Civil rights no longer a priority at the Justice Dept.

That candy cane thing - I thought that was a hoax?

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/candycane.asp

Federal money that once went to defending citizens against discrimination, racism, um, violations of the law, now goes to helping groups distribute candy canes that somehow remind them of Jesus.

xpost?

Sure, that link explains that candy canes weren't invented as religious symbols--but that doesn't mean religious groups won't use them as such.

Ah. sorry for the deviation.

I have zero time for the Sally Army and their ilk but religion-based groups like the Salvation Army [...] assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money sounds entirely fair to me.

Sure, sure, fine, but why is that the priority of the justice department over civil rights? The article details how resources are essentially being taken from civil rights protections and put into pursuing cases like this.

Religion vs. civil liberties/free thought/free speech: FITE (yes, again. we know the two of you have been in a fight since you started existing, but please carry on until we find a solution)

I'm not suggesting that religious liberties/rights don't need to be protected--but I would argue that helping the salvation army discriminate and working to make religious orgs free from the laws of the land has less to do with protecting against religious discrimination and everything to do with pushing forward an ideological belief in the privileging of religion over all other civil institutions/rights.

Churches, synagogues, and mosques aren't restricted by local zoning laws because they're being targeted for their religious qualities. They're restricted because everyone's restricted by the same laws. If congress passes a law saying their exempt, fine. But don't throw all your weight behind this law, neglect about a hundred other racial discrimination laws, and tell me you're committed to protecting against discrimination.

*their

they're

/olbermann

"no longer"

Good point.

Why would someone who didn't "share the beliefs" of a charity go to work for the charity? Unless it was just a menial/entry-level job, in which case, why would the charity give a fuck?

It all depends on how far they're taking this. "no divorcees" would be discriminatory otherwise, but now they're protected by law, they can refuse whoever they want.

<i>¶Taking on far fewer hate crimes and cases in which local law enforcement officers may have violated someone’s civil rights. The resources for these traditional cases have instead been used to investigate trafficking cases, typically involving foreign women used in the sex trade, a favored issue of the religious right.</i>

Perhaps it deserves more thought, but at first glance, I'm not convinced that pursuing people in the human trafficking ("sex slaves") business is necessarily less valuable than prosecuting hate crimes. They're both pretty horrible. Tacking on the "a favored issue of the religious right" kind of makes it sound like it's not such a bad thing, it's just something those crazies don't like.

You know women like being sold into sexual slavery, come on.

Perhaps it deserves more thought, but at first glance, I'm not convinced that pursuing people in the human trafficking ("sex slaves") business is necessarily less valuable than prosecuting hate crimes. They're both pretty horrible

I agree. That's a false polarity, isn't it – "hate crimes" vs "human trafficking."

xpost

Why would someone who didn't "share the beliefs" of a charity go to work for the charity? Unless it was just a menial/entry-level job, in which case, why would the charity give a fuck?

Probably a somewhat obscure example, but there are quite a few organizations doing international developmnent now that have Jesus-testing - the work they do doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion, but the administration has steered money toward them and away from totally secular organizations that have historically done the work. Imagine if you were, for example, a teacher, and the government gradually started saying federal money could only go to parochial schools, and they would only hire you if you were a Jesuit. It would put a damper on your employment prospects, wouldn't it?

BTW, the NYT ran an excellent several-part series on this sometime in the last year.

See also: GLBT Christians who believe they have a "call" to missions or relief work or whatever applying to work at the Sally Ann and being tossed out on a technicality.

I know the Bush's obsession with 'faith-based' initiatives is old news--supporting any organization that has a religious bent over similar secular groups, nor did I ever think the administration was a friend of minorities.

But what is particularly upsetting to me about what this piece uncovers is the way the administration has taken money and resources specifically earmarked, by tradition and by law, for defending civil rights, and shifted it to the promotion of privileges for religious groups AND, most perniciously, passed off those actions as 'protecting against religious discrimination'. Cf this:

“Not until recently has anyone in the department considered religious discrimination such a high priority,” Professor Landsberg said. “No one had ever considered it to be of the same magnitude as race or national origin.”

Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement that the agency had “worked diligently to enforce the federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion.”

It's sold as if there has been a cultural shift in America, and now religious discrimination is as big, or bigger, a problem than racial discrimination (which is bonkers), when none of these actions seem, to my mind, to even be about religious discrimination.

I have zero time for the Sally Army and their ilk but religion-based groups like the Salvation Army [...] assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money sounds entirely fair to me.

They aren't obliged to take Federal money. If they want the cash, they can abide by the same rules as everybody else.

encouraging appointment at DOJ -- I will give Holder credit where it's due

https://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-leader-vanita-gupta-tapped-lead-civil-rights-division-us

@JamesRisen · 16h

This is Eric Holder's true legacy on press freedom:

"There is no First Amendment "reporter's privilege."

From DOJ brief in my case.