What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
377 Comments
- TotalAttorneys, on 02/15/2009, -39/+470It would be so great if people would learn what the word "discrimination" meant in legal terms before throwing it around so readily. It is a long established principle of U.S. Constitutional law that there is a distinction between unlawful "discrimination" and the application of bona fide occupational qualifications. It seems a bit absurd to suggest that it's NOT a bona fide occupational qualification that one agree with the mission of an organization and be in a position to carry it out if he's to be hired and tasked with that responsibility. It's not considered "discrimination" to require that lifeguards be able to swim, or that the people conducting strip searches in women's prisons be female--how is it "discrimination" to require that someone being hired to provide Christian ministry be Christian?
Since our current President understands Constitutional law, he presumably understands this distinction. - t0x2c, on 02/15/2009, -25/+137We should be able to discriminate against retards on digg who voted you down.
- wemessy, on 02/15/2009, -10/+106That's fine... just don't use my tax dollars to subsidize that organization's mission.
...and I happen to be a professing, theologically conservative Christian. I think it's wrong to force someone else to subsidize my beliefs. - enygmaeve13, on 02/15/2009, -82/+175This is horrible. How, in any way, can you justify discrimination like this?
- dty2010, on 02/16/2009, -10/+78Not if that organization is receiving money from the government.
- inactive, on 02/15/2009, -16/+81That's your problem. Everyone saw this coming.
- TeCuervo, on 02/16/2009, -9/+67I am getting tired of Digg...
- dannyboy84, on 02/15/2009, -59/+114Didn't expect this from Obama
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -4/+53That's because you forgot he's a politician...probably why he's such a good one
- Bartboy919, on 02/15/2009, -8/+49Everyone knew he would maintain his faith based initiatives if they even took a look at his website during the campaign. Though I dislike it, this is nothing new.
- Terasiel, on 02/15/2009, -5/+46I only have one justifiable thing to suggest on that note: That any religion organization that doesn't accept -federal funds- is free to hire as they see fit.
- 5urr3al5am, on 02/16/2009, -21/+59when an organization is based on a set of beliefs that group should be allowed to require that it's members uphold that belief system
- v1c1ous, on 02/16/2009, -13/+49the only people shocked by this are
1) blind obama "can do no wrong" fanboys. he's human. even more so, he's a politician.
2) the digg atheist brigade. but then again, when aren't they pouting their "no imaginary friend" arguments in an effort to bring upon their beliefs over someone who disagrees with them...sounds familiar
3) the republican houndogs who find any fault in obama and magnify it as if to justify 8 years of hell they put this country through.
so here's the beef:
1) Obama is a CHRISTIAN. he came experienced multiple religious background, and even raised by an atheist mother, and WILLINGLY chose christianity. that means he's in with some of their objectives.
2) You can't agree 100% with everything Obama does. he makes mistakes. the only person who agrees 100% with someone, is themselves.
i personally think that obamas' good ideas vastly outweigh his dumb ones. i rather have a B- president than the D+ we were working with. - kaijunexus, on 02/16/2009, -4/+37So..
Why are christian ministries receiving federal funding? - cadmiumpaint, on 02/16/2009, -1/+32Discrimination happens all the time with hiring practices. Its part of human nature. You're too old, too pretty, too ugly, too weird, went to the wrong school, went to the right school etc etc.
Why would you want to work for an super religious group if you didn't believe in it? It would be hell. - MedicSean37, on 02/15/2009, -7/+38Here's some more info. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-f ...
- BestJaxx, on 02/16/2009, -0/+30I share exactly the same opinions. Similarly, the Christian school that was in the news recently for expelling lesbian students had every right to do so, but to segregate in such a way should make them illegible to be payed for by the government. Government represents the people, and if an organization discriminates, than they should not be financially supported.
- shaka776, on 02/16/2009, -19/+47What a bunch of whining...
You do realize that there is nothing perfect in this world, don't you? You do realize that church groups are often responsible for some much of the charitable distribution that occurs, right? This money won't be used to get evolution out of schools, it won't be used to further politcal speaking in the pulpit. It will be used for after school-programs so desperately needed.
You ever wonder why so many polling places are in churches? It's not a church and state issue... churches are often at the center of community involvement and are a mecca- if you will- for group functions.
Now feel free to thrash about separation of church and state quotes, eye for an eye quotes, Christians should be more like Christ, blah blah blah, but don't be so freaking hypocritical... - lexington86, on 02/16/2009, -13/+39Because it's "Change we can believe in"
...suckers. - fuzzmeister, on 02/15/2009, -9/+33One place I have always disagreed with Obama is his on his support for faith-based initiatives funding. However, to expect the President to agree with you on absolutely everything is foolish. I'd say I support about 80% of his policies, while I opposed about 80% of Bush's policies.
- Nattybumpoe, on 02/15/2009, -5/+29Umm, pretty sure that he made his stance clear on this issue during that campaign trail.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/16/2009, -7/+29People should be free to discriminate, but no one should be getting federal money to promote their fantasy cults.
- MedicSean37, on 02/15/2009, -2/+24I definitely agree with that.
- gk615, on 02/16/2009, -3/+25This article is a fact-free blog posting. thanks for nothing
- TechnoRabbit, on 02/16/2009, -3/+24Because there is a separation between church and state.
- cawpin, on 02/16/2009, -4/+25You didn't expect this from a professional liar?
- Nattybumpoe, on 02/15/2009, -6/+27Didn't we already know that he was going to do this though? It's not by any means a favored policy for me; however, I did vote for the guy knowing that he supported this.
- Carv, on 02/16/2009, -1/+21He's maintaining the policy of giving funds to faith-based initiatives, but he's altering the policy in that the funds are being watched to ensure that they are being used for secular reasons.
"The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.'' - TotalAttorneys, on 02/15/2009, -7/+23Beautifullady, I agree with you about the groundskeeper. But, of course, "groundskeeper" is one job in religious organization, and one that you've clearly intentionally chosen because it is one (perhaps the only one) that bears no direct relationship to the mission of the organization itself. If you believe that an "appropriately certified layperson" who didn't believe in God could or would be just as appropriate as a Christian speaker or counselor as a Christian minister...well, that's just silly. And I'm pretty sure you know it. And the same is true for any other belief-based operation. Would you expect an atheist organization to hire a fundamentalist Christian to spread the word about atheism?
- Phylter, on 02/16/2009, -2/+18"America was formed on Judeo-Christian values."
No it wasn't, cretin. Further, the "values" of Jews and Christians aren't worth a cup of warm piss. The founders were mostly deists and freemasons who didn't give a rat's ass about religions, knowing them to be infiltrated with charlatans and snake oil salesmen, just as today. However, your ignorance is amusing, and misguided. - foucaultsvac, on 02/16/2009, -6/+21Maybe Obama realized what Bush realized: that religious groups are far better at taking care of the poor and marginalized than the federal government. They definitely have a better track record.
- empraptor, on 02/16/2009, -1/+15i don't see religious diversity at work as the motivation. it's exactly what the name says. equal employment opportunity. my race, sexual orientation, religion etc. shouldn't have a bearing on my chances at getting a job.
- Thefatheroftime, on 02/16/2009, -2/+15These federal dollars ARE NOT meant to provide Christian ministry, TotalAttorneys!
These christian groups ARE MEANT to provide assistance and charity to all people. If any part of anything they do proselytizes a religion, it should not receive federal money.
I don't get it, Obama. I really liked you too. - inactive, on 02/16/2009, -9/+22It's not that discrimination should be illegal, especially in the sense that you are describing. It's just that groups like that shouldn't be receiving taxpayer funding.
- rotundo, on 02/16/2009, -3/+16@solmakou - This is in no way an apology for his choice, but it's important to understand that the president can't simply act on what they believe is right all the time -- they have to pick and choose their battles to accomplish (in their value system) the greatest amount of good and the least amount of harm. This often requires allowing things that you don't like, but don't deem as important as something else you don't like.
Politics are complicated and messy and wholly non-idealistic. This is why most people don't get involved.
All that said, it still disappoints me too. But I am not surprised to be disappointed. - Tiak, on 02/16/2009, -0/+12Can someone please direct me to any evidence for this?... The article seems to be making this claim without anything to base it on. I've seen no statements from Obama that he has changed policy, and none are included in the article.
This seems to be based only on the fact that Obama hasn't changed things YET, in the three weeks that he has been in office... Please be realistic people. His cabinet isn't even assembled at the moment and he has had higher priorities of late. - Absyrd2, on 02/16/2009, -3/+14I disagree with this. Let's move on now, shall we?
No, wait, here's the part where I give up all hope for change in America and stuff. Blah blah blah. - atomic811, on 02/16/2009, -22/+32Obama will prove to be as bad as the rest. I am glad I voted 3rd party.
- BossKey, on 02/16/2009, -4/+14The people most surprised by this are those who never researched Obama's life.
The most clueless left- and right-wingers assumed he was a godless socialist. Wrong.
The most clueless right-wingers thought he would never do anything they agreed with. Wrong.
The most clueless left-wingers thought he would be the perfect lefty. Wrong.
I voted for Obama, I saw his past, I'm not disappointed. He is still going to be an improvement over Bush.
Though I still think Obama should show the evangelical Christian wing a thing or two by advancing a few Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic faith-based initiatives, to expose that when the evangelicals say "faith-based" they really mean "oh...just our faith." - Risingashes, on 02/16/2009, -4/+14That isn't how EEO works.
- forgeflow, on 02/16/2009, -1/+10Buried. He did not uphold Bush's blanket policy to only decide one way on this issue. He instituted a policy where these things can be looked at on a case-by-case basis. IE actually listen to the people and the issues involved instead of dictating by fiat that it be one way or another. An intelligent compromise.
- aristotle0dude, on 02/16/2009, -3/+12Uh guys. To do otherwise would be a violation of the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state doctrine was setup to prevent a state church full stop. Some of you think that it also was setup to somehow prevent the operation of the church in co-operation with the state or the free exercise of religion which is not true. Have you people even read the document outlining it? It specifically states that the government shall not interfere in the free exercise of religion. If you really believe that such things should not occur, go right ahead and lobby for the government to raise your taxes to the level of socialist countries so that homeless people can be taken care of. Otherwise, be happy that non-profit churches receive tax breaks and funding for social housing project so that these things do not have to be run by the inefficient state bureaucracy.
- Jordan117, on 02/16/2009, -4/+13It's getting to be like Drudge. Elide the truth in favor of sensationalism and exaggeration. But I guess if that's what people want...
- everlast88, on 02/16/2009, -5/+14Obama isn't the great new hope everybody thought he was, he's a politician, no different from the rest.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -4/+13That's what's scary.
- inactive, on 02/16/2009, -1/+9"should make them ineligible"
- uRmyHartBstopR, on 02/16/2009, -3/+11wtf man. They don't have to pay tax, fine! But I don't want to support them with my tax money... get yer followers to support you >=[
- GrandmaSheila, on 02/16/2009, -3/+11ROTFLMAO! Another fundie who makes up spelling as it goes along.
Being an illiterate christiban troll doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignorant of history, or as "reatarded" as you are. Is that like "reaprogrammed"?
Go back to your moldy book of fairy tales, you're way out of your league here. - CamperBob, on 02/16/2009, -4/+12Sounds like we got fooled.
Again. - jlaw84, on 02/16/2009, -0/+8I don't know why you are being dugg down, since he did just that.
Obama clearly singled out the policy during a campaign speech in July, declaring that "if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion."
From the LA Times article. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obama-f ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 387 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is