House OKs Faith As Head Start Hiring Issue

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.

The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars.

Democrats blasted that idea as discriminatory.

Launched in the 1960s, the nearly $7 billion Head Start program provides comprehensive education to more than 900,000 poor children. Though credited for getting kids ready for school, Head Start has drawn scrutiny as cases of financial waste and questions about academic quality have surfaced nationwide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050922/ap_on_go_co/head_start

:argh:

[Gloria]

1. Any Democrat who fails to vote against this should be....fill in

the blank, something as vile as the vote....

[WillParkinson]

2. Aw, isn't that SWEET?

And the Repubs say they are here for ALL Americans.

As long as they have money or will get them votes.

[BeHereNow]

3. Oh man- that is SO screwed up.

Let's just turn history back a thousand years.
Civil Rights? Equal opportunity Employment?
Separation of Church and State?
Bleh, who needs them?
BHN

[Inland]

4. Our dollars go to the best qualified christian available.

Once again, what should be a program for the people is turned into a means to funnel money to Bush supporters like religious groups and religious.

[Rose Siding]

5. Anyone know where this stands in the Senate?

[bee]

6. 23 democrats voted for legal discrimination...

thats just beautiful. :sarcasm:

[Sub Atomic]

14. where is the list of those?

do you have a link?

[oldlady]

7. setting a great example

for Sunni/Shiite/Kurd strife in Iraq, eh? Legislate your religion, anyone?
grrrrrrrrrrr

[Wordie]

8. Religion Dominates Head Start Debate (RW wants to allow religious discrim)

The House Republicans intend to theocratize Head Start. I personally believe that RELIGIOUS organizations should be able to use religion as a criteria in hiring, for RELIGIOUS programs, but Head Start? We are headed down a slippery slope...

(Actually, we may be half way down the slope already.)

from Salon.com
http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8CPGF300.html
<snip>
By BEN FELLER AP Education Writer

September 22,2005 | WASHINGTON -- The House moved Thursday to shore up Head Start's academics and finances, but debate about updating the preschool program turned heated over the role religion can play in hiring.

Republicans were ready to amend the Head Start bill so churches and other faith-based Head Start centers could factor religion into their hiring. Democrats called that idea discriminatory.

<snip>
The Republican plan would, for example, allow a Catholic church that provides Head Start services to employ only qualified child-care workers who are Catholics.

Democrats and Republicans offered different interpretations of whether the Constitution, federal law and court rulings protected -- or prevented -- federally aided centers from hiring based on religion.

[donco6]

9. I work with Head Start in my district.

Financially, I'm not sure why anyone would WANT to do this! It's very, very expensive. The federal reimbusement doesn't cover all of our costs (we may have a little more expensive teachers than a church would provide - but not much.) The regulations are MAMMOTH and they watch us closely - no cutting corners to skim off anything - no chance. I just don't see how a church would think it could benefit financially from the arrangement.

[Miss Chybil]

10. Maybe, the governement's going to sweeten the pie for faith-based

Head Start programs? Who knows? Maybe, they're just thinking of all the souls they could save?

[Wordie]

12. but Head Start is NOT a religious program, so WHY should this be allowed?

[Southpaw Bookworm]

24. It shouldn't

But it will. That's what the faith-based initiatives are all about.

[Wordie]

11. It may be targeted toward religious organizations that run Head Start

Programs already. Like if a church already has one, then they can hire just people from their own denomination, etc. That makes more sense from the churches point of view, perhaps, but it will be HORRIBLE for head start.

Edited to add:
and btw...it's great that you work with Head Start, a great program!

[nvliberal]

23. Hey, if they're receiving government money,

it's illegal, period.

The courts should strike anything like this down.

[Wordie]

33. Amen. n/t

[SoCalDem]

32. They WANT head start to fail..

Inserting religious funding into it is one sure way tp get dems to start thinking about de-funding it..

It's the "shit sandwich" effect...

[dethl]

13. This can't be constitutional....

I hope the ACLU is ready to strike this one down in court.

[maxrandb]

25. It's Perfectly Constitutional

once CJ Roberts and O'Connors replacement get to the Supreme Court.

and they asked; "how much damage could he possibly do in 5 years?"

[TaleWgnDg]

15. What do neo-cons do when federal social programs . . .

.
What do neo-cons do when federal social programs work well? Why of course neo-cons either try to stop the program entirely or cut it down so that it no longer works well! Cut, cut, cut and more social program cuts.

Head Start is one hell of a federal social program. It has an excellent track record. It has an excellent success record.

So, of course, neo-cons want to cut cut cut and amend amend amend it so that it no longer works!

Bless their twisted, irrational, crimped, and narrow hearts!


___________________________________________________________________
Then, of course, add religion to the mix, George!
Do add religion!
Buy votes with (federal taxpayers) monies sent to religions then have those religions discriminate against minorities!
Attaway, George.
Don't dissappoint those ignorant rightwingnut self-righteous religious zealots who love to discriminate in Jesus' name!
.

[ladylibertee]

16. So irritating.Did yall know that the KKK says they are Christians?

[tainowarrior]

17. Damn Talibanists.

Subverting a successful program. I can't believe this isn't against seperation of church and state. You can't get more "church and state" than actually allowing church authorities to bar goverment workers from jobs based on a religious litmus test. This is EXACTLY what the Founders feared, a tyranny of the religious over the non-religious or differently-religious.

[jody]

18. Is there a current consensus on Head Start's effectiveness? Does it

increase a student's academic performance or merely improve social skills?

The article says the "Head Start program provides comprehensive education to more than 900,000 poor children." Is the phrase "comprehensive education" an exaggeration?

[kwolf68]

19. OK

Sing with me Sing with me
All gather round people
And sing with me
1…2….3
We gotta theocracy

They’ll decide for you and me
Bring it on, Roll With me
Shove it up your theocracy

Your God is Mine
And Mine yours
Why did we leave England?
What was that for?

Foster nothing but verbal masturbation
With God in command we can have a perfect nation
Where are you each Sunday?
I am God’s chosen man, that’s what I say

Sing with me Sing with me
All gather round people
And sing with me
1…2….3
We gotta theocracy

[Sub Atomic]

20. This is what the Salvation Army wanted when they endorsed *

I remember from several years ago that the Salvation Army would not get behind * and his push for Faith-Based Initiatives unless they were allowed to discriminate against gays/lesbians in their hiring practices.


I guess they're going to get what they wanted.


Is there anything that we can do anymore? Our supposed "representatives" don't fucking care of anything more than lining their own pockets from the corporate lobbyists.

[yellowcanine]

21. This will go to SCOTUS for sure. How will Roberts rule on it?

This is tailor-made for a SCOTUS church/state case. You simply can't use federal dollars to hire someone and use a religious test in the process - at least not the way I read the establishment clause of the constitution. How many of the current SCOTUS justices would give a pass on this? Right now I see Fat Tony and "me too" Clarence as two votes for the beginnings of theocracy. Roberts is a cipher on this and of course we don't know about the O'Conner replacement. Even so, assume both of the * appointments are theocrats - that still only gets the God party four votes. Am I missing someone? I don't see them getting 5 votes at this time. Kennedy?

[PurityOfEssence]

22. The U.S. Constitution is pretty clear on this (Art. 6, Sec. 3)

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Are they using the argument that these people are somehow sub-contractors, and thus exempt? That term "public trust" sounds awfully damn sweeping and inclusive.

These people are theocratic royalists and must be stopped.

[shrike]

26. Damn right

I've been outraged about the whole faith-based funding since it began.

I don't want ANY church -- I'm Catholic -- receiving federal funding. Can you imagine the slippery slope we're on? Churches dispensing federal college scholarship programs? Running welfare? No, no, no.

Churches do do good in the private sector, many different denominations. However, they should stay private, end of story.

BTW, can't you imagine the government pulling strings, once a church gets settled atop the federal tit? Support this candidate, no more speaking out on this issue. It's already happening now, unfortunately, government and religious leaders making deals, but can you imagine what it'll be like once the money train goes official?

[yellowcanine]

27. "once a church gets settled atop the federal tit?" I like your style.

[shrike]

28. Thanks (she said modestly)

[yellowcanine]

29. Your welcome. I have always thought that "tit" is a good word that

doesn't get used nearly enough so I always appreciate when someone finds a creative way to use it in a sentence.

[shrike]

30. LOL n/t

[jsamuel]

31. What do you think Roberts would say?

[Wordie]

34. That's the one million dollar question, isn't it? eom

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Oh, we don't have to give them a test; we believe them.

He'll quibble about what a "test" is, or whether this is actually an endorsed functionary of the government and use precedent as an excuse. The use of precedent is precisely what is frightening about all the unconstitutional religious encroachment: once given ground they shouldn't have (like "In God We Trust" on money) it is used to justify further outrages. This is exactly why the line should be held and this claptrap about "ceremonial deism" should be shut down at its first mention. If it's only "ceremonial" anyway, nobody should mind having it taken out; absence is neutrality, not an expression against the big whoseywhat.

What I'd really like to hear is the excuse from those two cavemen Scalia and Thomas; they're the big "original intent" assholes. The line I cited is from the body of the constitution, not one of the amendments, and it is the ONLY mention of religion in the document other than Article One of the Bill of Rights. How they can do something that's EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in the main text of our original laws is disgusting.

[halobeam]

35. kick

:kick: