|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
 Posted - 07/03/2001 : 19:22:55
|
It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The Day That Counts! is around the corner....
http://www.thedaythatcounts.org/
Need to spread this link around people, and
PARTICIPATE!
Today's Borrowed Thought:
"Men will not be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
-Denis Diderot, "Dithyrambe sur la fete de rois"
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 19:56:11 [Permalink]
|
I'm quite concerned obout this faith based thing. I keep hearing that Alcoholics Anonymous is being held up as a model program. It's my understanding that in AA, one has to admit that they are powerless and that one needs God to fight through their addiction each day. Is this a correct summary of the program? If so it sounds like a cult.
Regards,
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:07:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's my understanding that in AA, one has to admit that they are powerless and that one needs God to fight through their addiction each day. Is this a correct summary of the program? If so it sounds like a cult.
This is exactly right. There was a very small (and tangential) discussion of this in the "Religion's Influence in the 21st Century" topic in this forum.
I find it very disturbing that government institutions are able to mandate that people attend these meetings.
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:28:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I keep hearing that Alcoholics Anonymous is being held up as a model program. It's my understanding that in AA, one has to admit that they are powerless and that one needs God to fight through their addiction each day. Is this a correct summary of the program? If so it sounds like a cult.
For a good skeptical analysis of Substance Abuse Treatment, including AA, check this out:
http://www.skepdic.com/sat.html
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:37:00 [Permalink]
|
On the Faith Based Initiative, I saved this well written commentary from a while back....
Monday, February 19, 2001
Home Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B-7
The Problem With Faith-Based Funding Is Faith Itself
By: BART KOSKO
Bart Kosko is on the electrical engineering faculty at USC and author of
"Heaven in a Chip" (Random House: 2000)
Religious conservatives can't have it both ways. They can't spend tax
money to support faith and at the same time say it is wrong to criticize
faith. Money always comes with strings attached.
This goes beyond putting religious slogans on money and outlawing
first-class mail on Sunday. And it goes beyond the problems of the
"establishment" clause of the 1st Amendment and extending the heavy hand
of government to private charities. It goes to a rule of fair play: You
get to criticize something if your taxes pay for it.
That rule applies now since President Bush has called for more tax dollars
for "faith-based" organizations and has appointed a faith czar--social
scientist John DiIulio--to oversee this new and unprecedented church-state
effort.
Nor does an open door to "all faiths" bar criticism. That only shifts
criticism to the concept of faith itself. And there are at least three
reasons to criticize faith of any species.
* Faith is unwarranted belief. Faith is belief without evidence or despite
evidence to the contrary. Faith occurs when a person believes that
something is true even though he suspects it is false. It takes large
doses of such faith to support the very existence of casinos, psychic
hotlines, astrology columns, mall Santas and most organized religions.
Perhaps the mother of all faith is belief in some form of life after
death. A recent Time/CNN poll found that 81% of Americans believe in an
eternal afterlife. But science has found no more evidence for an afterlife
than it has found for Santa's workshop at the North Pole. The almost
universal faith in an afterlife seems to be nothing more than group denial
of death.
The faithful often reply that scientists engage in faith and that science
itself is a religion. Scientists do engage in faith for a moment when they
guess at a new claim of mathematics or when they put forth a new factual
claim about the world. But the guesses and claims are provisional. Logic
or facts can knock them down, and they usually do. Religious faith is
belief despite such logic or facts. A case in point is Faith Czar
DiIulio's faith in his own program: "There are, as yet, no suitably
scientific studies that 'prove' the efficacy or cost-effectiveness of
faith-based approaches to social ills."
* Faith often gets it wrong. Faith has costs even though it seems to be an
intellectual free lunch. Consider our faith in beating the odds. The
National Council on Problem Gambling found that in 1997 Americans lost
more than $50 billion on lotteries and other forms of legalized gambling.
That was more money than they spent on all movies and music and sporting
events combined, and they did this despite the published odds that all
such bets would lose on average. Hence Las Vegas will likely remain this
country's top tourist destination. Faith is even more dangerous when it
dictates morality. The faithful have all too often been willing to die or
kill for their notions of spiritual right and wrong. The record here is
bloody and ranges from the ancient state-run religions of Egypt and
Babylon to the current violence between Muslims and Christians in Kosovo.
Most of the 30 or so armed conflicts in the world stem from faith-based
disputes.
Then there is John Ashcroft, the new attorney general. He admitted the
strength of his faith in a 1999 interview in the Pentecostal magazine
Charisma: "It's said that we shouldn't legislate morality. Well, I
disagree. I think all we should legislate is morality." And Ashcroft made
clear in a 1999 speech at Bob Jones University that his faith trumps all
else: "America has been different. We have no king but Jesus." But what if
non-Christians don't want Jesus as their "king?"
* Faith undermines critical thinking. The whole point of critical thinking
is to root out error and unwarranted belief. Do we want jurors to use
faith to reach a verdict? Do we want citizens to use "faith-based
reasoning" when they weigh the claims of politicians or advertisers or
anyone else who tries to sell them something? Don't the claims of racists,
cultists and dictators rest on faith and not on evidence or reason?
And faith is no friend in the classroom. The goal of learning is to teach
students to think critically for themselves. A good teacher does not want
students to take what he says on faith. Students should question the
grounds for what he says. They need to learn how to derive conclusions
from assumptions and how to judge the accuracy of an argument's
assumptions. The rules of logic and evidence apply just as well to the
study of Greek mythology and comparative politics as they do to the study
of atoms and genes. No one gets an A for saying, "It's true because I
believe it's true." Yet that is just the admission ticket to faith-based
belief schemes from astrology to most organized religions.
Most Americans are saturated with faith. Tax subsidies would only
encourage more of it. What we need is more critical thinking. We need more
doubt.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 21:57:35 [Permalink]
|
Randy, I absolutely agree with the commentary. This whole faith based thing kind of reminds me of what a former Secretary of the Interior had to say about conserving natural resources (I will paraphrase because I can't recall the exact quote). He stated that it didn't matter that we were using up natural resources since God would provide additional resources for us. Sure sounds faith based to me.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 22:07:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He stated that it didn't matter that we were using up natural resources since God would provide additional resources for us.
I would love to see this dude's face when he's told that the world is out of fossil fuels and there ain't no more. 
"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not." -Master Yoda |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 22:24:47 [Permalink]
|
It used to be much worse in this country. I think that Bush is only a passing thing and the next president might be much better. Bush actually did not win the votes, but he is acting as if he did. He is losing in the polls right now. His favorable ratings have gone down considerably.
However, I do not have any hope for humanity. Religion has always existed and I do not see it ending. People believe to calm their fears. Of course, fears are added by the proselytizers in order to keep the sheep in the flock.
Religion is fearful because of its necessary irrationality, and I try to stay clear of anything that smacks of religion.
I do not make friends with religious people. That narrows the crowd, but it is the only way to go. At least, in my personal life, religion ceases to exist. Of course, they are using my taxes to promote somebody else's beliefs, but that has been happening all along, anyway. I do not like religious people because they cannot be trusted. If they can believe that baloney, they can believe anything. That is scary.
ljbrs
Bush does not know better and does not do better. The jerk.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 22:52:32 [Permalink]
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE APPROVES "REVISED" FAITH-BASED PLAN
Cult Funding Disturbs Some Legislators: Johnson Says It's Still 'Religion
Tax'
After a debate which touched on such diverse topics as slavery and the
funding of crank religious cults, the House Judiciary Committee has
passed a tweaked version of the Community Solutions Act which
encourages churches and other houses of worship to apply for federal
funds. The 20-5 vote saw all Republicans voting for the legislation,
with all "no" votes coming from committee Democrats.
"Doors will be opened to the neediest in our communities to receive
the help and assistance they seek," gushed Sen. James Sensenbrenner
Jr. The Wisconsin Republican had earlier raised questions about the
constitutional and political viability of the legislation, H.R. 7,
dubbed the "Community Solutions Act." The modified version, though,
emphasizes the "charitable choice" provision of the 1996 welfare
reform act which encouraged religious organizations to apply for
government funding in order to operate faith-based social services.
"This is the same old bill with some tweaking and window dressing,"
said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "It still amounts
to the imposition of a 'religion tax,' and the public funding of
organized faith-based outreaches."
Johnson added, "In some respects, it's even worse than the earlier
legislation!"
She noted that the new measure does not even pay lip service to having
"secular alternatives" available for clients seeking social services.
The modified version instead directs those who might object to the
"religious character" of a particular program to another sectarian
service which they find "unobjectionable."
Indeed, an amendment attempt to restore the original wording was
defeated during the House Judiciary Committee mark-up session.
Other features of the "revised" faith-based initiative bill remain in
place, albeit under the guise of different language. Religious
organizations may still discriminate in hiring practices on the basis
of belief -- a provision included in earlier "charitable choice"
legislation. This means, for instance, that while a secular drug or
alcohol treatment program might be required to hire credentialed,
professional therapists, a religion-based group like Teen Challenge
could employ anyone, even if they lacked training in therapeutic
techniques, psychology and other fields. "Counselors" in a
faith-based programs would not be required to have even a minimal
academic background. Indeed, a "supervisor" at the discredited Roloff
Homes in Texas who was convicted in connection with an abuse case, did
not even have a high school diploma even though he was in charge of a
facility for troubled youngsters.
Faith-based providers accepting public money may now permit
discrimination against clients, if parts of the program funding stem
from a voucher or other type of "indirect" aid. This opens the door
for these program to overtly pressure clients into changing their
religious beliefs as a cost of receiving benefits.
"They can tweak and quibble over this language all they want," said
Ms. Johnson. "The bottom line is that these programs involve taxing
Americans, including millions of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and
other non-believers in order to subsidize programs being carried out
by organized religion."
Slavery Debate Crucial To Black Church Support
Unexpectedly, one of the most supportive communities lining up behind
President George Bush's federal faith-based initiative is the network
of black churches across the country. While these religious
congregations and their leadership have traditionally backed
Democratic candidates, Republicans have moved to capitalize on the
message that churches and other houses of worship can address many of
the problems of troubled inner-city America. Rep. J.C. Watts
(R-OK), a militant religious conservative who has supported groups
such as the Promise Keepers and Christian Coalition, typifies this new
intersection between a Republican agenda and a nascent social and
spiritual conservatism resonating in many black church communities.
The debate over the new H.R. 7 began, ironically, with Rep. Melvin
Watt (D-North Carolina) bringing up the touchy issue of slavery, and
declaring that he considered a resolution saluting George Washington
to be repugnant, since the first president had owned slaves.
"I want to be very, very careful how I say this," Watt said. "For us
to be applauding the statements discussing bigotry that were written
by a person who owned slaves is a little bit more than I can, without
a churning stomach, be able to tolerate. I'm sure he (Washington) did
magnificent things and wonderful things. But we should also keep in
context the reality that there is substantial pain still among many
people in our country about this chapter in our history."
Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island then suggested that
lawmakers encourage distribution of a letter penned by Washington to
the nation's first synagogue in 1790. This, said Kennedy, should
serve as an example of religious tolerance and diversity.
Sensenbrenner supported the move, but Watt denounced the proposal as
"hypocritical."
Several amendments to weaken H.R. 7 were proposed by opponents, but
were voted down. Citing the measure's stipulation that religious
groups could screen prospective employees on the basis of faith when
hiring, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-New York) asked, "Why do you want to
discriminate based on religion?"
Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-Arkansas) charged that without giving houses
of worship an exemption from civil rights protections, "you'll be
altering the nature of the religious organization itself."
Republicans tore into their Democratic opponents, noting that
President Clinton had signed the historic 1996 legislation creating
"charitable choice," and that Democratic candidates Al Gore and Sen.
Joseph Lieberman had both encouraged faith-based schemes to allow
religious organizations to accept public funds.
Some legislators raised the specter of fringe religious groups
receiving government money. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) cited
the possibility of a Wiccan sect asking for money to operate child
care services. Ohio Republican Steve Chabot responded that while all
religious groups are allowed to seek grants, it would up to the
government to decide how the money is distributed. That ignited a
debate over the Nation of Islam, which has already received funding in
order to provided security services in public housing complexes.
Representatives then exchanged verbal salvos, with one calling the NOI
"virulently anti-Semitic," and another, Rep. Maxine Waters
(D-California) praising the Muslim group as "absolutely effective" in
holding down drug use and crime rates.
After the debate and voting, President Bush issued a written statement
praising lawmakers for approving H.R. 7. "I commend the House
Judiciary Committee for passing legislation that offers hope to tens
of millions of people at risk, including 15 million children. I look
forward to action by the Ways and Means Committee and urge the House
to pass this legislation as soon as possible."
White House strategy is to push for a full vote in the House of
Representatives later this month. New allies have joined the
bandwagon for public funding of religion; last week, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors, many of them Democrats representing big urban
areas, announced their support for the federal faith-based initiative.
--------------------------------------------
Ok, so with this *new* language, just who the hel |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 08:58:23 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
This stuff scares the hell out of me too. In the worst case scenario, we will be creating an undercalss of people dependant on 'faith' rather than reason to solve their problems. More pawns for the fundy fold. This is blatant proslytising and will in the long run affect the fabric of society in ways I don't want to think about.
The apparent surprise of the article's author (from Positive Atheism?) over the Roloff Homes supervisor not having a high school diploma shows the difference in world-view between those who use reason and those who use 'faith' in problem solving. It's not what you know or how much you learn, but how much 'faith' you have that determines success in life. To teach a, mostly uneducated, underclass this is a disservice to the country at large.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 15:11:25 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, should have pointed out that's from AANews newsletter. It's scary to think that these people can be uneducated morons and because of religion try to help people while shoving religion down their throats.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 19:38:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the worst case scenario, we will be creating an undercalss of people dependant on 'faith' rather than reason to solve their problems.
In what way(s) is this worse than the current underclass of people dependent on welfare?
(added later) My question isn't clear...sorry.
In what way(s) is this worse than the current situation: a permament underclass of people dependent on welfare...those who have no intention of trying to work?
Edited by - Zandermann on 07/04/2001 20:08:04 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 20:47:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In the worst case scenario, we will be creating an undercalss of people dependant on 'faith' rather than reason to solve their problems.
Would this class of people be able to form? If they relied on faith to solve their problems, they would quickly have too many problems to survive...
------------
Ma gavte la nata! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 20:55:04 [Permalink]
|
The big problem is that the churches seem to be the only folks around with soup kitchens, and the poor would have little to eat without them. My late brother ran a soup kitchen on Saturdays in his center-city church and contributed a lot of his own money to it (for food). I do not know of any secular organizations which are doing that. There are a lot of people who have stayed alive on account of my brother's program. He often said to me that he thought that the soup kitchen was the main reason for the existence of his church. I do not know what has happened to the soup kitchen and to his church since he passed away.
I am a little torn. The church-based remedy would be the cheapest way to go financially, but the most expensive way to go in everything else. I know that my brother had to depend upon the kindness of supermarkets in their donating of over-age food (which was infrequent) to which he added his own limited supply of money. I am interested in having those people who are willing to spend their time feeding the poor in doing so, regardless of their faith.
What non-religious groups have come forward to donate their time and money for helping out in one way or another? I am a little torn by this, because of the actual lack of public concern for the poor.
ljbrs
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 21:31:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In what way(s) is this worse than the current situation: a permament underclass of people dependent on welfare...those who have no intention of trying to work?
Dependency on welfare is a personal lifestyle choice.
The issue here is not that some religious groups want to help people. The issue is that somehow 'faith' can do a better job. If it can do a better job in social services, then maybe somewhere else like the schools.
quote:
What non-religious groups have come forward to donate their time and money for helping out in one way or another? I am a little torn by this, because of the actual lack of public concern for the poor.
Good point. There are none where I live and all that I have ever heard of have been run by religious organizations. I think the public believes that their tax dollars take care of poor people.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 21:50:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
In what way(s) is this worse than the current situation: a permament underclass of people dependent on welfare...those who have no intention of trying to work?
Dependency on welfare is a personal lifestyle choice.
Granted in some cases, although in others, the clients in question do not have the education/experience to realize they have such a choice.
However, that does not address my original question...in what way(s) is aid from a faith-based organization worse than reliance on Uncle Sugar for livliehood? For generations?quote:
The issue here is not that some religious groups want to help people. The issue is that somehow 'faith' can do a better job.
Rather, I believe the issue is that faith-based organizations are doing the job, government-based organizations are not, and relying on already-established organizations is more cost-effective.quote:
If it can do a better job in social services, then maybe somewhere else like the schools.
Ah, now you're talking. Let's see...are kids in non-public schools (which seem to be predominantly faith-based) performing better than those in public schools?quote:
quote:
What non-religious groups have come forward to donate their time and money for helping out in one way or another? I am a little torn by this, because of the actual lack of public concern for the poor.
Good point. There are none where I live and all that I have ever heard of have been run by religious organizations. I think the public believes that their tax dollars take care of poor people.
This situation was what I was referring to above, when I mentioned "already-established organizations."
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
