Posted on 03/01/2007 9:06:23 PM PST by Alex Murphy
An Anniston man has filed a federal lawsuit against the Salvation Army, contending he was illegally passed over for a position because he is Catholic.
The suit filed on behalf of Anthony J. Clark contends he sought a social work opening in spring 2005 after already having worked for the Salvation Army for almost two years.
The Salvation Army is a charity that operates as an evangelical effort of Christians. Its Web site says its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs without discrimination.
Salvation Army officials in Anniston declined comment and referred calls to the organization's Jackson, Miss., office.
Mark Jones, a spokesman for the Salvation Army Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi divisional headquarters, said it's the organization's policy not to comment on personnel matters.
The suit said Clark sent a letter to his supervisor on May 17, expressing his interest in filling the position in Anniston. Clark, the suit said, had worked as a part-time social worker from November 2003 to December 2003. He subsequently worked full-time from January 2004 to May 2004 because of another worker's illness.
The suit said despite having three letters of recommendation, another person who had only part-time seasonal experience was hired when a full-time position came open.
The lawsuit said when Clark asked why he wasn't hired, his supervisor, Maj. Larry Hambrick, replied he was not a practicing Christian.
When asked if he was a Christian, Clark said he was a Catholic and was then informed that was why he was not selected for the position, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said Clark complained to the Salvation Army's national headquarters, and left the organization on Aug. 19, 2005.
Birmingham lawyer John Saxon called the Salvation Army a wonderful organization that does faith-related work. But Saxon said the social work position was a non-ministerial position.
"They are not exempt from civil rights laws," Saxon said.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"Again, sitetest, you just failed the interview."
Sure, I did. It's clear to me that the Salvation Army is an anti-Catholic bigot.
That being said, I still think he's well within his rights to discriminate against Catholics in hiring folks for his church.
sitetest
If you were part of an RC adoption group, and a man applied for a placement job with you, imagine that you asked the question: "Do you support our traditional family outlook?"
And the man answers: "Well, I am a Republican."
My only point here has to do with communication.
What did the agency want to hear?
What did they hear instead?
Why can't you just say yes or no?
How hard is that?
"...let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." (James 5:12 KJV)
Simply not true. If you'll read the article, they'd already been employing him for 2 years. They did not ask him to leave.
They wanted their full-time worker to be one who openly acknowledged being a believer in Jesus Christ.
He refused to speak their language and paid for it.
That is a very bigoted statement.
I would suspect that not all Catholics share that sentiment. Especially those Catholics who work with the Salvation Army.
I can't believe we turned this into a "I'm a Christian", "No your not", "Yes I am"...thread.
The rebuke here should not be whether the right phraseology was used, but rather why are Christians SUEING each other in the secular domain?
I believe Paul had some interesting things to say about this.
I will judge those who claim to be part of the body based on their actions, not so much on 'party affiliation'. The Fruits of the Spirit, or lack there of, will be the measuring stick.
Dear xzins,
'If you were part of an RC adoption group, and a man applied for a placement job with you, imagine that you asked the question: 'Do you support our traditional family outlook?'
"And the man answers: 'Well, I am a Republican.'"
First, I'll note that I personally find the abbreviation "RC" mildly offensive. It isn't too much work to write "Catholic."
Second, if I were interviewing someone, the exchange wouldn't have occurred this way.
I'd have asked, "Do you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding adoption of children by homosexuals, namely that homosexual couples are not appropriate adoptive parents, and thus, we will not place children with homosexual adoptive parents?"
If he then answered, "Well, I am a Republican."
I'd reply, "That's nice, but I asked about your religious beliefs, not your political beliefs. We hire without regard to political affiliations. Do you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church as I just laid out?"
However, your analogy is flawed to begin with.
The Salvation Army person didn't ask whether the Catholic employee agreed with a specific point of putative Christian doctrine, but rather asked a much more general question.
The analagous question in your example should have been, "Do you believe and accept all the teachings of the Catholic Church?"
Further, you've mixed and matched categories.
The Salvation Army person asked about the Catholic employee's religious beliefs, not about his political beliefs. And the Catholic employee answered by stating his religious affiliation.
In your example, the question is about religious beliefs, and the answer is about political affiliation.
Nonetheless, even given the exchange as you present it, I would NOT have then answered that "that was why he was not selected for the position."
I'd have continued to work to clarify his answer.
In the actual circumstances laid out with the Salvation Army official and the Catholic employee, upon being told, "I'm a Catholic," I'd have either said, well, then, we erred, we thought you weren't a Christian, or if I were an anti-Catholic bigot, I'd have said:
"Well, that's fine. Do you also consider yourself to be a Christian?"
If the fellow then answered anything approximating "yes," I'D have taken his word for it. Of course, a bigoted anti-Catholic Salvation Army official might further continue:
"But do you accept the five solas, do you believe in salvation by faith alone, grace alone...?" or whatnot, forcing my own personal idiosyncratic definition of Christian faith on this poor Catholic slob.
And then excluded him because I was an anti-Catholic bigot.
That being said, I still maintain that folks have the right to discriminate against Catholics, even in a bigoted, prejudicial manner, when hiring for their ecclesial bodies.
sitetest
If he had answered "I'm a Methodist" or "I'm a Presbyterian" or "I'm a Baptist" I would have likewise rejected his application. He was asked a simple question "Are you a Christian". He did not give the correct answer. He gave a parochial answer to a broad non-denominational question. He should have known better. He didn't. He is not leadership material, especially for a group like the Salvation Army. Clueless people should not be in leadership positions.
Dear xzins,
To clarify, I meant to type:
"It's clear to me that the Salvation Army FELLOW is an anti-Catholic bigot."
I didn't mean to say that the entire Salvation Army is comprised of anti-Catholic bigots.
sitetest
Dear P-Marlowe,
I mistyped.
See #69.
sitetest
I'm amazed that some of the people on this thread are employed. How did they get past the interview process?
Because I'm trying to communicate accurate information.
I guess that's just not important to you.
Dear P-Marlowe,
"I'm amazed that some of the people on this thread are employed. How did they get past the interview process?"
Oh, that's easy. I own the business. ;-)
Seriously, though, I do own the business, and over the years, I've interviewed a whole lotta folks. Lots of times interviewees give me questions that I don't feel directly answer my questions.
I don't mark the answer as a "no."
I inquire further. Sometimes at great length.
sitetest
I agree. If they can't decipher the interviewer's position any better than that, then they deserve not to be hired.
And, if as is said here "It doesn't matter a hill of beans if he says "Catholic" or "Christian" because they're the same," THEN it only makes sense that the PERCEPTIVE job applicant would've responded with "Christian."
A. Have you found Jesus?
B. Are you "Born Again?"
Mt response to the first is "I didn't know He was lost?"
My answer to the second is that as a practicing Catholic, I've been in the Grace of God since my infant Baptism.
I am more than positive that the question was not written by the interviewer, but by the organization. The organization was looking for a broad non-denomination and inclusive response and any parochial response would be a clear indication that the interviewee did not understand the objectives and goals and purpose of the Salvation Army.
To answer "I am a Methodist, or I am a Presbyterian, or I am a Baptist, or I am a Catholic" to the question of "Are you a Christian" is clear evidence that the responder is not the right candidate for the job.
Despite working with this organization for 2 years, this guy still didn't get it.
Now he has responded with a most-unChristian discrimination lawsuit, which to me tells me that his response was just the same thing as saying "No". Clearly the Salvation Army was right in turning this guy down for the position. He was clearly not the right guy for the job.
Dear P-Marlowe,
I didn't say that ASKING the question was anti-Catholic bigotry.
Rather, I said that interpreting it as a "no" is.
Especially if the interviewer made no effort to clarify meaning.
When I interview, I often ask questions where I'm looking for specific answers. If I don't initially get them, I try to clarify what answers I DO get, to see if they wind up where I'd like them to be.
"Now he has responded with a most-unChristian discrimination lawsuit,..."
Oh, I don't know if I'd call it "un-Christian."
Just unfounded.
sitetest
I have no sympathy for Clark's predicament with the SA and his lawsuit is ridiculous. But not for the reasons you've given. If the SA don't want him because he is a Catholic that is just as acceptable as the Catholic Church refusing to employ someone who doesn't measure up to its standards or accept its principles.
I'm simply attempting to point out the somewhat nebulous meaning of the term "Christian" in common usage.
"I'm amazed that some of the people on this thread are employed"
I own the company. I'm the MAN!!
And if you think the reponse is an indication that they have a bad attitude are you going to hire them?
If you ask "Are you willing to work long hours" and they answer "I'm a Presbyterian" are you going to accept that as a yes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.