|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2001 : 04:11:37 [Permalink]
|
The entirety of the situation goes beyond soup-kitchens. Which I happen to volunteer at, particularly during the Thanksgiving holiday - since invariably I have been alone during that holiday for the past ten years. Many restaurants in this area deliver their *overtimed* food to these kitchens.
The problem comes in with the language of the bill and some other issues. For example: They are SUSPENDING CIVIL RIGHTS hiring practices in regards to those who work for these *faith based* organizations. IOW, chuck the US Civil Code here! These people working in *faith based* organizations helping people with addictions, counseling, etc, et al need not be qualified as they would be required with sectarian organizations. Can we say *Candace Newmaker*? They can refuse services to individuals based on their particular beliefs. 'Whoops! Your not Catholic (S. Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc) and unless you convert to our particular religion we won't/don't have to help you!' IOW, convert you sinful person or else!
This is federal tax money, taxes I have to pay for. I have to support these different religious organizations but I can't use their services because I am an atheist unless I convert. But I am paying, in part, for the services provided! I am paying out of my hard earned money, money I can use for my bills, my rent etc, to have some poor individual who can not afford other alternatives forced into conversion to which ever organization demands it! This is forced religion.
Not just no, but HELL NO! This is wrong! This can't happen here! Don't you get it! It sounds like a decent idea, but there are too many strings attached! Can you imagine the poor woman who goes for counseling with an organization run by Pat Robertson because her husband is abusive. 'Well, sorry honey, but you married him and your his property because the wholly freakin' babble says so!'
Pull your minds back from the fundie right that is behind this and think for a minute about the power this give to the fundies. Its beyond ridiculous. Hell, the catholics have all these fancy things in their churches, do they really need the $5,000 throne for the priest to rest his ass on during mass? Wouldn't that $5,000 go a lot farther feeding people?
How do I know they have these pricy thrones? My mother's church is spending 4 mil to remodel and so someone can have their name on a plaque they are asking for the money to purchase these things! Tone down the worship space and use the excessive monetary donations to feed a few people!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 05:26:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...They can refuse services to individuals based on their particular beliefs. 'Whoops! Your not Catholic (S. Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc) and unless you convert to our particular religion we won't/don't have to help you!' IOW, convert you sinful person or else!...
Any evidence here on refusal of services? I have to admit that I've never heard of this happening: withholding aid until conversion.
quote:
...This is federal tax money, taxes I have to pay for. I have to support these different religious organizations but I can't use their services because I am an atheist unless I convert. ...
Again, this is something that I've not heard of. If you don't mind telling, which organization(s) required that you convert first?
quote:
...But I am paying, in part, for the services provided! I am paying out of my hard earned money, money I can use for my bills, my rent etc, to have some poor individual who can not afford other alternatives forced into conversion to which ever organization demands it! This is forced religion. ...
And if it were happening, I'd be angry too.
Except for one item: how is it 'forced religion' if seeking aid is a voluntary act?
quote:
...It sounds like a decent idea, but there are too many strings attached! Can you imagine the poor woman who goes for counseling with an organization run by Pat Robertson because her husband is abusive. 'Well, sorry honey, but you married him and your his property because the wholly freakin' babble says so!'...
I can imagine lots of situations even worse than this one...but neither my imagination nor yours is the issue. I simply asked in what way(s) it is worse to have a client fed/counseled/assisted by an already-existing group than by a governmental group that may not exist right now.
BTW, I'm having troubling chasing down one of your references, and you're much more familiar with the case than I. Which faith-based organization were Connell Watkins and Julie Ponder working for? I haven't yet found any background on Evergreen's religious basis, but I know you wouldn't have brought it up if it weren't connected.
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 09:59:59 [Permalink]
|
OH, YE OF LITTLE FAITH! (after all, this is in the Religion thread, isn't it?) 
Let's see now, someone bring up to speed, if you please. The brew-ha is about H.R.7, correct? So, even if it passes the House, doesn't it have to go to the Senate? What House bill makes it through the Senate without severe overhaul? And then there are the compromise committees to resolve differences in the two versions. And then there is implementation. And then there is judicial review. You don't think that the legal vultures haven't started to roost in the trees just waiting to jump on this one? Do you think the ACLU is going to sit idly on the side lines?
There are several religious institutions that have already expressed their reservations about accepting public tax dollars. The money would be nice, but not the attached strings. Many of them have been doing an excellent job in their respective communities WITHOUT tax dollars, thank you very much.
I made a conscious decision many years ago to skip contributing to United Way and concentrated on the Salvation Army. Why? I examined the financial statements of both institutions as to the administrative overhead to service provided ratio. The S.A. won hands down. This is true of many religious institutions. The social service machinery has been in place for many decades. It is well oiled and runs efficiently.
So, what I'm saying here is let the religious institutions do their thing WITHOUT the Feds. And show a little faith in our democratic institutions. These are just the opening rounds. Let the power brokers in D.C. show their hands. Let them play their trump cards. Let the American electorate respond. Get yourself a souvenir program, grab some popcorn and join in the fray.
I'm a firm believer in the following phrase, but I can't remember who uttered it...
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
And now a public / private word to Trish...
quote:
Pull your minds back from the fundie right that is behind this and think for a minute about the power this give to the fundies. Its beyond ridiculous. Hell, the catholics have all these fancy things in their churches, do they really need the $5,000 throne for the priest to rest his ass on during mass? Wouldn't that $5,000 go a lot farther feeding people?
How do I know they have these pricy thrones? My mother's church is spending 4 mil to remodel and so someone can have their name on a plaque they are asking for the money to purchase these things! Tone down the worship space and use the excessive monetary donations to feed a few people!
The Catholics aren't using public money, are they? It's THEIR money raised through private donations. But, following your line of reasoning, let's suspend any further expenditures of money whose sole function is to honor, inspire and educate people. We really don't need monuments, museums or concert halls. They don't feed people. The return on investment in terms of social advancement can't be scientifically measured.
Hell's Bells, Trish. I've written many checks to the Southern Poverty Law Center. But despite my pleadings, they STILL haven't installed a stain-glassed window with my name on it. *heavy sigh* 
(:raig |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 11:08:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Ok, so with this *new* language, just who the hell decides who my money goes to. And if it can go to fundies why the hell can't it go to wiccans?
This whole concept of the faith based initiative scares the crap out of me. These people offering services are only hired on the basis of their religion. And suspending civil rights for something that is being funded by tax money. Who the hell do they think they're fooling here? Why should I and others have to pay to have some poor sap threatened into conversion to receive help?
GRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!! This whole thing is beyond ridiculous and moved into the dark ages of social reform!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell!
Edited by - Trish on 07/03/2001 22:54:21
Trish,
I agree with you on discrimination based on religion. Orrin Hatch was looking at outlawing Wiccan services on US bases. Even though other groups were allowed worship on base. The only problem with calling Wicca a "crackpot religion" is that it was one of the religions mentioned in the Freedom of Religion Act.
The Californian Wiccans were also looking at instituting a school if vouchers were passed.
I find it completely objectionable that the Senator objected to the religion of the child care center for funding. Is this a way to discriminate against "non-sactioned" religions? Is Buddism a cult in their eyes and, therefore, ineligible for funding?
I consider Fundamentalism as a cult of Christianity, does that mean that they won't get funding?
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 11:59:11 [Permalink]
|
"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?"
You don't understand my point. I have no problem with government money being used to fund private social service organizations. In fact, I can think of significant advantages over the current system. I also don't believe that an organization run by a religious organization is necessarily bad, in fact some are probably quite good. I have a problem with the idea of ‘faith' as a cure-all for social ills being rammed down our throats. Your analogy to welfare is irrelevant. Of course it would be relevant if a President came out and said ‘By golly, government handouts are good for the country. Government handouts are why I am so successful today. I try to live my life with government handouts and so should everyone. Only government handouts can cure our social ills.' I have never heard any politician say anything like this but if you replace the words ‘government handouts' with ‘faith', I believe that the ideas will sound similar to those espoused by the current president. This is being called the President's “Faith Based Initiative” for a reason, it's not being called the President's “Privatization of Social Services Initiative”. The ideology is clear, and it's not good for a nation as diverse as the US. Of course, fundamentalists believe that everyone else is just plain wrong and need to be ‘saved'. Do you understand my position now or am I still not communicating it to you?
"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?"
This is a very questionable correlation. The students in public and private schools are composed of two separate populations (although the private schools population is, in some ways a subset of the public schools population). Unless you want to compare statistics on populations corrected for many variables, don't even go there.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:05:51 [Permalink]
|
Hi Valiant,
quote:
I find it completely objectionable that the Senator objected to the religion of the child care center for funding. Is this a way to discriminate against "non-sactioned" religions? Is Buddism a cult in their eyes and, therefore, ineligible for funding?
There is another aspect to this whole debate that I haven't gotten much feedback on yet. There are religious institutions with well established social services and there are those who WILL establish social services IF they get Congressional dollars.
So, what is the criteria for dispensing money to a religious institution with no track record in social services? I'm not picking on Wicca, per se. I mean ANYONE who wants a piece of the Federal pie without established credentials.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:16:27 [Permalink]
|
Couldn't one make an argument that, if the government gave money to a particular charitable organization run by a certain religious group, it's an official government endorsement of that group and all of their policies and beliefs? Sort of making them official state religions?
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:42:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You don't understand my point. I have no problem with government money being used to fund private social service organizations. In fact, I can think of significant advantages over the current system. ... Do you understand my position now or am I still not communicating it to you?
Thanks, Greg...I thought I understood you before; this confirms what I thought.quote:
... I also don't believe that an organization run by a religious organization is necessarily bad, in fact some are probably quite good. I have a problem with the idea of ‘faith' as a cure-all for social ills being rammed down our throats. ...
Where is this happening? I've not seen evidence of anyone claiming that faith is a panacea, nor of it being 'rammed down our throats'.quote:
... Of course, fundamentalists believe that everyone else is just plain wrong and need to be ‘saved'. ...
Yes, some do, perhaps most. I would expect that anyone turning to a fundamentalist group for aid would be aware of this, and it would be a factor in their decision to go there. However, there are a number of other people/groups who feel the same way. I have read several comments from people on this board and others that could be paraphrased as "I/we (as skeptics, here) believe that everyone else is just plain wrong and need to be ‘saved' (from themselves?). (Another topic: why is this mindset oppressive when held by some people, but OK when held by others?)quote:
quote:
"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?"
This is a very questionable correlation. The students in public and private schools are composed of two separate populations (although the private schools population is, in some ways a subset of the public schools population). Unless you want to compare statistics on populations corrected for many variables, don't even go there.
During my career as a teacher, I've worked in several schools and been involved in several others (total: about 10). This is a small sample, in just one area of the country. But I have found that the only real difference between student populations in these schools is what institution they attend. Parental support, socio-economic status, academic background and achievement, are all pretty close, close enough that I'm not worried about statistical significance. (And I *do* know my way around statistics...one of the things I do in my classes is teach the kids how to interpret data favorably and unfavorably; my plan is that they will learn that results can be skewed to various viewpoints.)
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:47:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Couldn't one make an argument that, if the government gave money to a particular charitable organization run by a certain religious group, it's an official government endorsement of that group and all of their policies and beliefs? Sort of making them official state religions?
This argument will be made (has already been made by some), but that does not mean of course that the statement is true.
In my reading of the proposals, I've been impressed by the fact that there has been *no endorsement* of belief. The proposals intend to help subsidize the *services provided*, not the belief systems of the providers.
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:48:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Couldn't one make an argument that, if the government gave money to a particular charitable organization run by a certain religious group, it's an official government endorsement of that group and all of their policies and beliefs? Sort of making them official state religions?
Ex-ac-ca-ta-ly!
There will be a stampede to the court house steps by young turks and their legal briefs containing precisely that same premise. Try not to get knocked down in the rush.  The demarcation line between social service and religion will be tenuous at best. The type of stuff that lawyers just love. Could tie up legislation for years! 
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:54:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The proposals intend to help subsidize the *services provided*, not the belief systems of the providers.
I am not referring to the intention. I am referring to the possible public perception.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 13:45:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hi Valiant,
There is another aspect to this whole debate that I haven't gotten much feedback on yet. There are religious institutions with well established social services and there are those who WILL establish social services IF they get Congressional dollars.
So, what is the criteria for dispensing money to a religious institution with no track record in social services? I'm not picking on Wicca, per se. I mean ANYONE who wants a piece of the Federal pie without established credentials.
I would think that any social service provider would have to get the proper licensure (especially for day care). I would agree that any social service would have to be overseen by the boards that currently govern them.
In some cases, lack of funding is preventing the religions from setting up such schools and day care centers. There can be no track records for these. I can't help thinking that the services need a chance to prove themselves. Not all religions have the financial assets as the Catholic church. By directing the government to spend money on established programs causes a certian amount of religious discrimination. Only those religions with enough money to independantly provide services will be eligible for funding.
I don't believe the "faith based" initiative is a good way to go. There are too many loopholes for abuse by the religious orginizations and by the government.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 15:49:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would think that any social service provider would have to get the proper licensure (especially for day care). I would agree that any social service would have to be overseen by the boards that currently govern them.
Unfortunately, with the current language of HR7 this is not a requirement! They can discriminate in hiring practices. These people don't need to be licensed. (This was the corellary between Candace Newmaker and this bill - not religion - lack of proper professional training!) Groups like the teen house in Texas could get funding despite being run by a high school drop out fundie who treated these kids cruelly as part of their therapy.
quote:
I don't believe the "faith based" initiative is a good way to go. There are too many loopholes for abuse by the religious orginizations and by the government.
This sums it up nicely.
quote:
So, what is the criteria for dispensing money to a religious institution with no track record in social services? I'm not picking on Wicca, per se. I mean ANYONE who wants a piece of the Federal pie without established credentials.
There aren't any criterea. It is subject to a funding comittee. This is based on the comittees opinion.
quote:
Any evidence here on refusal of services? I have to admit that I've never heard of this happening: withholding aid until conversion.
Again, this is something that I've not heard of. If you don't mind telling, which organization(s) required that you convert first?
Except for one item: how is it 'forced religion' if seeking aid is a voluntary act?
There aren't any. The bill hasn't passed yet. The point is the current language of the bill will allow this type of discrimination. Paraphrasing here....If an individual doesn't like the program they can choose another program. However, the individual may not like the program because of the prevelance of the religious messages espoused by that *faith based* organization. These are intended for use by individuals who are incapable of seeking/paying for these services on their own. What choice are you giving them besides religion? NONE!
quote:
I can imagine lots of situations even worse than this one...but neither my imagination nor yours is the issue. I simply asked in what way(s) it is worse to have a client fed/counseled/assisted by an already-existing group than by a governmental group that may not exist right now.
Its in the current language of the bill. The language allows for discrimination. What if Pat's marriage counseling center is the only one this woman can reach. She and her husband are ordered to recieve counseling. What help is it to her? It's only reinforcing the criminal acts commited by the husband. This is hypothetical becuase the bill has not been passed.
quote:
The Catholics aren't using public money, are they? It's THEIR money raised through private donations. But, following your line of reasoning, let's suspend any further expenditures of money whose sole function is to honor, inspire and educate people. We really don't need monuments, museums or concert halls. They don't feed people. The return on investment in terms of social advancement can't be scientifically measured.
Hell's Bells, Trish. I've written many checks to the Southern Poverty Law Center. But despite my pleadings, they STILL haven't installed a stain-glassed window with my name on it. *heavy sigh*
 OK. I see your point. But the amount of money spend by many religious organizations in their worship space is immense. My point was that much of the money could be better spent. Why the $5,000 model v the $500 model - especially if they look the same? Sorry, it seems a waste of money. Though the artist concepts of the space are neat architecture.
I do support some religious endeavors on my own. I donate to the annual fundraising campaign for St Judes Childrens Hospital in Memphis. They only raise funds once a year and receive medical research grants. But - they turn no child away based on any religious preference, ability of the parents to pay, with or without insurance. They share their research with every childrens hospital around the world. They support the families of children in the hospital by providing them a place to live while their children are being treated.
Similarly, I also support Jewish Memorial Childrens Research Center for the same reasons. These organizations are well worth the effort to help provide support.
HR 7 as it is now presents an unpalitable alternative to providing these service via governmental agencies. Don't these already exist to some extent or in some part? This initiative muddies and blurs the line of church and state separation. If it's a non-religious organization seeking governmental funding all individual must be qualified professionals and the organization must comply with all governmental regulations and laws including the US Civil Code. This allows religious organizations to use federal tax money and deny the civil rights of individuals. They can deny hiring based on whatever criteria they set! They can deny service based on whatever criteria they set! This is the way the bill is written! They can deny funding to a protected religious group because the comittee doesn't like their particular teaching! This is wrong! This bill is horribly worded with way too many problems!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 21:33:34 [Permalink]
|
A response in several parts, due to length.
quote:
quote:
I would think that any social service provider would have to get the proper licensure (especially for day care). I would agree that any social service would have to be overseen by the boards that currently govern them.
Unfortunately, with the current language of HR7 this is not a requirement! They can discriminate in hiring practices. These people don't need to be licensed. (This was the corellary between Candace Newmaker and this bill - not religion - lack of proper professional training!) Groups like the teen house in Texas could get funding despite being run by a high school drop out fundie who treated these kids cruelly as part of their therapy.
OK...I'm sitting here now in a MEGO-induced stupor...I've read the whole blasted thing several times through in one sitting, specifically looking for the clause which states that licensure is not a requirement. I can't find it. (If I've missed it, will you point it out? Subsection notation will be close enough; line number won't be necessary.)
I think Valiant Dancer is correct; just as now, the organizations that would receive subsidies under this proposal *would* (and should) be required the same licensure/certification that is now necessary for operation in the public sector.
Of course, there will be some groups which do not operate under these guidelines. They receive no assistance now; I see nothing in the resolution to show me that this would change.
I *did* find, under Section 1994A, subsection c, part 1A, the following:quote:
INCLUSION - For any program described in paragraph (4) that is carried out by the Federal Government, or by a State or local government with Federal funds, the government shall consider, on the same basis as other nongovernmental organizations, religious organizations to provide the assistance under the program, if the program is implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.
(Emphasis mine) |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 21:33:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Any evidence here on refusal of services? I have to admit that I've never heard of this happening: withholding aid until conversion.
Again, this is something that I've not heard of. If you don't mind telling, which organization(s) required that you convert first?
Except for one item: how is it 'forced religion' if seeking aid is a voluntary act?
There aren't any. The bill hasn't passed yet. The point is the current language of the bill will allow this type of discrimination. Paraphrasing here....If an individual doesn't like the program they can choose another program. However, the individual may not like the program because of the prevelance of the religious messages espoused by that *faith based* organization. These are intended for use by individuals who are incapable of seeking/paying for these services on their own. What choice are you giving them besides religion? NONE!
Again, I can find nothing in my reading of the resolution to back up this claim that the bill would allow discrimination. I did, however, find this:quote:
IN GENERAL - If an individual described in paragraph (3) has an objection to the religious character of the organization from which the individual receives, or would receive, assistance funded under any program described in subsection (c)(4), the appropriate Federal, State, or local governmental entity shall provide to such individual (if otherwise eligible for such assistance) within a reasonable period of time after the date of such objection, assistance that --
(A) is an alternative, including a nonreligious alternative, that is accessible to the individual; and
(B) has a value that is not less than the value of the assistance that the individual would have received from such organization.
(Section 1994A, subsection f, part 1)
and this:quote:
NONDISCRIMINATION AGAINST BENEFICIARIES -
(1) GRANTS AND CONTRACTS - A religious organization providing assistance through a grant or contract under a program described in subsection (c)(4) shall not discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an individual described in subsection (f)(3)on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief.
(2) INDIRECT FORMS OF DISBURSEMENT - A religious organization providing assistance through a voucher, certificate, or other form of indirect disbursement under a program described in subsection (c)(4) shall not discriminate, in carrying out the program, against an individual described in subsection (f)(3) on the basis of religion, a religious belief, or a refusal to hold a religious belief.
(Section 1994A, subsection g)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
