Will political moves prevent religious charities getting funding if they don't accept workers they don't want?

Question

The Scottish Executive seems to be promoting a policy of financial blackmail by trying to foist workers upon religious charities of ITS choosing - not the charities. It implies such charities show discrimination if they prefer helpers sympathetic to their own religious ethos. It wants people of other (or no) religious persuasion to be used by religious charities. In the Christian charity I work for employees in some sectors only have to agree to be sympathetic to the ethos of the group; they don't have to belong to it! And some don't even have to agree to that. But does government have the RIGHT to impose their views on charities, withdrawing finances as a sanction? Does government not care that some charities' doors will close, and needy people will loose out? Is control over religious charities more important to them than the welfare of needy citizens? Are we going back to the dark ages when government appointed clergymen to preach - for political reasons?

Answer 1

I want to pick up on the Scottish elements here. I believe that English councils refuse to fund projects that promote one faith, thus discriminating in favor of multi-cultural-religiosity. They are saying it's wrong to promote one faith - is this a 'divide and rule' tactic? Westminster, however, gives religious bodies exemptions when recruiting staff, which is fair. But in Scotland it's different. The SE has given millions of pounds to ProjectScotland, a non-religious charity that places young volunteers in some 130 Scottish charities. Yet to qualify for help, charities are forced to agree to accept a volunteer candidate of PS's choosing. So the SE is financially backing a non-religious body's authority over (some) religious charities as to who they must use as volunteers. We are not talking paid employment! We are not talking publicly funded bodies such as the Police force, whose wages are paid for by tax-payers. These religious charities pay their own wages. Yet this is all about volunteers! Why? Is this the thin end of the wedge, with the goal being to force non- or anti-religious staff on religious charities, under the guise of 'discrimination' but really to promote multi-faith political goals? Discrimination can work both ways, as Scottish history shows. The Disruption of 1843 came about due to politicians forcing the Church of Scotland to employ clergy, most of whom were irreligious and/or political pawns. Incidentally, its greatest charity worker (Thomas Chalmers) joined the breakaway movement. He is one of the founders of modern sociology.

Religious charities mainly do voluntary social work which saves councils millions of pounds. They pay their own staff and most do not discriminate, yet they do (reasonably) expect staff and volunteers to have a positive attitude to the faith-element upon which the charity is based. Laws already exist to deal with bogus groups just out to take advantage of tax perks and grants. They do exist but any government effort to force everyone to use staff (paid or unpaid) according to its criteria should ring warning bells to those concerned about democracy.

Answer 2

My first thought on this question was no, no government body should have that right, but you go on to mention public funding. If the charities want to be funded from the public purse they should abide by the laws which prevent discrimination. The charity you work for may only require a sympathetic attitude to the work that charity is doing, but is that always the case do you think?

It is unhelpful to say the SE only wants people of another or no religious persuasion.
Using words like 'foist' is also rather foolish. It seems to me they are merely saying that the charity cannot discriminate against non-religious people or those of a different faith.

Answer 3

Dear Serena, I would "feel" first and foremost that I should get one started. It doesn't take too much to do that. For the past couple of years I've been putting an envelope with a note telling the pastor to give the enclosed grocery store gift card to someone in need. Since my nondenominational church does not pass the offering plate I can easily put the envelope in the plate when nobody is looking. The pastor hasn't even figured out who is providing the cards. In order to be good stewards of the gifts we receive from the LORD we do have to know where the money goes. If we don't hold the people in charge of the money accountable then we are giving them an open invitation to misuse. I think that could be called contributory negligence. Afterall "nice people" can do really bad things. My church is very small but we help others in the community by serving at a soup kitchen on a monthly basis and we help other causes as we hear about them. I agree with Worker4IAM but I don't think it is too harsh to say that if a church is NOT they are not following Jesus. For His glory, JOYfilled

Answer 4

I don't necessarily agree with the government imposing their views on charities.

BUT, I would like you to look at the flip side of the arguement. Is is right that religious charities getting government funding are allowed to REFUSE to hire someone based SOLELY on their religious beliefs when that person is the MOST QUALIFIED based on the JOB DESCRIPTION as has happened in the United States?

The question of discrimination varies when you look at the side of the person discriminated against.

If a religiously based charity hires someone to do paperwork not related to the RELIGIOUS portion of the charity based solely on their Skills how does that negatively impact those the charity is trying to aid?

Answer 5

this question is too vast - as say the Atlantic ocean.But discrimination or other method should be thought upon to jam the benefits by charities to terrorists who come is so many disguised apparels. Do you know the relevance of Judas in religion-all religions have their judas? Apply some thoughts to it then see politics with new minds.OK
Personally by experiences I see charities ought to be self supporting with much volunteer work-This business of financial help make the " lazy grow too fat" this civilisation needs to change old mentalities.
I would never allow a cent without work to any!
Is this an answer?

Answer 6

The organisation I work for is funded purely by tax-payers money. Understandably, we have to account to the Government for how we use this money and prove that we are providing the public with value for money. Not surprisingly, we have to adhere to the law when it comes down to recruiting staff. That means equal opportunities - zero discrimination. On the other hand, we have the power to vet applicants to weed out criminals, for example. The reason for this is because every employee must be seen to uphold the law. So, in that respect, you could say we discriminate.

With regard to religious charitable organisations, I suspect they are subject to the same employment laws as any other non-charitable organisation. So you can't reject an applicant just because s/he has no religious faith or has a specific religious faith, just as you can't discriminate on the grounds of race, ethnic origin, colour, sexuality, mobility, etc.

If a religious charitable organisation advertises for an office administrator, or a caretaker, for example, then the interview and questions asked should focus purely on the job skills needed. BUT if a religious charitable organisation advertises for a pastor, or a youth worker - someone who is going to represent the THEOLOGY upheld by the religion, then it would be absurd (if not downright rediculous) to think that they would employ a person who did not share the same theological ideals, or who actually opposed them.

Churches and religious charities must obey the laws of their government except when those laws are in opposition to God's laws. I am not familiar with the employment laws in Scotland so I cannot comment on what the SE is doing, but I think the employment laws in England are the same for charitable religious organisations as they are for any other organisation.

Anyway, look on the bright side. If non religious people are employed in religious organisations, the example of their co-workers may have a positive effect on them, and they may be brought to saving grace.

Answer 7

That seems really stupid to me. If the religious charity is up-front about being religious, there's no reason why it should take on people who won't believe or uphold the main ideas of the organization. If it's supposedly a nonreligious organization but then starts turning away job applicants/volunteers based on their religious background or lack thereof, THAT'S not cool.

But really. If you run a horse racing establishment, you're not going to hire would-be exercise riders who've never been on a horse. If you run a nonprofit organization to help autistic kids, you aren't going to take on volunteers without making sure they'd be useful in dealing with autism. Similarly, if you run a religious organization, why would you take on helpers who couldn't care less about religion? That just doesn't make sense to me.

If it's an issue of people not wanting their government to fund organizations affiliated with religions they don't like, that's just ridiculous. Everyone's tax money goes to things they don't believe in. But the point of a religious charity is to help the needy, not to bop people on the head if they don't believe in God. How is helping your fellow man with government assistance a bad thing?

Answer 8

Why should any organization that discriminates deserve public funds? They aren't depriving the needy of your services, your unwillingness to comply to fair practice is. So start taking on people who may disagree with you. Not doing so deprives the needy of your services.

Religious people should really be more careful when referencing the Dark Ages. It's because of religion that such a thing as the Dark Ages existed to begin with.

Answer 9

For some avid secularists, hatred of religion is the overriding concern.

In their view, the state will eventually pick up the slack (which of course is not always the case - as with many of its other endeavours, the state is not particularly adept at helping the needy.)

But since they think the state will just step in and do whatever the charities were doing, that killing off charities is fair game. The means justifies the ends I guess.

Answer 10

The government are far too concerned about making sure we are all PC and equal than worry about wether a charity will sink or swim.