I’m not claiming that proselytizing is more common now that a born-again Christian is in the White House, but it seems to be seeping into standard business more frequently—or maybe that’s just this month. Here’s a few stories you might have missed since Nipplegate. Did you hear about the Texas pharmacist who refused to fill a valid prescription for emergency morning-after contraception . . . to a rape victim? (See Google News for your favorite media outlet.) On a recent cross-country flight, an American Airlines pilot asked Christians to raise their hands so non-Christians could take the opportunity to ask them about their faith. The pilot also offered to stick around to answer questions afterwards. (Google News sources)
Of course, this environment isn’t that surprising given our current “leader.” Bush called again for federal funding of faith-based charities in his State of the Union speech. (Google News) On Feb. 4, the House kept House Bill 3030 ’s religious discrimination clause: religious groups that receive community-development grants can reject job applicants because of their faith. To quote Bush, “We want to fund programs that save Americans, one soul at a time. . . . So I signed an executive order, an executive order that instructed all federal agencies not to discriminate against religious groups.” But those religious groups can discriminate against hiring you and still receive federal funding.
Your unemployment’s gone, the homeless shelter’s hiring, but you’re not the right faith, so you’re still screwed. Well, you can still hang out there if you don’t mind the atmosphere and whatever they do to non-believers.
“I don’t care what religion it is. Nothing more hopeful than the Word.” (Doesn’t “the Word” imply Christianity, or is that just me?)
It’s the same old song: God hates women, and God hates you if you’re Other.
And with Mel Gibson-
a prime example of one who has lived his faith with all those Lethal Weapon movies, no?-telling His-story, we see yet again that the root word of “passion” means “agony.”Charitable services deserve to have the same resouces whether religiously-based or not. The bottom line should be to help others as much as possible, not whether the value system behind it happens to have a religious nature.
If such a charity wants federal involvement, they should be prepared to follow federal guidelines of non-discrimination. Otherwise, it’s not so different from being rejected employment because one is too honest, or one’s hair is too long, or one isn’t extraverted enough.
No one would disagree with that, but who is there to police the proselytizing?
Let us not be naive and think that this administration has any qualms about turning almsgiving into soul-saving.
And how many service-oriented church-based missions are going to agree to keep God out of their community involvement? For very few of them, helping is more important than conversion; for most, helping is a means to an end—an end that generally involves baptism, church membership, and a tithe.