|
Religous extremists in America? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DaveSZ |
Occrider you brought up the two thirds majority.
Well they can still do plenty of damage without it:
| quote: |
House OKs Hire Limits by Religious Groups
Wed Feb 4, 6:58 PM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The House voted Wednesday to extend a program that lets religious groups restrict employment to members of their faith in hiring for community programs financed by federal grants.
Democrats failed to win approval of several amendments that would have ended the practice. The Bush administration threatened a veto of the Community Service Block Grant Act if it removed "the current hiring autonomy of religious organizations."
But Democrats succeeded in putting the House on record in support of extending unemployment benefits for six months for people who exhaust their state aid. Congress has refused to approve another extension of federal unemployment benefits.
An amendment authored by Rep. George Miller, D-Calif, passed by a 227-179 vote, although by itself, the measure would provide no additional money. Thirty-nine Republicans voted for the amendment.
"It's proof that there's still a lot of anxiety about unemployment and it hits Republicans as well as Democrats," said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO's legislative director.
Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, called the provision "a cynical attempt to exploit unemployed American workers for political gain."
The bill itself was not controversial. Block grants provide federal money to a range of anti-poverty and social services programs.
But Democrats tried to undo a provision that then-Sen. John Ashcroft (news - web sites) of Missouri, now the attorney general, inserted into the block grant program in 1998.
"I think it's wrong to be discriminated against simply because of my religious faith," Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said.
Some Democrats cited an e-mail sent by the Christian group Focus on the Family to bolster this case. "Christian charities interested in accepting federal funds would be required to ignore religious conviction in hiring — even if potential employees practiced Islam, Judaism or no religion at all," the e-mail said.
Amanda Izsak, the group's federal issues analyst, said Focus on the Family accepts no federal funds. "We're just advocating for faith-based groups who do wish to participate," Izsak said. "I don't think a Muslim charity would any more rather accept a Christian believer than Christian organizations would accept a Muslim believer."
Boehner said changing the law would discourage religious groups from seeking federal grants. "This has been the law of the land in this program for six years," he said. "I challenge anyone to come to the floor to say where there has been a problem, because there hasn't been a problem."
|
So basically they just gave the ok to religious organizations, mostly Christian Fundamentalist organizations, to take taxpayer money while discriminating in their hiring practices.
It's unethical and it's an abuse of power. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| I actually see no problem with this bill. Much the same way I see no problem if the Boy Scouts want to decide which boys will be allowed into its ranks based on its own set of voluntary values. I think a religious organization should be able to do the same. In both of these cases it is important to look at both sides of the issue. It is rediculous to tell a Muslim or a Christian that they must hire someone of a different faith or of no faith to work with their respective programs. To me, they are merely seeking a qualification for employment. You wouldn't expect a school to be forced to hire people without a teaching certificate or Green Peace being forced to hire someone against its causes. Religion is a choice, not an inherited trait that is being descriminated against. Most, if not all major religions in the US do not practice any kind of racial descrimination when it comes to initiation. That being said I have no problem with a religious group being able to decide who it hires based on its own beliefs and practices. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Much the same way I see no problem if the Boy Scouts want to decide which boys will be allowed into its ranks based on its own set of voluntary values. |
Not being in the US, I'm far from an expert on this case, but as I understand it the Boy Scouts get substantial government funding and/or support, no?
The boy scouts were getting government funding, and essentially using it to discriminate against gays & atheists (And possibly Buddhists, Isn't a belief in god a pre-requisite for joining?). If they were not receiving government funding, then in my opinion it becomes an entirely different issue. As it stands however, I think they should either cease their discriminatory practices, or simply have their funding removed. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Much the same way I see no problem if the Boy Scouts want to decide which boys will be allowed into its ranks based on its own set of voluntary values. I think a religious organization should be able to do the same. In both of these cases it is important to look at both sides of the issue. It is rediculous to tell a Muslim or a Christian that they must hire someone of a different faith or of no faith to work with their respective programs. To me, they are merely seeking a qualification for employment. You wouldn't expect a school to be forced to hire people without a teaching certificate or Green Peace being forced to hire someone against its causes. Religion is a choice, not an inherited trait that is being descriminated against. Most, if not all major religions in the US do not practice any kind of racial descrimination when it comes to initiation. That being said I have no problem with a religious group being able to decide who it hires based on its own beliefs and practices. |
I agree with you for the most part in your above quoted statements.
The problem is not their hiring practices per se, nor is the problem in religious charities helping needy people, nor is the problem even in the Boy Scouts barring gays and non-Christians.
The problem is that if federal taxpayer money is going to these groups, and with this bill that's clearly the case, they should not discriminate in either their hiring practices, nor in their dispensing aid, nor in their membership and admittance.
Let’s break this Religious Right policy down to its purest form:
We have millions of Jews, Hindus, atheists, Muslims, etc living in the United States dutifully paying their taxes so that the federal government can then funnel that money into organizations that hold the predominant view that their extremist interpretation of Christianity is the only true belief system, and anyone else who doesn’t hold that view is going to suffer eternal damnation (much less getting hired or admitted for membership).
This is a worrisome precedent.
I'm opposed to the idea of taxpayer money being used to fund religious organizations of any kind in the first place, as I consider that a violation of the First Amendment.
Actually, it doesn’t even matter what I think, because it IS a violation of the First Amendment if you take into consideration the opinions of those who helped pen the constitution, helped mold the early Nation, and also past Supreme Court rulings.
| quote: |
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution
|
| quote: |
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
-James Madison
|
| quote: | | It was during John Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." |
| quote: |
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
|
There are also a multitude of Thomas Jefferson quotes advocating strong separation of church and state, but I'm too lazy to look for them right now.
One of the reasons America was founded was to protect religious freedom. Why is a minority fringe group with great wealth to buy votes in the 21st century trying to undermine all that those who have worn the uniform for this country fought and died for?
I respect the 2nd Amendment, and all the other Amendments, so why can't the Fundies respect the First? Why can't they respect the rest of the country's right to their own personal beliefs? It's purely arrogance.
Occrider, this is the war on terror here at home as far as I’m concerned.:D
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
Not being in the US, I'm far from an expert on this case, but as I understand it the Boy Scouts get substantial government funding and/or support, no?
The boy scouts were getting government funding, and essentially using it to discriminate against gays & atheists (And possibly Buddhists, Isn't a belief in god a pre-requisite for joining?). If they were not receiving government funding, then in my opinion it becomes an entirely different issue. As it stands however, I think they should either cease their discriminatory practices, or simply have their funding removed. |
I'm not certain if the Boy Scouts continue to get government funding or not in any way, shape, or form. My guess is that in places where the Fundamentalists control the state and local governments, they probably do. I do know for a fact that the courts have upheld that they could bar people they didn't like from joining, but I don't remember if it also barred them from taking government funding as well. I'll look for that article later. I also know that many corporate sponsors have withdrawn their funding from the Boy Scouts because of their discriminatory membership practices.
If there's one thing that pisses me off above all else, it's people who cloak hatred and bigotry in their chosen Holy Book.
On the other hand, I'm also opposed to the French government's move to ban religious symbols worn on the person in schools.
Obviously I'm opposed to school prayer etc. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
What I would have to say in response is that we must also take into account that these other, non-Christian groups, also get government funding. It is not only Christian charities and programs that recieve tax-free status as well as monetary support, it is all religious programs that do. There is no descrimination as far as Chrisitan groups getting an unfair share. One charity or religious organization is as elegible for funding and support as any other.
Even if you don't agree, I think it's also important to look at the positive impact that these groups provide. I worked for a free inner-city clinic provided by a church in my area. They provided free exams, dental checkups and eye testing. They also provided free medications to those who needed it, as well as providing other medical services. In return the only thing they asked is if the patient wanted "prayer." The patient could decline without any repercussion, and it was all free. Everything they provided was either through donations or their own congragation's money. The only government subsidy was for their heating costs.
What I've come to realize is that democracy is a comprimse. Not eveyone will be made happy all of the time. Is there a violation of the first amendment, probably not. Is it bent a little? Maybe. However in doing so you are also helping countless individuals at the percieved expense of a few. Its the same thing with the Boy Scouts. Homosexuals and athiests (FYI, no particular denomination is required, not even Christianity) may not be allowed, but at the same time, the service projects Boy Scouts perform to help their community as well as the life lessons learned in Scouting to me outweigh this percieved injustice. If an athiest, Muslim or homosexual group were using their time and efforts to help my community, I would not dare to say they should have their funding removed because, due to my free choice, I chose not to agree with their beliefs. |
|
|
| occrider |
| I more or less agree with Neophono. If the gay and lesbian alliance were to get some federal funding and wanted to limit its members to gays or lesbians I wouldn't really have a problem with it. Or if a woman's rights group were to disproportionally hire more women than men in its outreach programs to the community I similarly do not see a problem with that. Funding for NGO groups is a somewhat tricky issue that's not quite a black or white. At any rate, I can't really complain about discrimination in an NGO group when the government is guilty of sanctioning the biggest instance of discrimination in the country, namely affirmative action. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
What I would have to say in response is that we must also take into account that these other, non-Christian groups, also get government funding. It is not only Christian charities and programs that recieve tax-free status as well as monetary support, it is all religious programs that do. There is no descrimination as far as Chrisitan groups getting an unfair share. One charity or religious organization is as elegible for funding and support as any other.
|
I remember a while back reading a list of the charities that were being subsidized, and the majority of them were Christian Fundamentalist organizations. The claim that all faiths are included is more or less a crock because the other charities receive such paltry funding in comparison, and are very few to begin with. I'll try and find the list later.
| quote: |
Even if you don't agree, I think it's also important to look at the positive impact that these groups provide. I worked for a free inner-city clinic provided by a church in my area. They provided free exams, dental checkups and eye testing. They also provided free medications to those who needed it, as well as providing other medical services. In return the only thing they asked is if the patient wanted "prayer." The patient could decline without any repercussion, and it was all free. Everything they provided was either through donations or their own congragation's money. The only government subsidy was for their heating costs.
|
Oh there's no question that religious charities do a great good in the community. I've volunteered at the Salvation Army before, and I believe they are a Catholic charity no? No question they help people.
The problem is that some of these charities will use the government money to proselytize, and inevitably discriminate.
| quote: |
What I've come to realize is that democracy is a comprimse.
|
The way congressional districts are drawn in most states to protect incumbents, I'd argue is not democracy. The way they draw them in Iowa based on population centers, yes. Let's hope the Supreme Court helps to fix things soon. Sorry to get off track lol.
| quote: |
Is there a violation of the first amendment, probably not. Is it bent a little? Maybe. However in doing so you are also helping countless individuals at the percieved expense of a few. |
If you were to judge it's constitutionality based upon the sentiments of the Founding Fathers who crafted those very words, then yes it does clearly violate the First Amendment. To say otherwise is revisionist history.
| quote: |
America's founders would be appalled at the Bush initiative. In 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill that gave federal sanction to a church that provided aid and education to the poor. Madison, widely regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," rejected the measure on First Amendment grounds because it "exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."
|
| quote: |
Its the same thing with the Boy Scouts. Homosexuals and athiests (FYI, no particular denomination is required, not even Christianity) may not be allowed, but at the same time, the service projects Boy Scouts perform to help their community as well as the life lessons learned in Scouting to me outweigh this percieved injustice. If an athiest, Muslim or homosexual group were using their time and efforts to help my community, I would not dare to say they should have their funding removed because, due to my free choice, I chose not to agree with their beliefs. |
I can't even begin to rationalize the Boy Scout thing at all.
What kind of lesson is that teaching the kids? Government subsidized segregation is ok?
I think we may as well just give out tax subsidized bed sheets to the KKK. There’s no question they have the right to be as discriminatory as they want as long as they remain a private organization not subsidized by taxpayers. I applaud all those companies who have pulled financial support until the Boy Scouts decide they want to be a part of the 21st century.
The late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr embodies my idea of what a true Christian should be. In my opinion, his lifelong example is perhaps the closest thing to what I imagine Jesus was like (if he had truly existed in a capacity other than a metaphorical figure). Here are King’s thoughts on the separation of church and state:
| quote: |
[Many reputable organizations and prominent individuals defended the decision {U.S. Supreme Court decision banning state-composed and mandated school prayer, Engel v. Vitale},] among them a number of liberal Protestant ministers. Most prominent of these was The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, revered black leader, who called it "a sound and good decision reaffirming something that is basic in our Constitution, namely separation of church and state."
(Leo Pfeffer, "Prayer in Public Schools: The Court's Decisions," in the "Church and State" issue of National Forum: The Phi Kappa Phi Journal, Winter, 1988, p. 26.)
|
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I more or less agree with Neophono. If the gay and lesbian alliance were to get some federal funding and wanted to limit its members to gays or lesbians I wouldn't really have a problem with it. Or if a woman's rights group were to disproportionally hire more women than men in its outreach programs to the community I similarly do not see a problem with that. Funding for NGO groups is a somewhat tricky issue that's not quite a black or white. At any rate, I can't really complain about discrimination in an NGO group when the government is guilty of sanctioning the biggest instance of discrimination in the country, namely affirmative action. |
That's an excellent point, and I'm aware of the recent Supreme Court decision concerning affirmative action.
It's possible to amend A.A. so that it still accomplishes it's goal without using race though. That's what I favor for public institutions anyways. Private institutions without government funding can do what they please.
That's why people accuse Kerry and Clinton of trying to kill A.A. when they simply favored rewriting it so that it's not tantamount to reverse racism. Socioeconomic factors would be almost as effective, and less discriminatory.
But don't tell me 45 years of relative free will among minorities undoes 200 years of slavery. Don't tell me that when more Black men are in prison than in college.
This seems obvious enough to me though:
| quote: |
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
|
Can't people read?
:whip: :happy2::wtf:
http://www.au.org/press/pr22001.htm
The Bush 'Faith-Based' Initiative:
Why It's Wrong
1. Bush's plan violates the separation of church and state.
Under the First Amendment, American citizens are free to decide on their own whether or not to support religious ministries, and the government must stay out of it. Bush's faith-based plan turns the time-tested constitutional principle of church-state separation on its ear.
At its core, Bush's plan throws the massive weight of the federal government behind religious groups and religious conversions to solve social problems. While houses of worship have played an important role in this country since its founding, these institutions have thrived on voluntary contributions. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions they may or not believe in is no different from forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues and mosques.
America's founders would be appalled at the Bush initiative. In 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill that gave federal sanction to a church that provided aid and education to the poor. Madison, widely regarded as the "Father of the Constitution," rejected the measure on First Amendment grounds because it "exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions."
When unveiling his legislative plan to Congress Jan. 30, Bush said, "Government, of course, cannot fund, and will not fund, religious activities." This, however, is a distinction without a difference. In most instances, the services provided by religious ministries are explicitly religious. The president, therefore, cannot honestly suggest that he will "change lives" by funding religious groups and maintain the façade that he is not also funding religion.
2. Federally funded employment discrimination is unfair.
Under the president's proposal, churches will be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving public dollars. A Bob Jones-style religious group, for example, will be able to receive tax aid to pay for a social service job, but still be free to hang up a sign that says "Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply."
In other words, an American could help pay for a job but be declared ineligible for the position because of his or her religious beliefs. That's not compassionate conservatism, that's outrageous. And under Bush's plan, it's perfectly legal.
3. Religion could be forced on those in need of assistance.
Under Bush's approach, religious institutions would receive taxpayer support to finance social services and would still be free to proselytize people seeking assistance. The religious freedom of beneficiaries would therefore be seriously threatened. Those in need may face religious indoctrination when they are sent to a religious organization to obtain their government benefits.
The president has promised "secular alternatives" for those who don't want to be forced to go to a house of worship for help. But in some instances, particularly in rural and less populated areas, the closest "alternative" can be a great distance away.
Imagine, for example, a Jewish family looking for food and shelter in Texas. The government tells the family they can visit the Southern Baptist church nearby or travel 100 miles for help from a "secular alternative."
Bush's policies will put the disadvantaged in an impossible position. They will either submit to religious coercion or go without food, shelter or other needed services to which they are legally entitled. Placing people in need in this kind of position is wrong.
4. Bush's plan opens the door to federal regulation of religion.
Government always regulates what it finances. This occurs because public officials are obliged to make certain that taxpayer funds are properly spent. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.
Houses of worship that have flourished as private institutions may suddenly have their books audited or face regular spot checks by federal inspectors in order to ensure appropriate "accountability."
In an address at the National Press Club on Jan. 30, the Rev. Wanda Henry, a Baptist minister, warned of the inevitable regulations placed on houses of worship once they are incorporated into the federal government's bureaucracy.
"As an ordained minister and person of faith dedicating my professional life to the defense of religious liberty, I have one piece of advice for church leaders: Say 'no, thank you' to government funds for your religious ministries," Henry insisted. "You are doing just fine without the heavy hand of government on your back." She added, "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said the church is not the master of the state, nor the servant of the state, but the conscience of the state. Charitable choice threatens to make religion the servant of the state, rather than its conscience."
5. The vitality of our faith communities will be hurt.
For years, millions of Americans have become active with their local houses of worship, making special contributions as a way to strengthen their ties to their faith traditions and increase personal piety. Once religious institutions are working in tandem with the federal government and receiving tax dollars to provide services, members may be less inclined to "dig a little deeper" to help with expenses.
Once these contributions drop off, the attendant spirit of volunteerism may also wither away. Making religious institutions dependent on the government for money will only harm these institutions and their vitality in the long run.
6. Bush's plan pits faith groups against each other.
Since the founding of the nation, all religious groups have stood equal in the eyes of the law. With a separation between church and state, government has been neutral on religious issues and no specific faith tradition received favoritism or support.
The Bush plan, however, calls for competition between religious groups. For the first time in American history, religious groups will be asked, indeed encouraged, to battle it out for a piece of the government pie. Pitting houses of worship against each other in this fashion is a recipe for divisive conflict.
7. Some religions will be favored over others.
While on the campaign trail, Bush promised that he would "not discriminate for or against Methodist or Mormons or Muslims or good people with no faith at all."
Then he announced he would not allow funding of the Nation of Islam, because, as he sees it, the group "preaches hate." The president has not, however, explained how the government will decide which groups preach "hate," and which preach "love." Stephen Goldsmith, who will be chiefly responsible for implementing the president's plan, has indicated the administration may also discriminate against groups affiliated with the Wiccan faith.
The Bush plan is already on shaky legal ground; once the president starts picking and choosing which faiths will get government aid and which ones won't, the plan quickly starts to drown in constitutional quicksand.
8. There's no proof that religious groups will offer better care than secular providers.
Many supporters of Bush's proposal have insisted that faith-based institutions are better, and far more successful, than secular service providers. However, little empirical research supports these claims. Few studies have examined whether religious ministries are more successful than secular groups in providing aid or producing better results, and it is unwise to launch a major federal initiative with so little research in the area.
Even Goldsmith has acknowledged this fact. During a Jan. 29 interview on National Public Radio, Goldsmith was asked whether there was "hard proof" of faith-based efforts being more effective. Goldsmith answered, "No," and added, "It would be, I think, a mistake, both for this initiative and generally, to conclude that just as a matter of assumption, that a faith-based organization will always be better than a secular organization."
There is also no proof that America's religious communities will be ready, willing or able to assist the many individuals and families who now receive secular aid from the government. No one knows if ministries will have the resources or staff to accommodate a large influx of people who will have little choice but to seek their assistance if Bush's plan is implemented.
Complicating matters, houses of worship are exempt from compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. A person in need confined to a wheel chair, for example, may not be able to get in a church's front door to receive assistance, even if he or she is willing to put up with religious indoctrination.
9. Both liberals and conservatives are concerned about Bush's plan.
Controversies surrounding Bush's scheme are not limited to a "left vs. right" argument. Americans United is part of a broad coalition of education, religious and civil liberties groups opposed to Bush's faith-based plan. The coalition includes organizations such as the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association, the American Counseling Association and the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
Concerned conservative leaders have also expressed reservations about the plan. For example, representatives of the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank, argued that mixing government and charity is dangerous. Cato staffer Michael Tanner said the Bush plan "risks destroying the very things that make private charity so effective."
Terrence Scanlon, president of the Capital Research Center, another conservative group, raised similar concerns. "Faith-based groups that have so far escaped the outstretched hand of the federal government will discover that it is a federal fist," Scanlon said.
Prominent leaders from the African American community have also expressed strong criticism of Bush's plan as well. Prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Reps. Robert Scott (D-Va.) and Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), have already spoken out. They aren't alone.
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a pioneer of the civil rights movement in the 1960s and himself a Baptist minister, also expressed deep concern. " I think there has to be a strong wall, a solid wall between church and state," Lewis said. "I don't want to see religious groups out trying to convert or proselytize with federal dollars."
10. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
For years, public funds have provided services at religiously affiliated organizations. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, for example, often have received government grants and contracts. However, strict safeguards have been in place to protect the interests of taxpayers and the religious liberties of those receiving assistance. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.
Courts found this approach to be consistent with the First Amendment. Bush's plan radically alters that set-up by allowing churches and other houses of worship to preach, proselytize and discriminate while providing public services.
* * * * *
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization represents 60,000 members and allied houses of worship in all 50 states.
February 20, 2001
Contact:
Joseph Conn
Rob Boston
Bush's 'Faith-Based' Initiative: An AU Special Report |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSZ
I remember a while back reading a list of the charities that were being subsidized, and the majority of them were Christian Fundamentalist organizations. The claim that all faiths are included is more or less a crock because the other charities receive such paltry funding in comparison, and are very few to begin with. I'll try and find the list later. |
I would like to see this list. However, I would also like to see where there is any legislation that allows more money for Christian groups than non-Christian groups. I really don't think it exists, and if a non-Christian group could show they were denied equal funding, then I would agree with you and have a problem with it.
| quote: |
The problem is that some of these charities will use the government money to proselytize, and inevitably discriminate.
|
True, but I'm sure many needy individuals would gladly put up with a little bible beating then go hungry, homeless, etc.
| quote: |
If you were to judge it's constitutionality based upon the sentiments of the Founding Fathers who crafted those very words, then yes it does clearly violate the First Amendment. To say otherwise is revisionist history.
|
Well, as I interpret it, the first amendment states that the government with not create a state religion or hold preference over any relgion. If the government wishes to give money to private religious groups, as long as it does not give any preferential treatment to particular groups, I do not see the unconstitutionality of it.
| quote: |
I can't even begin to rationalize the Boy Scout thing at all.
What kind of lesson is that teaching the kids? Government subsidized segregation is ok?
|
I don't think that's really an issue at all. The Boy Scouts are an old organization based on old principles. It is not up to me, or anyone else to change these principles, just as the government should not be able to tell a religion to change its practices. I may not agree with these principles, but if you are going to argue that abortion clinics and contreception should be subsidized by the government, you will find people that do not agree with those ideas either. I'm sure it would be possible to find someone somewhere who could find a problem in any group or program the government gives money too. In order to be fair we can either have the government give no money to any group, or equal money to all groups. I would much rather have the later.
I also think that the Rev. King quote may be a little out of place. He is commenting on removing prayer from public schools. This debate is about giving public funding to private organizations. I see a faint connection, but not one in which Dr. King is argueing that private groups shouldn't recieve public funding. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
Pat Gets Paid
TV Preacher Robertson Gets ‘Faith-Based’ Grant From Bush Administration
by Steve Benen
TV preacher Pat Robertson surprised virtually everyone last year when he criticized President George W. Bush’s “faith-based” initiative.
On the Feb. 20, 2001 episode of his nationally televised “700 Club” program, Robertson, one of the nation’s most reliable friends of Bush and the Republican Party, condemned the controversial plan to fund houses of worship with tax dollars.
“[T]his thing could be a real Pandora’s box,” Robertson said. “And what seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite the organizations as well as the federal government. And I’m a little concerned about it, frankly.”
Though the remarks sparked media attention, Robertson wasn’t done. Three weeks later, the Virginia Beach-based evangelist returned to the topic, warning his television audience that the Bush plan could threaten the vitality of religious groups.
“[F]ederal rules will envelope these organizations, they’ll begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can’t get off of it,” Robertson said. “It’ll be like a narcotic; they can’t then free themselves later on.”
Despite the presumed peril religious groups face from accepting public funds, it appears that Robertson is willing to risk addiction when it comes to his own operation.
On Oct. 3, the Bush administration announced a series of grants to 21 religious and community groups as part of the White House faith-based scheme. Among the recipients was Operation Blessing, a religious charity created and run by Robertson.
The fact that Robertson would seek public funding through the Bush faith-based initiative months after denouncing the president’s plan raised accusations of hypocrisy from critics of the controversial TV preacher. Just as importantly, the Bush administration is facing criticism for funneling tax dollars to Robertson notwithstanding the evangelist’s record of vitriolic and divisive rhetoric against political opponents and religious minorities.
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and a leading critic of Robertson and the Bush faith-based plan, found the grant announcement troubling.
“Robertson is one of the chief purveyors of religious bigotry in America,” Lynn said. “To reward him with government funding is an insult to every American taxpayer.
“Robertson was one of the earliest critics of the faith-based scheme, but I guess 30 pieces of silver were enough to change his mind,” Lynn added.
Lynn pointed to a series of hateful remarks Robertson has used to demonstrate why the TV preacher is unsuitable for public funding.
Robertson, for example, generated national disgust last fall when he blamed church-state separation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks while appearing on the Sept. 13 edition of the “700 Club.”
“We have a court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s eye and said we’re going to legislate you out of the schools,” Robertson said just 48 hours after the attacks. “We’re going to take your commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states. We’re not going to let little children read the commandments of God. We’re not going to let the Bible be read, no prayer in our schools. We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say, ‘Why does this happen?’ Well, why it’s happening is that God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.”
Robertson has also launched vitriolic attacks on Islam. In a September 2002 appearance on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes,” he said the Prophet Muhammad was “a killer” and added, “To think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent.” In 1997, Robertson sparked complaints when he called Islam “a religion of the slavers.”
Other faith traditions have also come under fire from Robertson. In 1991, he said Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians reflect “the spirit of the Antichrist.” The same year, Robertson said he believed Hindus are “devil worshipers.”
Ironically, Bush said last year that under his vision of the faith-based initiative, no one who “preaches hate” would be eligible for public funding. The president’s remarks were in reference to a question about the potential for the Nation of Islam to get tax aid, but in light of Robertson’s record of enmity, many wonder why the Bush administration failed to apply the same standard before awarding a grant to Robertson.
“Anyone who exhibits such bigoted views is unworthy to receive taxpayer dollars,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Mr. Robertson should be repudiated, not rewarded, for his Islamophobic hate speech.”
Robertson’s application for funding also drew criticism from the right. Cal Thomas, a conservative syndicated col_um_nist, said the White House grants should not be awarded to religious charities and the former Christian Coalition leader was wrong to seek the funds.
“Government should not decide who deserves funding and who does not,” Thomas said. “That is an endorsement of one religion or religions over others. Furthermore, the day will come when religious groups will be required to remain silent about their beliefs if they want to continue receiving government checks.
“Robertson was right to warn of a ‘Pandora’s box,’” Thomas added. “But he has now opened that box and is taking the money. It doesn’t take a prophet to see trouble ahead.”
Even the Robertson charity that received the faith-based grant, Operation Blessing, is not without controversy. While Robertson formed the group, and still serves as chairman of the board, it is his use of the group’s resources that has generated intense legal scrutiny.
Operation Blessing, a $66-million-a-year agency, describes its principal goal as “providing short-term relief and development assistance to economically disadvantaged people and victims of disaster throughout the world.” Despite that stated mission, charges of fraud and abuse plagued the group in the 1990s.
In 1994, Robertson used his “700 Club” program to raise funds for the charity. Robertson told viewers Opera_tion Blessing was using cargo planes to aid refugees from Rwanda who had fled into the neighboring nation of Zaire (now known as Congo) to escape a violent civil war.
Investigators later discovered that Rob_ertson was using the planes, intended for relief efforts, to haul mining equipment in and out of Zaire for the African Development Corporation (ADC), Rob_ertson’s for-profit diamond-mining company. Robertson later said the planes had proved impractical for relief work and insisted he had reimbursed the charity for ADC’s use of them.
The Virginian-Pilot newspaper noted that state officials criticized the charity for sloppy bookkeeping and for mixing non-profit and for-profit activities. It also pointed out that Robertson reimbursed Operation Blessing for ADC’s use of its airplanes in two stages. Investigators determined that ADC owed Operation Blessing $468,773, and Robertson ultimately gave the group $572,597, although $400,000 of the debt was not paid until two months into the official investigation.
Investigators with Virginia’s Office of Consumer Affairs concluded that Rob_ertson “willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications.” In fact, the office recommended prosecuting Robertson in 1999 for making deceptive appeals about his charity but was overruled by the attorney general’s office. Lawyers in the attorney general’s office, headed at the time by Mark Earley, agreed Robertson had made inaccurate statements but decided against prosecution. (Earley, a long-time political ally of Robertson, accepted $35,000 in campaign contributions from Robert_son in 1997.)
Operation Blessing’s grant came as part of the first wave of funding an_nounce_ments made by the Bush administration’s Health and Human Services Department (HHS). The agency was responsible for doling out $30 million through something called the “Compas_sion Capital Fund,” appropriated by Congress to provide technical support for charities, such as streamlining the process for creating non-profit organizations.
The administration’s use of the Fund generated controversy over the summer when it appeared the White House was using the project to woo African-American voters and support vulnerable Republican candidates in the 2002 elections (see “Faith-Based Flimflam,” October 2002 Church & State).
Now, however, the Compassion Capital Fund is raising new questions based on concerns over the groups receiving a slice of the $30 million pie and what those groups can do with the money.
Under the system created through the Fund, religious and community groups receive grants, and in turn, use these taxpayer funds to grant “sub-awards” to other religious and community organizations for their operations. When applying this situation to Operation Blessing’s grant, the White House has given Robertson tax dollars that he will then distribute to other groups as he sees fit.
AU’s Lynn believes giving Robertson and other religious leaders control over the distribution of public funds through the faith-based initiative violates the Constitution.
“Giving religious groups control over public funds is a blatant violation of the Constitution,” Lynn said. “Under the First Amendment, religious ministries shouldn’t become an arm of the government.”
Operation Blessing’s grant this year is $500,000. If Congress continues to appropriate tax dollars for the Com_passion Capital Fund, Robertson’s group will take in an additional $500,000 each of the next two years, for a total of $1.5 million in public funds.
The administration’s recent grant announcements have renewed questions about the president’s beleaguered faith-based initiative.
For example, during congressional debate over the faith-based initiative, controversies plagued the plan. Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle noted that religious groups, under the Bush plan, would receive public funds but could still discriminate on religious grounds in employment. Moreover, there were additional questions as to whether publicly funded ministries could pressure benefi_ciaries to participate in religious activities.
Those same questions apply to the grantees of the Compassion Capital Fund. Robertson’s Operation Blessing, as well as the 20 other recipients of federal funds, will receive the money without safeguards that prevent publicly funded discrimination in hiring and helping beneficiaries.
Robertson’s grant outraged many, but Operation Blessing’s award was not the only grant that raised eyebrows.
Another group, the National Center for Faith Based Initiative, was awarded $700,000, which could ultimately become $2.1 million if Congress continues to fund the Compassion Capital Fund over the next two years.
The National Center, an outfit based in West Palm Beach, Fla., was created by Bishop Harold Calvin Ray, senior pastor of the Redemptive Life Fellowship Church. Ray has played a frequent but varied role in the ongoing debate over the faith-based initiative since the plan’s unveiling in January 2001.
For example, Ray was a prominent force in helping Rep. J.C. Watts host a “Faith-Based Summit” on Capitol Hill in April 2001. Ray’s role was demonstrated on the eve of the summit, when the trial lawyer-turned-preacher hosted a closed-door reception attended by Attorney General John Ashcroft. In addition, at a press conference during the summit, Ray was the only clergyman permitted to address reporters. The Wall Street Journal even described Ray as “the president’s strongest ally in the faith-based effort.”
For some, Ray’s high profile was disconcerting, considering the bishop’s unabashed hostility toward church-state separation.
In an interview with Charisma magazine in February 2001, Ray said, “The sep_aration of church and state is a fiction. The nation is the kingdom of God, period.”
Ray’s theology also appears to be based on the idea that Christians who share his worldview deserve special power over society. In the same Char_isma interview, Ray added, “If the wealth of the wicked is to be laid up for the just, then there is some more work we need to do.”
In his self-published book, Creating Wealth, Determining Destiny, Ray wrote, “God expects us [Christians] to take dominion.” He added that faith-based enterprises “make an impressive march toward that goal.”
Ray went from being an important inside player to a disaffected outsider in a matter of months. By the summer of 2001, Ray was blasting the White House for not doing enough to secure funding for religious ministries.
A year later, however, Ray is happy again. He’s set to collect millions in taxpayer dollars, he’s traveling the country to promote government-sponsored religious social programs and he’s even formed a self-described “alliance” with Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice to provide legal assistance to ministries that receive funding through the Bush initiative.
Among the other “demonstration grants” announced by HHS were $1.1 million for the Christian Community Health Fellowship, $1 million for Catholic Charities of Central New Mexico and $1 million for Mennonite Economic Development Associates.
Dare Mighty Things, a New Hamp_shire-based consulting company, was awarded $2.2 million to serve as a national “resource center” for all U.S. charities. The grant became controversial when research showed that Dare Mighty Things has close ties to Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship ministry, a Religious Right group that seeks to convert inmates to fundamentalist Christianity.
HHS has reported that about 500 groups applied for subsidies through the Compassion Capital Fund, but only 25 received grants. While several faith-based charities received money, all of the religious recipients were affiliated with Christian ministries, most of them evangelical.
This aspect of the funding leaves critics wondering if the Bush administration is interested in helping charities with technical assistance – the stated goal of the Compassion Capital Fund – or helping advance a religious agenda.
After all, it was Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.) – an ally of the White House on this issue – who said in a recent interview that the president’s goal with the faith-based initiative is to help “overtly Christian organizations pick people up, change their character, convert them regardless of what religion they are, and change their lives.” |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by arctic
That's my point, he's an Englishman. So why the hell is he in line to become our head of state, when he has absolutely nothing to do with our country.
By the way, we still kick your arse in absolutely everything else, including the major rugby code. ;)
If it were possible to vote on it, I would. Perhaps you can ring John Howard for me and ask him to schedule a referendum for me. :p |
Why is he in line to be your head of state? Well, you aint gonna get a good enough Australian to do it so it might as well be him!!! (Even if he is an inbred Greek/German!)
And rugby union is by far the best! League is just a slightly better version of American football!
And we are better at football (THE most popular sport in the known universe!...oh let me guess...that friendly...well they count for nothing as they are just experiments)
And lets not forget snooker and darts! (us Brits are quite good at sports that involve drinking large amounts of beer whilest competing!!) |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Why is he in line to be your head of state? Well, you aint gonna get a good enough Australian to do it so it might as well be him!!! (Even if he is an inbred Greek/German!)
And rugby union is by far the best! League is just a slightly better version of American football!
And we are better at football (THE most popular sport in the known universe!...oh let me guess...that friendly...well they count for nothing as they are just experiments)
And lets not forget snooker and darts! (us Brits are quite good at sports that involve drinking large amounts of beer whilest competing!!) |
Our current government is lead by an idiotic conservative monarchist who thinks that George Bush practices good foreign policy. Just out of interest, was the fact that we voted to remain a monarchy a few years back (Basically because a flawed model was presented, most people wanted to dump the English, but disliked the way our 'head of state' would be elected) well reported in the UK? DO you generally consider Australia to be an 'English colony' to to speak?
Union isn't too popular down here, we don't really even have a proper national league. The fact that we've won two world cups (As opposed to your one?) and made the final recently is a pretty good achievement imo, especially when you look at you population levels.
With football, we actually have our own code (AFL), soccer is in strife here. Nobody watches the national league, and FIFA is killing the game in our region by refusing to even grant us one measly direct entry into the world cup. Basically that means whoever wins our region (Usually us or New Zealand) gets shipped off to Iran or something like that. It's a bloody disgrace.
As for the darts point, good on you. Any man that can drink beer and play sport at the same time is a top bloke in my book. :stongue:
Yikes, we have gone off topic haven't we. :p |
|
|
|
|
