There is an interesting case out of Perkins, Oklahoma where Federal Reserve officials reportedly ordered a small bank (The Payne County Bank) to remove religious Christmas displays. I fail to see the authority of Federal Reserve officials to limit the free speech to a bank, particularly religious-based speech. If the bank wants to marginalize non-Christian customers through sectarian displays, I think it has a constitutionally protected right to do so. What it cannot do is actually discriminate in the establishment or handling of accounts.
Federal Reserve examiners reported came for one of their visits (every four years) and saw a posted daily Bible verse, hanging crosses, and buttons saying “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” There was also a Bible verse on the Internet. All were ordered removed by the federal examiners.
The action is based on the Federal Reserve’s “Non-Discouragement” rule contained in Title 12 (Section 202.4). The same section as an anti-discrimination policy:
§ 202.4 General rules.
(a) Discrimination. A creditor shall not discriminate against an applicant on a prohibited basis regarding any aspect of a credit transaction.
(b) Discouragement. A creditor shall not make any oral or written statement, in advertising or otherwise, to applicants or prospective applicants that would discourage on a prohibited basis a reasonable person from making or pursuing an application.
Regulation B further states:
Regulation B
Sec. 202.1 Authority, scope and purpose.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this regulation is to promote the availability of credit to all creditworthy applicants without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract); to the fact that all or part of the applicant’s income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The regulation prohibits creditor practices that discriminate on the basis of any of these factors. The regulation also requires creditors to notify applicants of action taken on their applications; to report credit history in the names of both spouses on an account; to retain records of credit applications; to collect information about the applicant’s race and other personal characteristics in applications for certain dwelling-related loans; and to provide applicants with copies of appraisal reports used in connection with credit transactions.
The discouragement provision is hopelessly vague and ambiguous. Most anything could discourage some people. I would be discouraged to see a bank displaying White Sox testimonials rather than loyalty to the Cubs. Moreover, there is no apparent requirement of intent. I have not read any report that the bank preferred only Christian customers, alone actively sought to exclude non-Christians. Discriminating on the basis of religion is a “prohibited basis,” but displaying religious text or symbols is not prohibited for a private company. Section (a) is perfectly understandable and should suffice in this regard. Any active effort to deny service to non-Christian would be a form of prohibited discrimination.
I don’t like sectarian messages in banks. (I prefer a demonstration of economic knowledge rather than blind faith from my bankers). However, I find it deeply troubling to see federal examiners branching out into speech regulation. I would think that they have enough to do with banks failing across the country in this economy.
In an update, the Feds have backed down on the postings after a call from the president of Payne County Bank, Lynn Kinder. I remain, however, a bit concerned about the claimed authority here. Clearly, this regulation has not been challenged and I wonder how many of banks have simply complied with such speech limitations. There remains a troubling regulation on the books and regulators who believe that they have the right to demand the removal of such displays.
On its website, today’s biblical quotation is
Luke 2:1, 4-5
“[The Birth of Jesus] In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.”
A survey of the entire Federal Reserve actions under the non-discouragement policy might also merit a decree or two.
Jonathan Turley
Refute?
You’ve already been refuted on the Paul thread.
And I’m a democratic socialist, you half-wit. But keep calling me a communist if it makes you spin better. At least I’m not demonstrably selfish and greedy.
Tell us again how Libertarian greed helps society.
And then tell us about how many people you help.
Other than yourself.
Change the conversation when you cannot refute, good strategy.
you refute the above statements without calling me a sociopath or some other derogatory name and actually have a cogent train of thought without name calling and I will be happy to answer your question.
you are a communist/socialist apologist. It’s just a matter of degree. A little bit of poison can still make you sick.
Tell us again how business is looking out for the interests of their customers when it is not in the interest of their bottom line to look out for their customers.
And then tell us about how many people you help.
Tell us again how you object to “your” tax money being used for fundamental social programs that ensure the stability and well being of our country.
And then tell us about how many people you help.
I kinda doubt that.
oh that’s rich. I help more people in a week than you do in a year.
Call me whatever you want, it is just funny.
Come on.
Tell us about how banks shouldn’t be regulated.
Considering deregulated bankers crashed the economy, that should be pretty funny too.
“too” that is
Except I’m not a communist, lil’ liar. Demonstrably not a communist. Whereas you are demonstrably a fascist/corporatist.
And to dumb to realize when you’re being laughed at instead of with.
How so.
you make me laugh.
communist apologist.
The bottom line about you is this, Chan: you value money over people and have no conscience in the pursuit of profit. You see no duty to society or others, only to yourself, which indicates that you – at a minimum – are a narcissist and shouldn’t be taken seriously except as a bad example. You lie. You misuse words. You attempt to obfuscate.
The joke is on you.
Why bother?
You’ve already had your ass handed to you on a plate on the Ron Paul thread.
Then it shouldnt be too hard to refute.
“During the Hitler years—in order to finance the party’s programs, including the war expenditures—every social group in Germany was mercilessly exploited and drained. White-collar salaries and the earnings of small businessmen were deliberately held down by government controls, freezes, taxes. Big business was bled by taxes and “special contributions” of every kind, and strangled by the bureaucracy . . . . At the same time the income of the farmers was held down, and there was a desperate flight to the cities—where the middle class, especially the small tradesmen, were soon in desperate straits, and where the workers were forced to labor at low wages for increasingly longer hours (up to 60 or more per week).”
Whoops, looks like business was the sacrficial cow. Now who did it? Government did it.
Garbage.
Like all your apologist drivel.
you may like this as well:
“Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake.”
facist oligarchy?
“It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).”
Good stuff huh?
Buddha wrote: “My issue is simply that regulators are clearly watching the wrong ball.”
===========
Yes. (Many of us have our eyes on the wrong balls these days. And while we’re distracted, the criminals among us are amassing their loot… Distractions abound and they’re robbing us blind.)
Really? We hadn’t noticed.