Is this legal?



  • I was just browsing the Non-WTF jobs section and I saw this ad: Senior Systems Engineer at International Justice Mission (IJM) and noted some of the requirements:

    ..

    Critical Qualities

    • Mature orthodox Christian faith as defined by the Apostles’ Creed;

    ..

    Send Resume, Cover Letter & Statement of Faith*

    ..

    *What is a statement of faith?

    A statement of faith should describe your Christian faith and how you see it as relevant to your involvement with IJM. The statement can either be incorporated into the cover letter or submitted as a separate document and should include, at a minimum, a description of your spiritual disciplines (prayer, study, etc.) and your current fellowship or place of worship.

    I'm not going to claim full knowledge of Washington DC's employment laws, but this strikes me as being a discriminatory employment practice. Can anyone shed any light on this? I really am curios to know the legalities of it.


    Of course if it is not legal, then the irony of it is really amusing!



  •  Religion is one of the categories protected against discrimination.  Having glanced at their site, I don't see any reason that an orthodox Christian faith is central enough to their mission to justify a bona fide occupational qualification.  Still, that's the angle they're probably going for.



  • I just took another look at their website and found:

    As a faith-based organization, IJM has the legal right under SEC. 2000e-1 [Section702] of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to require that all employees practice a mature orthodox Christian faith

    So yep, thats what they are going for. But it does leave open the question of what is considered a "mature orthodox Christian faith". Who defines this?



  • @OzPeter said:

    I just took another look at their website and found:

     

    As a faith-based organization, IJM has the legal right under SEC. 2000e-1 [Section702] of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to require that all employees practice a mature orthodox Christian faith

    So yep, thats what they are going for. But it does leave open the question of what is considered a "mature orthodox Christian faith". Who defines this?

    They do.  Since they are a religious organization, they can decide what religious beliefs are acceptable for their employees.  It's quite sensible: why should a private faith-based organization be required to hire people who do not share their beliefs?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @OzPeter said:

    I just took another look at their website and found:

     

    As a faith-based organization, IJM has the legal right under SEC. 2000e-1 [Section702] of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to require that all employees practice a mature orthodox Christian faith

    So yep, thats what they are going for. But it does leave open the question of what is considered a "mature orthodox Christian faith". Who defines this?

    They do.  Since they are a religious organization, they can decide what religious beliefs are acceptable for their employees.  It's quite sensible: why should a private faith-based organization be required to hire people who do not share their beliefs?

    Which part of who defines the boundary between 'mature orthodox' and  (one assumes) 'immature orthodox' eluded you in your reply?

     



  • @PJH said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @OzPeter said:

    I just took another look at their website and found:

     

    As a faith-based organization, IJM has the legal right under SEC. 2000e-1 [Section702] of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to require that all employees practice a mature orthodox Christian faith

    So yep, thats what they are going for. But it does leave open the question of what is considered a "mature orthodox Christian faith". Who defines this?

    They do.  Since they are a religious organization, they can decide what religious beliefs are acceptable for their employees.  It's quite sensible: why should a private faith-based organization be required to hire people who do not share their beliefs?

    Which part of who defines the boundary between 'mature orthodox' and  (one assumes) 'immature orthodox' eluded you in your reply?

    What are you babbling about?  I already said that the employer decides what is "mature orthodox" since it is their religion.  How could it be any simpler?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @OzPeter said:

    I just took another look at their website and found:

     

    As a faith-based organization, IJM has the legal right under SEC. 2000e-1 [Section702] of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to require that all employees practice a mature orthodox Christian faith

    So yep, thats what they are going for. But it does leave open the question of what is considered a "mature orthodox Christian faith". Who defines this?


    Critical Qualities


    • Mature orthodox Christian faith as defined by the Apostles’ Creed;

    Uh, they even TELL YOU where it's defined. Presumably if you qualify, you know what the hell they're talking about (I sure don't)



  • So basically there is

    • A nebulously defined personal requirement (Apostles' Creed) for which only the employer can tell you if you meet it or not.
    • The employer is vested in only having employees who meet their secret requirements
    • This special aspect is not related to the ability to perform the actual work
    • And it is all protected by Federal law.

    I understand that it makes sense for a church to be allowed to only employ people of their faith for jobs that are of a religious nature (ie non ordained people can't be priests or perform rites) but in the context of a purely technical job I think that this is stretching protection of the law to an extreme and possibly crosses over into institutionalized descrimination.



  • @OzPeter said:


    I understand that it makes sense for a church to be allowed to only employ people of their faith for jobs that are of a religious nature (ie non ordained people can't be priests or perform rites) but in the context of a purely technical job I think that this is stretching protection of the law to an extreme and possibly crosses over into institutionalized descrimination.

     

     

    I completely agree with you here.   Churches are this funny little entity that can get away with whatever it wants for some reason, and it is protected by the law.  It's the only place I know of where you can descriminate against others, not pay any taxes, and touch kids and just get 'transfered' rather than going to jail.  I really don't get it.

    I wonder if this is what God really intended.  I have a funny feeling that it isn't, but what do I know.



  • @OzPeter said:

    A nebulously defined personal requirement (Apostles' Creed) for which only the employer can tell you if you meet it or not.
    The employer or anybody who can use Google.  The Apostles' Creed is translated slightly differently by different churches, but they all boil down to something like this:

    I believe in God the Father Almighty,
    Maker of Heaven and Earth,
    And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,
    Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
    Born of the Virgin Mary,
    Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hell.
    The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
    and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
    From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
    I believe in the Holy Ghost,
    the holy catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and the life everlasting. Amen.
    @OzPeter said:
    I understand that it makes sense for a church to be allowed to only employ people of their faith for jobs that are of a religious nature (ie non ordained people can't be priests or perform rites) but in the context of a purely technical job I think that this is stretching protection of the law to an extreme and possibly crosses over into institutionalized descrimination.
    It's an overextended exemption designed to placate religious organizations.  But in the grand scheme of things-that-non-profit-organizations-can-get-away-with, it's one of the less egregious exemptions.



  • @amischiefr said:

    @OzPeter said:


    I understand that it makes sense for a church to be allowed to only employ people of their faith for jobs that are of a religious nature (ie non ordained people can't be priests or perform rites) but in the context of a purely technical job I think that this is stretching protection of the law to an extreme and possibly crosses over into institutionalized descrimination.

     

     

    I completely agree with you here.   Churches are this funny little entity that can get away with whatever it wants for some reason, and it is protected by the law.  It's the only place I know of where you can descriminate against others, not pay any taxes, and touch kids and just get 'transfered' rather than going to jail.  I really don't get it.

    I wonder if this is what God really intended.  I have a funny feeling that it isn't, but what do I know.

    So are you guys telling me that if I wanted to make an Obama/Democrat-fan-club website and I had an applicant who is a KKK member, hates Obama and has never voted for anything other than a Republican, I couldn't tell him he can't work here because of his beliefs?  Wouldn't I be concerned about him messing up the website on purpose, or sending our source code to his friends over at IStillLoveBush.com?

    Besides, why the fuck does the government have the right to tell someone what their requirements for employing people are.   If I don't like someone, why can the government say that I don't like them for a valid reason?   It's my money!   If someone is going to be receiving my money they better conform to whatever requirements I set forth, otherwise they can go shove it and get a job elsewhere.  



  • I did look up the creed myself, but what I meant by nebulous is that how do you prove that your faith equals my faith when the Christian Church is not a homogeneous entity?

    The creed also mentions "the holy catholic church". I am not versed enough in religion to know if that means the "Roman Catholic Church", or is in fact religious code words that imply other things. However I do know that Catholicism is practiced very differently across the globe, and I am sure that you can find a great deal of dissent as to whether or not one branch believes another branch is the true branch.


    As an analogy, all three of the major western religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) stem from the same Old Testament God, yet I am sure that members of each branch don't consider their faith as compatible with the other branches.


    I agree with it not being a major issue, but its an interesting corner case that I didn't know the answer to when I first posted the question.



  • @tster said:

    So are you guys telling me that if I wanted to make an Obama/Democrat-fan-club website and I had an applicant who is a KKK member, hates Obama and has never voted for anything other than a Republican, I couldn't tell him he can't work here because of his beliefs?  Wouldn't I be concerned about him messing up the website on purpose, or sending our source code to his friends over at IStillLoveBush.com?
    Political affiliation and beliefs are not protected from discrimination; you're welcome to disregard the person for this reason.  The problem is that, in the realm of traits protected from discrimination, only religious organizations get an exemption.  The NAACP, for example, isn't allowed to discriminate based on race.  OzPeter and amischiefr appear to be opposed to the favoritism shown to religions.

    @tster said:

    Besides, why the fuck does the government have the right to tell someone what their requirements for employing people are.   If I don't like someone, why can the government say that I don't like them for a valid reason?
    The government can say it because they're the government.  I'm fairly certain you're well versed in the theories behind power and rule, so I'm just going to assume you're being rhethorical.  I'm not defending or decrying anti-discrimination laws, and I'm really not
    interested in a debate on what power the government ought to have.

    @tster said:

    It's my money!
    This is a funny statement: it implies a freedom that doesn't exist anywhere in this world.  It feels like your money should be important, because it's important to you.  But it isn't really important to anyone else, except in the general sense that they'd like to make it their money.  I don't really have a point here, I just find it an interesting juxtaposition between the ideal and the real.

    @tster said:

    If someone is going to be receiving my money they better conform to whatever requirements I set forth, otherwise they can go shove it and get a job elsewhere.  
    And in essence this is how the system works.  All of the onus of proving discrimination falls upon the employee.  And discrimination other than on the grounds protected by law are completely fine.  Don't like someone's attire?  Don't hire them.  Think they're stupid?  Send them packing.  Hate their taste in music?  Promote someone else.



  • @OzPeter said:

    I did look up the creed myself, but what I meant by nebulous is that how do you prove that your faith equals my faith when the Christian Church is not a homogeneous entity?
    Think of it like this:

    abstract class Christiantity { ... }
    abstract class ApostlesCreed { ... }
    class Catholicism extends ApostlesCreed { ... }
    class Anglicanism extends ApostlesCreed { ... }

    public bool hireEmployee (ApostlesCreed applicant) { ... }

    It's not a perfect model, but you get the point.  Many Christian religions, though mostly Western, accept the Apostles' Creed.

    @OzPeter said:

    The creed also mentions "the holy catholic church". I am not versed enough in religion to know if that means the "Roman Catholic Church", or is in fact religious code words that imply other things.
    The Apostles' Creed was drawn up mostly to emphasize opposition to Gnosticism.  "Catholic" here is not the Roman Catholic Church, but means "universal." Specifically, they mean that the church's Gospel should be preached to all and that this Gospel leads to salvation.  Gnosticism held that salvation came from a sort of spiritual epiphany not attainable by much, if not most, of humanity.  I am glossing over a lot of details here, but that's the gist of it.

    @OzPeter said:

    However I do know that Catholicism is practiced very differently across the globe, and I am sure that you can find a great deal of dissent as to whether or not one branch believes another branch is the true branch.
      But they all likely follow the Apostles' Creed.  It's not really a minor quibbling point; it's a major tenant of the religion.

    @OzPeter said:

    As an analogy, all three of the major western religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) stem from the same Old Testament God, yet I am sure that members of each branch don't consider their faith as compatible with the other branches.
    The Apostles' Creed implies a slightly higher level of compatibility.  It implies belief in God as creator, Jesus as the mortal son of God who suffered on the cross and was risen to ascend to heaven, the return of Jesus for judgement, the communion of saints, forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting.  It leaves alone the details of these things, and technically some larger things such as the matter of Jesus's divinity.  These details are where many of the faiths fragment (or on other issues altogether, such as the papacy). 

    In short, the religions are fairly similar in a general sense.  Still, your point is a fair one. Small differences in belief can create huge rifts, otherwise we wouldn't have so many sects to begin with.  I know from experience that there's a cold war between Catholics and Episcopals, and the others are no different.  Ultimately it's the people, not the religions, that will determine how well they work together.



  • @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    It's my money!
    This is a funny statement: it implies a freedom that doesn't exist anywhere in this world.  It feels like your money should be important, because it's important to you.  But it isn't really important to anyone else, except in the general sense that they'd like to make it their money.  I don't really have a point here, I just find it an interesting juxtaposition between the ideal and the real.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Private property is a well-established right within the United States and the frustration tster is experiencing over having that right infringed upon is not unique.  In fact, it was a major driving force behind the American Revolution.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    It's my money!
    This is a funny statement: it implies a freedom that doesn't exist anywhere in this world.  It feels like your money should be important, because it's important to you.  But it isn't really important to anyone else, except in the general sense that they'd like to make it their money.  I don't really have a point here, I just find it an interesting juxtaposition between the ideal and the real.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Private property is a well-established right within the United States and the frustration tster is experiencing over having that right infringed upon is not unique.  In fact, it was a major driving force behind the American Revolution.

    The right to private property was not a driving force behind the American Revolution.  Perhaps you mean that the driving force was over who gets to set the limitations on what you can do with your property, or more correctly, who gets to decide how much of your property to take.  I'll grant you that, but at best the Revolution was a transfer of power over who set the limits.

    As to what I'm getting at here, to exclame "It's my money!" is to revile a status quo that has existed as long as government.  And to do it over such a minor limitation?  That amuses me.  You might as well rail against the sunrise.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    It's my money!
    This is a funny statement: it implies a freedom that doesn't exist anywhere in this world.  It feels like your money should be important, because it's important to you.  But it isn't really important to anyone else, except in the general sense that they'd like to make it their money.  I don't really have a point here, I just find it an interesting juxtaposition between the ideal and the real.

    I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  Private property is a well-established right within the United States and the frustration tster is experiencing over having that right infringed upon is not unique.  In fact, it was a major driving force behind the American Revolution.

    The right to private property was not a driving force behind the American Revolution.  Perhaps you mean that the driving force was over who gets to set the limitations on what you can do with your property, or more correctly, who gets to decide how much of your property to take.  I'll grant you that, but at best the Revolution was a transfer of power over who set the limits.

    As to what I'm getting at here, to exclame "It's my money!" is to revile a status quo that has existed as long as government.  And to do it over such a minor limitation?  That amuses me.  You might as well rail against the sunrise.

     

    You're crazy man.  Private Property is one of the most basic rights. Without private property rightsthe world economy would cease to function.  It's true that government has the right to tax people who make money but there are only certain times when taxation can apply.

    1.  During a transfer.  For instance: sales taxes; income taxes; capital gains taxes)

    2.  As a derivative of ownership.  For instance: Property taxes.

     In our example the force of government is being used to force a tranfer to take place.  This does not fall into taxation power of government.

    There are a couple very important things to note here.  All taxes taken by governments enter in to government coffers and are (mis)spent to run the country.  In our example the private property flows from one individua/corporation to another individual without being laundered through government coffers.  Again, government does not have the power to force someone to give their private property to another individual.

     

    As for political belief not being protected, it doesn't matter what the law is.  As an example it worked fine.  Why is religious belief protected and not political belief?  Surely there is favoritism there.



  • @bstorer said:

    The right to private property was not a driving force behind the American Revolution.  Perhaps you mean that the driving force was over who gets to set the limitations on what you can do with your property, or more correctly, who gets to decide how much of your property to take.  I'll grant you that, but at best the Revolution was a transfer of power over who set the limits.
     

    It was not just concern over who runs the government that led to revolution.  There was a great deal of anger relating to overreaching powers of the Crown and the desire to have the rights of the states and the individual enshrined in law.  The quartering of soldiers in civilian homes, confiscatory taxation and no right to privacy or due process were all complaints of the colonists.  The rebellion was an attempt to abolish the English monarchy and establish rule of law, greater individual liberty and self-rule.

     

    @bstorer said:

    As to what I'm getting at here, to exclame "It's my money!" is to revile a status quo that has existed as long as government.

    Employment discrimination laws are a recent development and have not existed "as long as government".  As long as the US has been independent arguments over the boundaries between public and private have existed, so perhaps that's the status quo you are referring to.  However, the whole point of participatory democracy is to change or reaffirm the status quo so I see nothing wrong with "railing" against particular policies of our government.  Seeing as the concept of private property has a long history in Western philosophy and law I don't see a problem with asserting a right to what belongs to you as a means of disputing policies you disagree with.



  • @tster said:

    It's true that government has the right to tax people who make money but there are only certain times when taxation can apply.

    Realistically speaking, the government can tax anything it pleases so long as it gets enough support from the people.

     

    @tster said:

    Again, government does not have the power to force someone to give their private property to another individual.

    Well, in theory government should not be permitted to do this.  However, it does do this on a daily basis in numerous ways.  In fact, it's the primary function of modern governments.  Whether you agree with it or not, it's the way things are.



  • @tster said:

    You're crazy man.  Private Property is one of the most basic rights. Without private property rightsthe world economy would cease to function.
    I'm not arguing that private property isn't an important right, merely that it's not an unlimited right.  Further, it's pointless in this situation, because nobody is taking your private property.  Anti-discrimination laws don't force you to hire anyone.  They demand
    that you to have a better justification than "he's black" for your
    hiring decisions.

    Now perhaps you're upset because you aren't allowed to ask what someone's religion may be, at the risk of it being a problem later.  Fine, I can understand that concern to a point.  But there are plenty of other unknowns that are as potentially problematic, if not moreso, and you'll never weed all of them out in the hiring process.@tster said:

      In our example the private property flows from one individua/corporation to another individual without being laundered through government coffers.  Again, government does not have the power to force someone to give their private property to another individual.
    I don't know how you figure that this constitutes the government forcing you to hire anyone.  We're not talking about Affirmative Action here.  Also, as a side note: consider child support, alimony, and monetary damages before continuing with your claim the the government can't force someone to give private property to another individual.




  • @bstorer said:

    I'm not arguing that private property isn't an important right, merely that it's not an unlimited right.

    Correct, but who determines the limits of that right?  Government.  Since we have a government of the people, tster's argument that his private property rights should override anti-discrimination laws is proper, even if you don't agree with it.  He is simply asserting that his private property rights should extend that far.

     

    @bstorer said:

    Further, it's pointless in this situation, because nobody is taking your private property.  Anti-discrimination laws don't force you to hire anyone.  They demand
    that you to have a better justification than "he's black" for your
    hiring decisions.

    The point is that government is telling you what you cannot do with your own property.  It is government infringement on private property.  Whether it is justified is a democratic issue.  If tster was trying to assert a legal right he would be wrong since the law does not grant him a right to discriminate.  However, laws can change and I took his statement as a philosophical and moral argument against those laws.  Whether you agree or disagree, I don't see anything improper in him exercising his fundamental right to attempt changes to the law.

     

    @bstorer said:

    Now perhaps you're upset because you aren't allowed to ask what someone's religion may be, at the risk of it being a problem later.  Fine, I can understand that concern to a point.  But there are plenty of other unknowns that are as potentially problematic, if not moreso, and you'll never weed all of them out in the hiring process.

    His concern seems to be that it is an artificial boundary established by government that constrains his free exercise of property rights.

     

    @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
      In our example the private property flows from one individua/corporation to another individual without being laundered through government coffers.  Again, government does not have the power to force someone to give their private property to another individual.
    I don't know how you figure that this constitutes the government forcing you to hire anyone.  We're not talking about Affirmative Action here.  Also, as a side note: consider child support, alimony, and monetary damages before continuing with your claim the the government can't force someone to give private property to another individual.

    As I said above, tster seems to be conflating his philosophical objections with law.  The government does have the power to seize property or constrain personal freedoms under law.  Whether the particular circumstances are appropriate is a matter of democratic action.



  •  I am for the most part only arguing about what government should be able to do.  Not what they do.  However, when I listed the powers of taxation I was talking about what they do currently. Alimony, child support, monetary damages are all examples of forced repayment of "damages" to another individual.  These fall into the same category as upholding contracts.  

    Although, one example where the government does force individuals/corporations to give directly to aother individuals without have a repayment of damages circumstance is minimum wage.  The government forces employers to pay their employees at or above a certain rate.  This law is certainly anti-freedom and anti-personal property.  It's also anti-growth.



  • @bstorer said:

    "Catholic" here is not the Roman Catholic Church, but means "universal."
    As a further detail that has nothing to do with what this conversation has become, in some churches in which I have been, there's a star next to the word catholic and a note at the bottom explaining that catholic means universal. 

    Good rule of thumb, if it's capital C, it means the Catholic Church.  If it's lower case, it means universal.  



  • @tster said:

    I am for the most part only arguing about what government should be able to do.  Not what they do.  However, when I listed the powers of taxation I was talking about what they do currently. Alimony, child support, monetary damages are all examples of forced repayment of "damages" to another individual.  These fall into the same category as upholding contracts.  

    Although, one example where the government does force individuals/corporations to give directly to aother individuals without have a repayment of damages circumstance is minimum wage.  The government forces employers to pay their employees at or above a certain rate.  This law is certainly anti-freedom and anti-personal property.  It's also anti-growth.

    What about welfare, Social Security, Medicare and bailouts of failed companies?  Those would all be conditions where money is taken from one person and given to others without the precondition of "damages".



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    I am for the most part only arguing about what government should be able to do.  Not what they do.  However, when I listed the powers of taxation I was talking about what they do currently. Alimony, child support, monetary damages are all examples of forced repayment of "damages" to another individual.  These fall into the same category as upholding contracts.  

    Although, one example where the government does force individuals/corporations to give directly to aother individuals without have a repayment of damages circumstance is minimum wage.  The government forces employers to pay their employees at or above a certain rate.  This law is certainly anti-freedom and anti-personal property.  It's also anti-growth.

    What about welfare, Social Security, Medicare and bailouts of failed companies?  Those would all be conditions where money is taken from one person and given to others without the precondition of "damages".

     

    The money is at least laundered through government coffers before being sent to the po'.



  • @tster said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    I am for the most part only arguing about what government should be able to do.  Not what they do.  However, when I listed the powers of taxation I was talking about what they do currently. Alimony, child support, monetary damages are all examples of forced repayment of "damages" to another individual.  These fall into the same category as upholding contracts.  

    Although, one example where the government does force individuals/corporations to give directly to aother individuals without have a repayment of damages circumstance is minimum wage.  The government forces employers to pay their employees at or above a certain rate.  This law is certainly anti-freedom and anti-personal property.  It's also anti-growth.

    What about welfare, Social Security, Medicare and bailouts of failed companies?  Those would all be conditions where money is taken from one person and given to others without the precondition of "damages".

     

    The money is at least laundered through government coffers before being sent to the po'.

    What makes you think the recipients are poor?  Seniors are amongst the wealthiest in our country.  That might have something to do with free healthcare whose costs far exceed what is paid in by contributors, the deficit made up by "future generations" (you, me and most of the people reading this).  The banks who profited from financial bailouts and the unions that got Chrysler as a present from the the US taxpayer sure aren't poor.  Most had better opportunities than average and still ended up on the dole.



  • @bstorer said:

    OzPeter and amischiefr appear to be opposed to the favoritism shown to religions.

    I am not opposed to the law favoring Churches with regards to discriminating by religion in that if a Church wishes to hire someone to be a guiding light within the organization it is reasonable to demand that the applicants can honestly fulfill their duties and are spiritually aligned with the tenets of that organization.

    However, if the Church needs some plumbing work done to fix a leaking pipe then how can it reasonably hold a staff plumber to a different set of ideals than if they had to call in an outside contract plumber?


    If you hire someone who doesn't fit into your organization, then there are already plenty of laws on the books for removing them. You don't need to resort to special legislation.



  • @OzPeter said:

    However, if the Church needs some plumbing work done to fix a leaking pipe then how can it reasonably hold a staff plumber to a different set of ideals than if they had to call in an outside contract plumber?

     

    I don't know why they would want to do that.  I just am stating that it is not your right to tell them what they can and cannot do.



  • @tster said:

    I don't know why they would want to do that.

    By requesting a applicants for the job to run their websites to conform to the Apsotle's Creed, then that is exactly what they are doing.


    @tster said:

    I just am stating that it is not your right to tell them what they can and cannot do.

    I agree that I cannot tell them what to do. I'm putting this into the realm of laws that have strange consequences.



  • @OzPeter said:

    @tster said:
    I don't know why they would want to do that.
     

    By requesting a applicants for the job to run their websites to conform to the Apsotle's Creed, then that is exactly what they are doing.

    No shit.



  • @OzPeter said:

    The creed also mentions "the holy catholic church". I am not versed enough in religion to know if that means the "Roman Catholic Church", or is in fact religious code words that imply other things. However I do know that Catholicism is practiced very differently across the globe, and I am sure that you can find a great deal of dissent as to whether or not one branch believes another branch is the true branch.

     

    Being a Catholic (big-C), I can say that my church interprets that line, holy catholic church as the little-c variety, so, not the Catholic Church, as in Roman Catholic, but the original meaning of 'catholic' = universal.  Basically, the church Christ started in all it's forms, be it Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Methodist, Lutheran, or snake-handler.  If you go to a church where Jesus is the central figure, then you believe in the _c_atholic church, not necessarily The _C_atholic Church.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.