Apr 17, 2009   | COMMENTS     

To the Editors:

Re: “Gay man joins Obama’s faith-based council” (news, April 6)

In this article, the Blade’s Chris Johnson announced the appointment of HRC’s Rev. Henry Knox to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based & Neighborhood Partnerships. This is not good news for our community.

I believe that I have a relevant perspective. From 2003 to 2006, I was the knowledge manager and nonprofit subject matter expert for President Bush’s federal faith-based initiative as an employee of the federal contractor tasked with managing the program’s technical resource center. We were the lead organization providing management assistance to all organizations that received grants through the program. 

During this three-year period, I witnessed tax-funded technical assistance provided by government employees — including the White House through its legal council — to grantees on how they could legally discriminate in hiring based on their particular religious predilections. I heard grantees forcefully announce that they would never hire known gay and lesbian people and have that bigotry supported by leadership at the highest levels of government. My strenuous objections to the federal project officer were ignored.

In addition to the hiring issue, the program is a clear violation of the vital separation of church and state, certainly not an afterthought by the framers of the Constitution. Instead of respecting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, it was mocked as an irrelevant and unnecessary nuisance that could be finessed with a “wink and a nod.” .

I am absolutely amazed that President Obama has not only chosen to continue the program but expand it given these very concerns about the program made by candidate Obama. I am disturbed that the president has agreed to allow federally funded religious organizations to continue discriminatory hiring on “a case by case basis.” This baits the question, “Is there ever a ‘good case’ for discrimination?”

I am amazed that President Obama has appointed 26-year-old Rev. Joshua DuBois, a Pentecostal minister, as the program’s new director. Rev. Dubois was candidate Obama’s point person for religious outreach. Newsweek columnist Sally Quinn says that DuBois was “the person who first floated Rick Warren’s name as a possible inaugural speaker.” During the campaign, he put together the program that featured Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay” gospel singer who has said that “homosexuality is a curse.” This is the person that now leads this massive federal program. Sorry, but this isn’t change I can believe in!

I am perplexed that Rev. Knox would accept an appointment to the advisory council given a membership that includes such anti-gays as Frank Page, past president of the socially conservative Southern Baptist Convention, which has close ties to Exodus International — an organization that attempts to “free” gays from “homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ.” I am very concerned that Rev. Knox cannot help but be, and remain, a marginalized voice without any ability to impact the direction of this office. While Rev. Knox is clearly a talented and committed community member, unfortunately I see his presence as empty tokenism.

BILL FREEMAN
Arlington, Va.

Editors’ note: The writer is managing partner of the Institute of Healthcare Excellence and adjunct professor in management and ethics for MBA students. He publishes a blog on nonprofit management and politics at www.501cweb.com.


Hate crime law isn’t step toward equality

To the Editors:

Re: “Activists expect swift action on hate crimes” (news, April 10)

With “hate crime” legislation coming before Congress again, we should take a look at this issue to make sure we understand what it involves.

What makes a “hate crime” different from other crimes? The proposed “hate crime” legislation seeks to judge the “evil” of a crime based on who committed the crime and who was the victim, rather than the nature of the crime itself. This divides people into classes of those protected under hate crime laws and those who are not. These “classes” will be based on categories such as race, sexual orientation or maybe even religion.

For example, if an individual in group A (a non-protected class) commits a crime against an individual in group B (a protected class), that would be considered a hate crime since individuals in group B are considered potential victims of hate crimes. But, if an individual in group B commits the same crime or one even worse against an individual in group A, that would not be a hate crime since group A is not a protected class. Only protected groups can be victims of hate crimes!

Does this sound fair? Does this sound like equality?

Fair or not, hate crime laws have nothing to do with equality. Hate crime laws are simply a means to some political end. But then, where will all this foolishness end?

STEVE CASEY
Stonewall, La.