The Great Secret About Faith-Based Hiring

==...whether faith-based groups can hire and fire according to someone's religion.==

Seeeee?? Already a glitch.

Now, that depends, among other things, on whether these "faith-based" organizations are considered part of government, or not; or whether they are subsidized by government in this scheme.

Of course, an agreement could be worked out that they are not part of government and that they are not beholden to government, even though they get money as part of the agreement.

However, some Lib will start whinin' about their hiring only Christians and all that, and we'll be off to the races...and courts.

You can count on the Libs to screw it all up.

Obviously there are divided views on the freedom provided by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that religious organizations can take religion (but not race, sex, ethnicity, color, etc.) into account when making employment decisions. Some think what this authorizes is mere rank discrimination; others see it as parallel to the freedom of Senators to hire only within their own political party and the right of environmental groups to ignore applicants who don't care passionately for the environment.
But whatever one thinks of that, it is odd for the article to suggest that religious staffing is merely a wedge issue, brought up irrelevantly to rally the troops. For, according to the article, David Kuo discovered that faith-based groups that contracted with the government actually cared enough about hiring according to religion that they set their lawyers to work to find a way "around the law so they could get the money." They regard religious staffing to be so important as to set their lawyers busy to find a way around a ban on it! Isn't that the meaning of the Kuo quote? And if it takes a "large and well lawyered" faith-based organization to be able to deal with a ban on religious staffing (i.e., to get around it), then how will enforcing such a ban--Sen. Obama's plan--do anything other than obstruct the many small faith-based groups that Sen. Obama wants to get more involved?

Speaking as someone working in the ministry, if I were in the position of getting federal money under Obama's program, I would refuse. Of course, I've never been fond of government money going to faith-based programs anyway -- I don't want the government involved in funding my ministry work. Too many possibilities for problems.

Is there faith based hiring? I have found there is anti-religion hiring as in "going to church on Sunday morning does not fit my scheduling criteria". What would he do with this. There are supposed to be laws, but the more they rewrite the laws the more ways are found to getr around them.
As to Obama? I don't know. I scanned through the articles, but... the question should be, "should he even be elected?" He has changed course and back tracked so many times in this campaigne. First he is Christian, then he steps away from his church. Has he even mentioned church since? Then I hear that he wants the press to leave his wife out of it and what happens? His wife goes on the View. He speaks out against Hillary then I see him walking off stage with Hillary at a planned parenthood convention. He is now supporting same sex marital unions. And I haven't watched tv in a few days now, but I am sure there is more.
When he started I figured he was too new and too young to win, but he is intelligent, articulate, and traveled. I figured he would be one to watch for the next elections, but now I know he is ONE TO WATCH.
First he is Christian then he steps away now he aligns himself with anti-christian movements. The Bible discusses people like this and not in nice terms.

==...a nuanced approach to each issue...==

Whatever THAT is.

Well, give us an example of his "nuanced approach" to an issue, and explain the "nuance" of it that is, according to you, necessary.

Thanks for all the translation. That's exactly what I was thinking. Do you really want me to answer your contention... er, question?

Okay, seriously, I find myself having a rather visceral response to what you choose to respond to and the way you choose to respond. I find it most uncharitable. That said, I apologize for not extending you the same courtesy in some of my own posts that I would like from you.

In all seriousness, which are your most pressing questions, concerns or inconsistencies that you'd like me to either explore or clarify?

Okay, let me clarify what I think is central to our differences. I think you initially identified me as an Obama supporter and thus, made other conclusions about my theology. Central to this theology in terms of where it intersects politics are the issues of abortion and gay marriage. I'd like to tell you categorically, that I believe life starts at conception. I'd also like to tell you categorically, that I take Romans 1, 1 Tim. and Titus at face value in their discussion of homosexuality. It is clearly listed as sin, not God's best. The one thing I would like to add is that especially in the 1 Tim. and Titus discussions, I can't help but see that it's included in a list of sinful behavior, many of which I am personally guilty of. So while homosexuality is not one of the areas that I struggle with, several others are (as I'm sure you can see in my behavior towards you). Still, my own struggles and temptations take nothing away from what God clearly says about homosexuality. How's that for a starting point of clarification?

==I think you initially identified me as an Obama supporter...==

What you said identified you as a supporter, and I went with the fumes that came off what you wrote.

==... and thus, made other conclusions about my theology.==

I didn't address your, personal "theology." You may have concluded, from what I wrote, in the heat of the moment, that I targeted your "theology."

== Central to this theology in terms of where it intersects politics are the issues of abortion and gay marriage.==

As I have said, I think, in another thread, that God wants godly men in public service, office. For that to happen, you gotta have a godly electorate. However, today, that ain't happenin'. The disconnect is clearer than clear. The Devil couldn't be happier.

== ...I believe life starts at conception.==

This is a good start.

==...I take Romans 1, 1 Tim. and Titus at face value in their discussion of homosexuality. It is clearly listed as sin, not God's best. The one thing I would like to add is that especially in the 1 Tim. and Titus discussions, I can't help but see that it's included in a list of sinful behavior, many of which I am personally guilty of. So while homosexuality is not one of the areas that I struggle with, several others are (as I'm sure you can see in my behavior towards you). Still, my own struggles and temptations take nothing away from what God clearly says about homosexuality. How's that for a starting point of clarification?==

We are clearly getting there.

The most important thing, in these last days, is getting people going in the right direction, especially those of the House of Israel -- spiritual Israel -- help them to keep from straying.

However, in many, if not most, cases, it's more difficult to talk with Christians than it is to talk with unbelievers, and, as I say, the Devil is happy about that, that there are so many variations, so many versions, so many translations and so many and diverse discussions and other confusions. The job is to find a way for all who believe to go in the right direction, and, for me, it's disturbing to see how many Christians wanna go in their own direction.

Mr. I, I really appreciate your last set of responses. Again, I apologize for what I've projected onto you. I'm guilty of doing the very things that I've accused you of. So thanks for giving me an insight into your posts. (And please don't think I'm trying to sweet talk or patronize. I've really been wrestling with this back and forth, even tormented - but that has more to do with my own reactions.)

One thing I'm curious about (for now, at least). You've made mention a couple times about being in the last days/end times. Could you point me in the direction of some Scriptural support that informs your thinking there? Obviously, I'm a big fan of Genesis through Revelation. But if you could narrow it down a bit, that would be great. Is it safe to say that we're in a specific time in between the Resurrection of Jesus and the general Resurrection to come? (And no, just for clarification, I don't think everyone's going to heaven. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth and the Life. And no one comes to the Father but through (Jesus Christ).) But I think my sense of eschatology might be different than yours.

I suppose the real test of the last days is Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13, and how what Jesus says in them lines up with events, or how events line up with what He says in them.

Now, will it be the end of the world? No. It will be for the disobedient, but not the obedient. God's Saints will come back to a cleaned-out Earth.

==Too many things to figure out and work through all while I'm getting pounded by the world and my own misgivings all at the same time.==

That's why we give it all to the LORD, having realized, through Jesus -- the Word -- that we can't figure any of it out on our own.

Is the world more powerful than Jesus and His Blood??? NO! Then -- and take this the right way -- stop acting as though the world is more powerful than He Who says that, sure, you're gonna get pounded by the world, but, He says, "So what? You got Me, don't you? And I conquered all that, if I remember correctly."

Reminds me of what I have been thinking lately about people who are depressed, as an example.

A woman, say, comes to you and says that she's depressed.

Well, she is confessing depression, and that confession will just enhance the depression, not save her. She should be confessing the LORD, through Jesus. But no. She wants YOU to confess her depression with her, so she can feel good about feeling bad. She wants your witness, a negative witness, not the witness of Good Things. If you oblige her, you're doing her no good, just helping her do bad, and Genesis 4:7 says, that, if you don't do well, sin "lieth at the door," and that brings up Job 1:22, then Jonah 2:7. It's all about "remembrance" of the LORD, through Jesus. Therefore, it behooves you not to help her not do well, rather to do well which sounds like "dwell," as in Psalm 23 and elsewhere: If you do well, you dwell, as well as do well, in the House of the LORD. There's a relationship there between doing well and dwelling in the House of the LORD. In other words, if you take the last verse in Psalm 23 -- dwell -- you can sub "dwell," not to change meaning, rather to get more understanding.

So, as difficult as it is -- and the LORD knows that it is cuz He experienced it -- He has provided a way -- THE Way, as a matter of Fact-- and He provides a demonstration of this Way in Matthew 4:1-11: Go to the Word when pounded by the world. Even when the world is seducing you with pleasantries and what seem like "gifts."

You'll notice that, in Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus doesn't engage in conversation -- filthy conversation -- with the Devil. He responds to the Devil's attack, not with reasoning which can corrupt and, itself, be corrupted, rahter with the Word. The Devil -- the world, "Egypt," the sin nature -- will always use "reason" try to make doing filthy things seem wonderful and natural cuz, well, reasoning IS natural.

However, we have to ask, "What reasoning is natural? All of it up'n'here? O'course not!" That's why we have to guard the gate through which the Devil has inroads, if we aren't careful. In Matthew 4:1-11, Jesus shows us how to be careful.

This works with your own "misgivings," too.

Hope this helps encourage you in the LORD, through Jesus. The real encouragement, though, is in the Word of God.

No worries, man. I actually enjoy looking the stuff up - whether it's breaking my Bible in some more or cruising around biblegateway. I still have my homework from yesterday. So I'll let you know how it goes.