve been thinking about this some more and I’m even more convinced that I’m right (though, again, I wish I were wrong).

The reason “It’s the economy, stupid” won’t carry the day this time is that all of the Republican candidates, following correct free market principles, believe the main thing the government should do in the face of a terrible economy is to do either nothing or to do less than what the government is doing now.   But the public wants the government to do something, anything.   The Republican message for the government to “get out of the way” is not going to have much traction with voters who want the government to do even more.  (And Obama will argue that he would indeed “do something” if it weren’t for the obstructionist conservatives in Congress, who, I further predict, will lose their majority in the House.)

Furthermore, the Republicans just do not have a candidate.  I hang around some political activist types, but I have found no one with any zeal at all for any of the Republican presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul supporters.  I could be wrong about this.  Maybe there are hordes of devoted fans of Perry, Romney, Bachman, Cain, or the others, who will follow them anywhere.

Let’s test that here.  Are any of you readers of this blog enthusiastic loyalists of any of the Republican presidential candidates  (not counting Ron Paul, or if one of the campaigns is paying you to work for  them).  I don’t mean supporters of a candidate as the least bad candidate or as someone who might defeat Obama.  I mean passionate supporters for positive reasons.  The last election had candidates with that kind of support–Hilary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, certainly Barack Obama, but even John McCain.   I can’t find that for any of the candidates today.  But, again, I could be wrong.  I hope I am.  Prove me wrong.  I’ll feel a lot better.

Iranian Christian may be executed this weekend

Youcef Nadarkhani, sentenced to death for converting from Islam to Christianity in Iran, has once again refused to deny Christ, and so he may be hanged as early as today.

Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who is facing the death penalty, again refused to convert to Islam to save his life.

Nadarkhani was arrested in 2009 for the crime of apostasy because he allegedly abandoned Islam for Christianity. As a pastor, Iranian clerics believe that Nadarkhani was preaching in order to convert Muslims.

Before his last hearing Wednesday, Nadarkhani had been given three previous chances to repent, and all three times he has refused. After his final refusal Wednesday, no verdict has been announced, but many expect that he could be put to death as soon as Friday.

via Iranian Pastor Sentenced to Death: Nadarkhani Refuses to Convert – International Business Times.

 

Youcef Nadarkhani

Read his letter to his flock.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X