Attorney General Eric Holder faced questioning Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee, and was asked by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) about two important church-state issues: the Justice Department's position (apparently) continued mis-reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the status of the President's pledge to end hiring discrimination in positions created by faith-based organizations using federal money.
I didn't watch the hearing myself, but when I read AU's press release, praising Holder's affirmation of a non-discrimination policy, I thought maybe he had made news! Did the administration finally take positive and definitive action on issue we've been waiting for ever since January of 2009 when President Obama was inaugurated? After watching video of the exchange….not so much. Affirming basic principles? Yes. Making a strong statement refusing to allow federal money to be used for faith-based discrimination? Not really.
You can watch video at C-Span here (Rep. Scott begins his questioning about 1 hour, 25 minutes in), or read the transcript of the conversation (via Lexis-Nexis) in the extended entry below . Maybe I'm missing it, but did Holder really say anything? I copy-and-paste. you decide.
Did he really say anything? I copy-and-paste. you decide.
Attorney General Eric Holder faced questioning Thursday by the House Judiciary Committee, and was asked by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) about two important church-state issues: the Justice Department's position (apparently) continued mis-reading of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the status of the President's pledge to end hiring discrimination in positions created by faith-based organizations using federal money.
I didn't watch the hearing myself, but when I read AU's press release, praising Holder's affirmation of a non-discrimination policy, I thought maybe he had made news! Did the administration finally take positive and definitive action on issue we've been waiting for ever since January of 2009 when President Obama was inaugurated? After watching video of the exchange….not so much. Affirming basic principles? Yes. Making a strong statement refusing to allow federal money to be used for faith-based discrimination? Not really.
You can watch video at C-Span here (Rep. Scott begins his questioning about 1 hour, 25 minutes in), or read the transcript of the conversation (via Lexis-Nexis) in the extended entry below. Maybe I'm missing it, but did Holder really say anything? I copy-and-paste. you decide.
SCOTT: Thank you. I mentioned in my opening remarks the Office of Legal Counsel memorandum June 29, 2007 that essentially suggested the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides a virtual blanket overriding statutory nondiscrimination provisions. Have you — has your office reviewed that memorandum? And if so, could you tell us the status of what you're going to do with it? Or would you want to get back to us in — in writing on that?
HOLDER: Well, I — I think I'd like to get back to you in writing about that one. I have not had a chance to have, I think, the in-depth kind of conversation that I'd need to have about that in order to respond in the way that I'd like to your question.
SCOTT: OK. The — you're aware that the president during his campaign in Zanesville, Ohio indicated — and I quote, "If you get a federal grant, you can't use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help. And you can't discriminate against them or against the people you hire on the basis of religion." At least that's what he wanted — that's what he wanted to do.
Since then there's a suggestion that discrimination would be allowed on a case-by-case basis. It seems fairly unusual that you would allow discrimination on a case-by-case basis. Do you have any comment on where we are on restoring the civil rights for employees that existed from 1965 until about 2001 or 2002?
HOLDER: Well, I mean, I think the administration is committed to partnering with faith-based organizations in a way that's consistent with the law, consistent with our values and consistent with the way in which I think this administration has conducted itself. The department will continue to evaluate any legal questions that arise with regard to how we do that on a case-by-case basis. But I think overall…
SCOTT: Wait a minute. The — the — the — I think the law apparently allows discrimination. It's the policy. I mean, you have to set the policy through executive orders and — and statutes.
Is it the policy of this administration now to allow the discrimination on a case-by-case basis, that one group can say, well, we don't hire people based on race and religion and another group where we're not going to allow you to discriminate on the base of race and religion? Is it the policy of this administration to allow discrimination?
HOLDER: No, it's not the policy — that is not the policy. The policy of the administration is to interact with faith-based organizations or any organization in a way…
SCOTT: Which you can do without discriminating and without proselytizing?
HOLDER: Well, operate with them, interact with them in a way that's consistent with — with the law, consistent with our values and consistent with the way in which this administration, I think, has postured itself on a whole range of — of issues.
SCOTT: Well, let's — let's be clear. Is the policy of this administration to allow discrimination — is the policy of the administration going to be that discrimination will not be allowed?
HOLDER: We are — yes, that is not the view that we share. We do not have a view that discrimination is — is appropriate. And we want to, as I said, interact with these organizations where these issues are presented in such a way that we are acting consistent with the law and acting, again, consistent with what our values are, both as a nation and as an administration.
