Religion
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Health Care / Religion / Corporate welfare Catholic Diocese aims to strengthen religious identity of hospitals
A friend notes a news article in the Arkansas Catholic and the coincidence of timing with discussions about a merger of clinical operations of the public University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and St. Vincent Infirmary.
The Diocese of Little Rock is forming an Arkansas guild for the Catholic Medical Association.
Bishop Taylor said he believes the formation of the CMA guild in the state could also assist the diocese with promoting pro-life causes and strengthening the Catholic identity at Catholic hospitals.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (8)
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Health Care / Religion UPDATE: Bishop expands on view on UAMS-St. Vincent combination
Coleman asked the bishop his thoughts about St. Vincent cooperating with an institution that provides services — sterilization to name only one — contrary to church health directives, as UAMS currently does. Though the bishop doesn't exert direct control over the hospital or its Catholic-affiliated management company, the wishes of church leaders are important in operation of such facilities. He slowed a hospital merger in Hot Springs where a Catholic-affliated hospital was to be sold to a group that might allow abortion and sterilization, for example. The bishop also expressed concern there about continuing service to the poor.
He told Coleman he wouldn't approve any joint governance that resulted in "material cooperation" with "immoral medical practices" listed in Coleman's inquiry, from abortion training to emergency contraception for rape victims.
By e-mail, I asked this followup question:
Does this mean you disapprove of a cooperative venture with UAMS even if it offered such enumerated services independently and outside of the collaborative network proposed this week in draft form for the two institutions?
His response by e-mail to me today:
I do not automatically oppose as a matter of principle every conceivable model of affilliation between Catholic and secular hospitals, but only those which would implicate the Catholic hospital in violations of the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) for Catholic Health Care Services, issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops USCCB). These are available on the USCCB website at www.usccb.org. You will see that though material cooperation with the immoral medical procedures about which Jo Ann Coleman asked me would be the gravest violation of the ERDs, they are not the only matter of concern. Catholic Hospitals have the mission of continuing the healing ministry of Jesus Christ, so anything in a model of affiliation that would violate or undermine the Catholic identity of a Catholic Hospital like St. Vincent's would be unacceptable. A model of affiliation between St. Vincent and UAMS that does not violate the ERDs or otherwise undermine the Catholic identity of St. Vincent's could be acceptable, though of course the "devil" (so to speak) is always in the details...and that discussion has only just begun.
Many other followups are suggested, mostly of a hypothetical nature. One is this: In a jointly governed hospital, where it's understood that a patient might want or need a referral to a nominally independent affiliate of one partner for a service the other partner won't provide as a matter of religious belief, wouldn't such a referral be 'material"? Or, maybe more problematic for the public institution, this question: What if such referrals couldn't or wouldn't be made within the blended operation for fear of establishing "material cooperation."
Tough questions, I think. But the bishop has provided at least a little space, it seems, for cooperation.
UPDATE: Saturday evening, I received an e-mail from a spokeswoman for St. Vincent in response to a request for a comment related to the bishop's first reported statement yesterday. From Margaret Preston Dedman:
Since the beginning of our discussions with UAMS in August 2012, we have been clear that we will not enter into any affiliation model that impacts our Catholic identity or UAMS’ identity as a public, academic institution. That has not changed and will not change. As a Catholic ministry, we work closely with Bishop Anthony Taylor, the Catholic Diocese of Little Rock, and other Church leaders on all aspects of our strategic development. We require that at least one representative of the Church is a member of all of our governing bodies (fiduciary and advisory). We received a first draft of a proposed affiliation model from UAMS yesterday and will be actively negotiating with UAMS over the next month or two. We will be simultaneously engaging Bishop Taylor, the Diocese, and other Church leaders in our review and approval of potential models. Again, St. Vincent Health System will engage in no activities that compromise our Catholic identity.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (11)
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Arkansas Politics / Religion God, Guns and Fetuses: Now it's the taxpayer-subsidized religious organization bill
Now comes extremist Republican (but I repeat myself) Rep. Randy Alexander with constitutionally flawed legislation to protect legislators like Rep. Justin Harris who want to promote religion in their state-funded daycare programs.
His HB 1352, co-sponsored by a gang of Republicans, would amend existing law on the state-funded Arkansas Better Chance pre-school program, which has provided solid family income to Harris' Growing God's Kingdom daycare in West Fork and pre-schools operated in Mountain Home by Sen. Johnny Key's family. The prevalence of religious practices in those state-funded institution prompted a complaint, a review by DHS and a re-emphasis of the constitutional guidance that state money can't be used to establish religion (fundamentalist Christian in these cases).
Alexander would attempt to fix that. His bill would strike the part of the law that requires review of ABC programs to be sure they don't violate the constitutional church-state separation principle. Instead, it says:
Arkansas Better Chance Program funding may be approved for and expended by a faith-based early childhood program if the program is selected by the parent of a child enrolled in the faith-based early childhood program and not by a state agency or officer.
This bill for cleansing public subsidies to religious groups doesn't make publicly funded church constitutional. It is also an enormous slippery slope. You could just as readily take it to any aspect of school or government. It will employ lawyers if passed, which, given the theme of this session, you can't rule out.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (14)
Monday, February 11, 2013
Religion Pope to resign
CNN says Pope Benedict to resign at the end of the month. He cites age.
He was a popular choice within the college of 115 cardinals who elected him as a man who shared — and at times went beyond — the conservative theology of his predecessor and mentor, John Paul II, and seemed ready to take over the job after serving beside him for more than two decades.When he took office, Pope Benedict’s well-known stands included the assertion that Catholicism is “true” and other religions are “deficient;” that the modern, secular world, especially in Europe, is spiritually weak; and that Catholicism is in competition with Islam. He had also strongly opposed homosexuality, the ordination of women priests and stem cell research.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (21)
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Education / Religion Report dismisses complaint about religion in Conway schools, suggests policy on visits
I've reported periodically on a topic of current controversy in Conway Public Schools. Superintendent Greg Murry temporarily halted campus visits by local church groups after a complaint from the Freedom from Religion Foundation that visitors were using the visits for open evangelizing. Several of the groups disputed that.
Murry ignored his original advice from Arkansas lawyers and brought in to advise him a Texas group, the Liberty Institute, which fights to advance the cause of religion in the public arena.
The Liberty Institute has now filed its report and a recommended visitation policy for Murry to present to the Conway School Board (which has been supportive of religious visitation.)
* THE PROPOSED RULES: Read them here. Visitors would be allowed for approved visitors on a list and, at the middle and high school levels, schools officials would attempt to the extent possible to segregate visitors from the general student body.
* THE LIBERTY INSTITUTE REPORT: It concludes the existing Conway open access visitor policy is constitutional, that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had been misinformed about open religious activities at the Carl Stuart Middle School and that religious groups had not been given unique access, as the complaint said. Nonetheless, it recommended a small change in the visitor policy "to ensure that any confusion as to the nature of the policy is avoided and that the policy cannot be exploited in an unconstitutional manner."
Got it. Nothing to see here. Move along. There is the matter of mothers who've told me — but feared being identified in public — that direct religious proselytizing HAS occurred before their children in the Conway schools. Perhaps the attention to the issue and a restatement of guidelines that are neither hostile to nor establishing of religion will quell the fear I've heard from them. Given Conway's history and the influence of megachurches, that might be a touch optimistic.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (27)
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Guns / Religion The impact of guns in church
He recounts an usher's recent encounter with a potential gun-carrying congregant and comments:
Our legislature has spent time and effort on a symbolic bill repealing a ban that I'd wager has rarely if ever been enforced in Arkansas. Although I can imagine the original ban being useful to some frightened pastor who could tell an unstable parishioner that it wasn't the pastor's idea, but the law says you've just got to leave your gun at home. Confrontation mercifully averted.The legislature's action has already impacted our ministry at Christ Church. It's given us one more hurdle, one more fear to deal with as we try to do our Christian duty and welcome a stranger into our midst as if he or she were Christ himself. Its impact is not hypothetical. It is real. Loving our neighbor just got a little harder.
The church concealed carry bill remains a legislative drafting disaster. The gun fanciers say you should assume guns are outlawed. If a church has decided otherwise, that's their business. Of course, the most avid gun fanciers, after all the talk about guns in church and a general resistance to ANY sort of gun regulation, are likely to presume their guns are good to go to altar call. I'd bet plenty of communion rails have been attended by armament for many years.
One last comment on armed churches: Honesty would have been preferable. Sen. Bryan King wants more guns everywhere. The gun nuts oppose any form of limitation on guns. To say that church guns are necessary because of break-ins in rural churches makes no sense whatsoever. How is legal presence of guns in church going to deter a midnight burglary of a remote rural church? Or does Bryan King mean every church is now planning to post armed guards on premises around the clock?
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (28)
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Guns / Religion Who'll protect Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.?
What about those of us who worship in synagogues and mosques? Are we covered or were we minorities left out?
Sen. Bryan King's bill to allow guns in church does not define churches. But it does include "other places of worship."
That might cover other established religions. Might it also provide cover for those who'd like to establish otherwise prohibited places as places of worship? The First Church of Whiskey, say?
Even if Jews do have access to guns in their synagogues now, the law remains woefully deficient in notice requirement. By amending existing statute with a new subsection, does it or does it not bring churches under the notice section of the law, which requires signage if you don't want guns on your premises? Does the bill really leave gun-friendliness up to guesswork of church visitors? Is such lack of notice wise, from a legal point of view? How will insurance carriers feel about this in cases of churches that do open their sanctuaries to gun carry by some or all who enter? The demagoguic whoop to expand the presence of guns in society doesn't have time to deal with technicalities. Guns first. Consequences later.
Meanwhile, speaking of guns, Ernest Dumas contemplates the issue this week. He notes that studies show more guns don't make any premises safer, churches or otherwise. He offers a modest proposal to take us back to the country's roots:
But if every single person had to be armed to the teeth maybe it would be different. After all, that is in the full spirit of the Second Amendment, which was enacted to protect Southern states right to keep militias to put down slave rebellions and runaway slaves and, after the Civil War, to punish uppity black men or keep them from voting.If the Arkansas legislature is serious about church safety, it should follow that example. To be helpful, here is a template: South Carolina’s law, enacted shortly before the Revolution, which required all white men to go to church on Sunday and at Christmas armed with a long rifle, powder and a pair of horse pistols and fined them heftily if they did not.
Whereas, it is necessary to make further provisions for securing the inhabitants of this province against the insurrections and other wicked attempts of negroes and other slaves within the same, we humbly pray his most sacred majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Hon. William Bull, Esq., lieutenant-governor and commander-in-chief over his majesty's province of South Carolina, by and with the advice and consent of his majesty's honorable Council, and the Commons House of Assembly of this province, that every white male inhabitant of this province (except travelers and such persons as shall be above 60 years of age) who, by the laws of this province, is liable to bear arms in the militia of this province, either in times of alarm or at common musters, who shall, on any Sunday or Christmas day in the year, go and resort to any church or any other place of divine worship within this province, and shall not carry with him a gun or a pair of horse-pistols, in good order and fit for service, with at least six charges of gunpowder and ball, and shall not carry the same into the church or other place of divine worship, every such person shall forfeit and pay the sum of twenty shillings, current money, for every neglect of the same. . .
Note to bill drafters: Insert Governor Beebe’s name where it alludes to “His Majesty,” King George II.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (12)
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Arkansas Politics / Abortion / Religion Jason Rapert is not happy. He also lies
- fiddlingrapert.tumblr.com
- PROBING: Rapert's legislation and pronouncements have inspired a growing Tumblr page
I termed his quote racial (not racist) rhetoric.
I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don't represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is not going to save us. We're going to take this country back for the Lord. We're going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we're not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!
Many other national websites picked up the quote. Rapert and his defenders responded by saying his reference to minorities was about political minorities.
So I linked the full video. Watch for yourself. Does the full context absolve Rapert from appealing to racial feelings in the all-white crowd? He knows what was in his heart and mind. I don't. But I know this. What you see is a nativist "take back this country" screed, with country inflection and fractured grammar, complete with a sneering reference to the president's birth certificate.
Why dredge it back up? I heard from Sen. Rapert this morning via e-mail. He sent a message that he declared pre-emptively off the record. No journalist accepts pre-emptive off-the-record written messages. Off the record is an agreement, not a fiat.
Rapert tells me his family received death threats because of my "fun." Whether these purported threats quoted the Arkansas Blog, versus the dozens of other places that his remarks appeared, I don't know. I certainly don't approve of threats. But I do want to emphasize one sentence in Rapert's note. I offered not to quote it if he'd retract it, but he didn't.
You know full well my comments were not about race or religion.
Oh, really? Not about religion? Let's roll the tape, as first noted by New York magazine.
"I wonder sometimes, when they invited all the Moslems to come into the White House, and have 'em a little Ramadan supper, when our president could not take the time to go attend a National Prayer Breakfast. I wonder what he stands for."
Rapert may not be a racist. But he is dishonest, here so blatantly that only the word "lie" will do. Not that dishonesty is a revelation from this ornery corner. He's refused to provide a coherent response for how his bill to make abortion illegal after five or six weeks can withstand the certain successful lawsuit against four decades of federal case law. He also has been telling me since 2011 that his "fetal hearbeat protection bill" would not require an invasive vaginal probe of women — an unnecessary act. Medical testimony has made it clear that women seeking an abortion would be forced at early stages to have a probe inserted in them for an irrelevant ultrasound test. Rapert did finally offer an off-hand defense on this to me the other day when I remarked on the invasiveness of the procedure. He said sex was invasive. Yes, really. He said that. Which I took to mean: If a woman is willing to let a man insert a penis in her vagina, how could she possibly object to having a nine-inch probe forced into her vagina against her wishes by a stranger to obtain a legal medical procedure?
Not about religion? It is ALL about religion.
And about those prayer breakfasts. Barack Obama has attended them regularly. Photo of one from 2012 below was in New York magazine, as was the photo below it of George Bush at a Ramadan observance at the White House.
Bush with Muslims:
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (77)
Charter schools / Education / Religion Education notes: Pray for Conway and Teach for America
A couple of education items;
* CHURCH AND THE CONWAY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: I wrote last night about a new batch of internal documents from the Conway School District relative to Superintendent Greg Murry's effort to continue to allow numerous church groups to visit with school kids at lunch hour. As I mentioned the documents mentioned both an effort to prevent proselytizing and some evidence that it has occurred despite rules to the contrary (a good reason perhaps to think hard about opening campuses to visitors, for religion or other causes, at the lunch hour). But I forgot to put up a link to the documents. Here it is.
It's a long letter from Gary Rubinstein, a proud Teach for America alumnus who's become something of a critic of some aspects of the program to put bright kids with limited training into schools with desperate needs as teachers. Rubinstein also suggests Teach for America and its leader Wendy Kopp have become unquestioning shills for the billionaires' charter schoocl movement and one-note critics of teachers and their unions. He also challenges the cant about charter schools. Kopp responds.
From Rubinstein:
Over the years I’ve been critical of the TFA training model. It’s not that I don’t think it is possible to train teachers, particularly secondary teachers, in five weeks. It’s just that it has to be a very good five weeks, which I still think it isn’t. The student teaching component is just too short with classes that are just too small. But I still support the idea of alternative certification, and have said so even in my ‘anti-TFA’ NPR interview. I also, unlike many TFA critics, am OK with the two year commitment. Though I’d like it to be upped to three years, I can see that maybe two years lures in some people who could teach for a long time after they get hooked on teaching. So two of the largest criticisms of TFA, the short training and the short commitment are not things that I have been complaining about.
... So it was disappointing to me that the theme of the summit, based on who the featured speakers were, was generally about how charter schools were THE answer and how ‘bad’ teachers and unions are THE problem. (And yes, I know that the people who I’m accusing of saying this would quickly deny that they have said this, but, again, actions speak louder than words.) I saw this mainly in the opening and closing ceremonies, particularly during the ‘Waiting For Superman’ reunion panel. In general, the 20 year event left me with a sour taste in my mouth. It felt like TFA was trying to convey the idea that “We figured it out. Now we just have to scale up,” despite the fact that nobody has really conclusively figured ‘it’ out. This reminded me of George W. Bush’s famous 2003 ‘Mission Accomplished’ sign on the aircraft carrier, eight years before the end of the Iraq war. I don’t see much evidence that anyone has really figured out much. ‘High performing’ charter networks have trouble getting consistency within their own schools. Districts where the ideas of ‘accountability’ and ‘choice’ have thrived have only shown success with some very creative math.
... But for me the thing that bothers me most about these reformers is the dishonesty. In the closing ceremony of the 20 year thing I heard [Education Secretary Arne] Duncan say something about how the decision to shut down a large Chicago High School was justified by the miraculous charter school that took its place. After I got home from the summit I did about ten minutes of fact-checking before I learned that this charter school was far from miraculous as they had about a forty percent dropout rate. This inspired my first post that would be called, I guess ‘anti-reform’ though I really think of it as anti-lying.... As far as charter schools go, you must also be aware of how much attrition they have. As you are married to one of the top executives in KIPP, I have trouble believing that you don’t know this…. The fact is that most ‘high-performing’ charters are ones that manage to get more motivated kids and families and who lose the less motivated ones throughout the years. And the schools that do have the same kids as the neighborhood ‘failing’ school, those schools often have test scores that are extremely low too.
There's lots more. You might prefer Kopp's response, in which she disagrees point by point. It's a dialogue at least. It's not the sort of thing you'll hear when the billionaires hold their self-selected dog-and-pony shows in Arkansas. To insulting six-figure Walton lobbyist Luke Gordy, all real public school employees are self-interested hacks who care only about their paychecks, not kids. The billionaires (several of whom have never put a kid's foot in a public school) are the only people who really care about kids.
Rubinstein's blog has lots of stuff worth considering.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (4)
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Religion Gunmen for Jesus
Some day, I think conflicts will arise
Why?
Because the bill couldn't be more general. The repealer of the prohibition in the concealed carry law says:
However, this subchapter does not preclude a church or other place of worship from determining who may carry a concealed handgun into the church or other place of worship;
Suppose a pistol packer gets reported and arrested for carrying his heater into the little church of which I'm a member. (I won't embarrass it by mentioning the congregation or speak too presumptively, but I'd be very surprised if it joined a rush to permit guns in the sanctuary.) Must the church really post a sign at every door to give fair warning to Pistol Pete? At the main door? Fellowship hall? Daycare center? Chapel? Office building? It'll be an unseemly decoration on a place of peace, not exactly a fish or dove or cross. But the law doesn't allow the elders to simply vote a ban. They must make an outward and visible sign. To bar guns, a church must:
(19) (A) Any place at the discretion of the person or entity exercising control over the physical location of the place by placing at each entrance to the place a written notice clearly readable at a distance of not less than ten feet (10 ) that “carrying a handgun is prohibited”.(B) (i) If the place does not have a roadway entrance, there shall be a written notice placed anywhere upon the premises of the place.
Since most churches have roadway entrances, sounds like the "each entrance" standard will apply. Does it apply to freestanding gyms at "churches or places of worship"? Lot of angels need to dance on the head of this legislative pin.
PS — Gun nuts say I have it all wrong. They say that the law keeps guns illegal in church unless a church votes otherwise and that no notice is required either way. I'm not buying that easy alibi. ... How is a visitor to know — or even a backslider who doesn't attend his own church very often? The obvious course for protection is to follow the notice required in the very same statute. To announce that guns are banned. Or to say they are permitted and to what extent. Otherwise, churches hold themselves up to great risks by people making assumptions. Dangerous business, assumptions.
Think of it this way, gun nuts. If it's a religious violation to make a rule pertaining to churches (the earlier ban on guns) and not others, it's a government establishment of religion to free ONLY churches from the notice requirement.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (47)
Friday, January 18, 2013
Education / Religion Conway schools appear to stack deck on religion in schools
The blog reported yesterday about a complaint by the Freedom from Religion Foundation about the broad access religious groups have enjoyed in Conway public schools at lunch and other free time.
The groups, in theory, are only socializing with existing members, not proselytizing, teaching religion or recruiting members. Some parents think they are doing those sorts of religious establishment things. Conway Superintendent Greg Murry said he intended to review the policy and make a report to the school board. He insisted the school district didn't intend to promote religious group recruitment in schools.
But whoa: It looks like he's ceded the review of the matter — and even speaking on the subject and recommendations — to the Liberty Institute, not exactly a neutral observer. From the Log Cabin:
The district reached out Friday to Liberty Institute, a nonprofit organization "dedicated to restoring and defending religious liberty across America," according to a news release and General Council Jeff Mateer. The district's move comes after the district received letter, dated Oct. 26, from Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates for separation of state and church nationwide.Liberty Institute will also be speak for the district on this issue from now on, Murry and Mateer said. Murry referred questions to Liberty Institute when asked how he decided to hire the group.
It is a conservative Christian advocacy group that has worked in the cause of advancing overt religious expression in public schools. From Wikipedia:
Liberty Institute has since shifted focus to providing pro bono legal assistance to Christian people and organizations that they believe are suffering religious persecution in the United States, such as students, veterans, and pastors whose religious free exercise rights they believe are being violated.
Disappointing. Murry sounded like a straight shooter when I spoke with him yesterday. But if he's turned speaking and press releases for a taxpayer-financed entity over to a Christian advocacy group, I misjudged.
To the religionists, it is persecution if they may not evangelize n public schools. Parents who've complained about this are not happy about the turn of events. They best prepare to get unhappier.
From the Liberty Institute website's pitch for money:
Your gift now will help us be prepared to fight back against the attacks on religious liberty by the ACLU, Freedom from Religion Foundation and other anti-religious groups.
The group was founded by Kelley Shackelford, a Texas lawyer who's made a specialty of suing over religious issues. Right Wing Watch provides a good look at the work of Shackelford, who apparently is now effectively in charge of administration of Conway public schools. Most recently, he was linked up with faux historian David Barton about "religious hostility" in America. Want hostility? Try to keep folks like this from cramming their preferred brand of prayer down kids' throats in public schools, then you'll see some hostility.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (38)
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Education / Religion Thank God for Louisiana; but we could be next
Bad as things look, they could be worse.
You could be living in Louisiana, where a creation-science encouraging measure is the law of the land.
But I highly recommend this article about a brainy 19-year-old Louisiana native, now studying history at Rice, who's leading a charge to repeal the law. He earlier succeeded in a fight against an effort to remove real science textbooks from public school classes. His repeal appeal has been signed by 76 Nobel laureates. Not that this impresses your average Louisiana Republican legislator (or ours).
If nothing else, enjoy the story of young Zack Kopplin.
And don't take our current lack of a creation science law for granted. The idea pops up from the fringe every session. And sure to come this year is a Republican-favored idea for school vouchers. Kopplin warns:
He also has his eyes set on vouchers. After an Alternet story came out about a school in the Louisiana voucher program teaching that the Loch Ness Monster was real and disproved evolution, Kopplin looked deeper into the program and found that this wasn't just one school, but at least 19 other schools, too.School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism.
"These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules." Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers' money.
The Billionaire Boys Club view, of course, is that parents and schools should be unleased with tax money to teach whatever they want, removed from state Board of Education regulation and put under the care of Republican legisaltors.
Watch a creationist Louisiana senator insult advocates of teaching science in science classes, rather than religion:
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (24)
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Little Rock Government / Religion Little Rock proposes to outsource jobs that discriminate on basis of religion
* NO JEWS, ATHEISTS, UNITARIANS, BUDDHISTS, HINDU, MUSLIMS, ETC. NEED APPLY:
Robert Johnston, the former state legislator whose civic endeavors include work with homeless people, continues to keep me informed on the glacial progress (six years in the mill) of the city of Little Rock in opening a day center for homeless out on Confederate Boulevard in a shelter in such rough shape the Union Rescue Mission abandoned it for a new facility across the street. The city, in addition to buying the building from Union Rescue, which has struggled financially, has come up with a scheme to direct more money to Union Rescue by contracting with the nonprofit to run the city's homeless center rather than the city run it on its own,
Problem: Union Rescue is, essentially, a religious mission, noble though it's work is at helping people off the street. The city reassures criticis that the organization's normal evangelical outreach will be prohibited in its taxapayer-paid work of running a publicly financed public facility.
But ..... Union Rescue has advertised for workers for the city-paid program and emphasized that only members of "evangelical Christian" churches should apply. The advertised criteria for nine jobs, which will amount to hundreds of thousands of tax-paid work each year:
- Personal commitment to Jesus Christ and lives under the authority of Scripture.
- Professional and personal life reflects integrity, personal responsibility and Christian character.
- A servant’s heart and compassion for those who are lost, and are hurting yet not an enabler.
- Willing to sign the Union Rescue Mission’s Statement of Faith
- A current member or regular attendee of a local evangelical Christian church.
So far, city legal minds say it is legal for a city contractor to discriminate on the basis of religion.
Even if that's correct, let's think on it a bit further.
Would the city board of directors contract a city service in a city facility with an organization that said:
* No Negroes will be hired. Whites only should apply. What if the KKK wanted to contract for garbage pickup and employ only people committed to its beliefs?
* No Irish will be hired. Real Americans only.
* Nobody older than 50 will be applied. Young people only.
* No women will be hired. Men only.
* Devout Muslims will be employed. No Christians.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference. Certainly not a penny's worth of moral difference in expenditure of public money on a organization that discriminates in hiring.
Is Little Rock really as bad as Lepanto? (Make that worse. On advice of counsel, they've dropped official Christian prayer at Lepanto football games after complaints.) Is religious discrimination OK with Little Rock tax dollars if it's spent on evangelizing Christians?
Johnston wrote to say additionally that he has been stonewalled in his efforts to get a copy of the organization's "statement of faith." Maybe the city could get something from its contractor for Johnston. Perhaps best not to send a Jew to ask for it.
I hope we'll find it if this really is legal, should the city insist on moving forward. But we don't need a lawsuit to know it's wrong.
PS: The Union Rescue's chief asked Friday that it be removed — and all its affiliates — from the Arkansas Homeless Coalition mailing list. And the city of Little Rock proposes that it run its homeless center?
PPS: These are the city-funded jobs to be awarded on a a religiously discriminatory basis. (Gandhi couldn't work there under URM rules.)
1. Director of Social Services - Master's Degree in Social Work - LSCW - Full-time
2. Case Manager - Bachelor's in Social Work - LSW - Full time
3. Case Manager - Bachelor's in Social Science - Full time
4. Receptionist - Experienced only need apply - Full time
5. Janitor - Experienced only need apply - Part time (25-30 hrs per week)
6. Kitchen Coordinator/Chef - Experienced only need apply - Full time
7. Laundry Attendant - Part - time
8. Security - Experience only - Part time (weekends and holidays during the yr) 12-18 hrs per week
9. Facility Supervisor - Part time (weekend and holidays during the yr) 12-18 hours per week
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (20)
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Religion Arkansas bishop announces dismissal of priest
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor announced Jan. 6 that Royce Thomas, a former priest for the Diocese of Little Rock, has been dismissed from the priesthood after a "history of professional misconduct as a priest."The bishop released the following statement Jan. 6:
"It is my sad duty to announce that on Dec. 29, 2012, I received from the Congregation for the Clergy in Rome their decree imposing on (former) Msgr. Royce R. Thomas the ecclesiastical penalty of involuntary dismissal from the clerical state. This decree dispenses him from all the obligations connected with sacred ordination, including sacred celibacy, and deprives him of all ecclesiastical honors previously received and offices previously held. This ecclesiastical penalty was imposed due to a history of professional misconduct as a priest, and the decree stipulates that there is no further recourse to this supreme and final decision. I met with (now) Mr. Thomas on Jan. 6, 2013 as directed by the Congregation for the Clergy to inform him of this decree. While he remains a Catholic in good standing, the congregation also required me to inform him of the restrictions imposed on him by Rome regarding any future public ministry as a layman in the Church. Please keep him in your prayers."
This is the ecclesiastical conclusion of a church issue that became public, and a matter of great controversy, when it was reported in 2010 that Thomas had been removed as pastor of Our Lady of Holy Souls Catholic Church. Bishop Taylor was criticized by many parishioners about removal of the popular pastor and fielded questions on Facebook about the matter.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (22)
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Arkansas Politics / Religion Denny Altes will be back with Bible bill
Rep. Denny Altes promises to try again in 2013 to pass legislation to require the state Education Department to establish a curriculum for teaching the Bible in public schools. Stephens Media reports.
He insists he's not proselytizing, but merely providing a framework to continue existing teaching of the Bible as literature and history as some districts already do. Right. He even has a front group nominally interested in nothing but sound scholarship to give the state a little guidance in teaching the Christian Bible properly. Uh huh.
Altes appears to be right that the Education committees of the legislature are now suitably packed with thumper Republicans — there primarily to enact the Billionaire Boys Club charter school agenda — and thus likely to be more amenable to his aim to spread The Word throughout Arkansas schools.
But I'll believe he doesn't have a religious motive the minute he also directs the Education Department to prepare similar curricula for the Koran and important works of other faiths. Based on my exposure to precepts of Hinduism and Buddhism during a recent trip to India, I'd venture to say they offer some worthwhile points to ponder, too.
Posted by Max Brantley | Permalink | Comments (18)
Event Calendar
-
Re: Martha Shoffner buzz
Luke, I went to the EEOC and 3 different attorneys which all told me I…
- on May 20, 2013
-
Re: Judicial races begin
Mike will make an excellent choice for judge. I have practiced law in countless cases…
- on May 20, 2013
-
Re: Rep. Broadaway won't make race for attorney general
We need a good Democrat to run for the Attorney General's office. Someone like Rep…
- on May 20, 2013
Top Commenters
Site Index
News
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
Entertainment
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings
Slideshows
-
May 16, 2013
Fox16 Local News and Weather
-
Benton Police Arrest Wounded Man Upon Release from Hospital
May 20, 2013This is the second arrest in the case of a man who allegedly schemed to have himself shot. fox16.com /more/ -
Arkansas 7th Grader Competing in National Geographic Bee
May 20, 2013Christian Boekhout, 12, of Hot Springs is in Washington, D.C. for contest. fox16.com /more/
This Week's Cover
Quick Links
Special Publications
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
