|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
 Posted - 07/05/2001 : 21:33:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
See above, Section 1994A, Subsection f, part 1.quote:
...They can deny service based on whatever criteria they set! This is the way the bill is written!
Again, I can't find this in the resolution. Where do you see this?
|
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 22:43:13 [Permalink]
|
My last words on this topic (I will be unavailable for a while).
While private and religious groups may provide social services that are equivalent to or even superior to current government run services. These groups also may or may not be able to perform these services for less money than currently spent. This is all irrelevant to my argument, that the government should not only not promote a specific religious belief, it should not promote religious belief (faith) at all. All of the hype comming from the administration is that 'faith' based services are cheaper and superior to secular government run services. I think @tomic said it best when he said that it was all a matter of (public) perception.
Just some food for thought.
Zandermann, you've done your homework on this issue as it pertains to the bill's wording. A question though. I see from your posts that the bill is quite clear as to protecting against discrimination toward clients. Also, different groups are going to provide the same services in different ways. Is not the enforcment of regulations (the wording that you provided is clearly regulatory) as well as the determination of the effectiveness of each different group's services going to require the creation of a whole new layer of beurocracy? Remember, this initiative is not designed to replace the entirety of social services provided by the government but only some, as well as supplementing others. The effectiveness of different methods of providing social service needs to be determined and monitored since we don't want to waste money on ineffective methods.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 00:59:54 [Permalink]
|
Since everyone else has already stated my own views about the bill as a whole, I will provide an argument even against the good part of it:
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)
Hmm. This sounds like the mandatory "concession to atheists," but I don't like it. How is it decided if someone is eligible? Who decides what is a reasonable period of time? How accessible will the paperwork be to inform the government that you have an objection? Have you ever tried to route paperwork through governmental institutions? It takes a long time, and will (more often that should be acceptable) sometimes get lost in the shuffle.
-Timmy! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 01:56:02 [Permalink]
|
Now that young Megan has her first job, and is seeing part of her paycheck disappear every week, she's become a little more interested where the money goes. We were discussing the faith based controversy tonight, and I did my best to explain. She said, and I quote: "that's the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. Can I write to this Shrub dude?"
From the mouth of babes, etc. BTW, her stepmom and I will proof any missives before she mails them. Don't need the secret service on our doorsteps.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 02:23:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't need the secret service on our doorsteps.
No that you mention it, I would appreciate it if someone would create a diversion and get them out of the bushes so I can make a break for it.....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 02:25:44 [Permalink]
|
I have a small dog that bites.
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 22:40:00 [Permalink]
|
the bush administration is a captive of the religious right. W wants you to embrace jesus as your personal savior. I am surprised that the ashcroft wing of the administration has not yet pushed for school prayer and teaching of creationism as though it were science.
Face facts, W is a religious nut and is even more out of touch with normal people than anyone previously suspected.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 18:21:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Greg) While private and religious groups may provide social services that are equivalent to or even superior to current government run services. These groups also may or may not be able to perform these services for less money than currently spent. This is all irrelevant to my argument, that the government should not only not promote a specific religious belief, it should not promote religious belief (faith) at all.
Agreed, Greg...but let me point out that the intent of this proposal is not to promote religious belief (in fact, it says that both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause must be maintained) but merely to assist subsidizing the social programs.quote:
(Greg) All of the hype comming from the administration is that 'faith' based services are cheaper and superior to secular government run services.
It is my opinion that 'hype' is a loaded term here...but I must also say that I do not recall reading anything about "cheaper and superior". Perhaps I've not done enough reading; when you return, could you direct me to a source? I haven't been able to find one in any of the news services I've tried.quote:
(Greg) ...Is not the enforcment of regulations (the wording that you provided is clearly regulatory) as well as the determination of the effectiveness of each different group's services going to require the creation of a whole new layer of beurocracy? Remember, this initiative is not designed to replace the entirety of social services provided by the government but only some, as well as supplementing others. The effectiveness of different methods of providing social service needs to be determined and monitored since we don't want to waste money on ineffective methods.
Oh yes...I foresee an immense new layer of govt bureaucracy, should this resolution be implemented. That's my major problem with this proposal. In my opinion, we should not be bloating the federal bureaucracy any further; I'm in favor of streamlining.
Boron10: I agree, the paperwork trail is going to be next to unmanageable in the short term, as well as requiring immense amount of oversight. For that reason, I prefer the status quo...some govt programs, some private.quote:
(Lisa) ...We (Lisa and Megan) were discussing the faith based controversy tonight, and I did my best to explain. She said, and I quote: "that's the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. Can I write to this Shrub dude?"
From the mouth of babes, etc. ...
I've said in other places before how I admire your taking Megan under your wing. However, I feel the need to stick my nose in and express the hope that you're not allowing her to 'take your word for it' without checking other sources. No criticism implied here.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 20:39:43 [Permalink]
|
Not too long ago there were a bunch of laws in the southern US designed to disenfranchise African-American voters. Do you think those laws were called the African-American Disenfranchisement Act?
You don't always and probably don't want to spell out the intent of some laws if they are obviously skirting the edges of constitutionality.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2001 : 21:43:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Not too long ago there were a bunch of laws in the southern US designed to disenfranchise African-American voters. Do you think those laws were called the African-American Disenfranchisement Act?
You don't always and probably don't want to spell out the intent of some laws if they are obviously skirting the edges of constitutionality.
Of course not. But since there's nothing in this resolution that skirts the edges of constitutionality, that shouldn't be a problem.
Please notice, when you read (or reread) the resolution, that there is nothing in there regarding establishment of a state religion, nor is there anything in there to suggest that the practice of religion (or lack of practice of any religion) is to be infringed.
Those are the constitutional issues here.
The proposal is simply to assist social programs. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2001 : 18:10:29 [Permalink]
|
Just to pass along some information....There's a July 10th Press Conference promoting "The Day That Counts" event. It could be covered by CSPAN possibly starting around noontime. May want to set your VCRs.
"The primary purpose of 'The Day That Counts' event is to motivate the approximately twenty-seven million non-theists in America, urging them to contact their President, their Congressional representative, and their US Senators on July 17, 2001. It's a day to speak out in one thundering voice from coast to coast, stating our personal opposition to President Bush's use of government monies for "faith-based initiatives". We want millions of faxes, phone calls, and letters flooding into the nation's capital. It's essential that every non-theist is heard loud and clear!"
Visit the below website about the "The Day That Counts" event and what you can do to best make your voice heard.
http://www.thedaythatcounts.org/
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 23:32:30 [Permalink]
|
Thanks Randy! This is an important issue. There are already several *faith based initiatives* in practice in some states. The faith based organizations have failed to not use the tax money received for proselytization. With many of the organizations receiving funds calling it only a *gentlemans agreement*. Somehow implying they are not required to stand by their word on this issue. Many have veiwed this as a dimishing of their capability of providing service - if they can't proselytize while offering *community services* to the disenfranchised of our country.
This from HR 7 regarding hiring practices for religious organizations:
`(e) EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES-
`(1) IN GENERAL- In order to aid in the preservation of its religious character, a religious organization that provides assistance under a program described in subsection (c)(4) may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, require that its employees adhere to the religious practices of the organization.
`(2) TITLE VII EXEMPTION- The exemption of a religious organization provided under section 702 or 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1, 2000e-2(e)(2)) regarding employment practices shall not be affected by the religious organization's provision of assistance under, or receipt of funds from, a program described in subsection (c)(4).
`(i) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES- No funds provided through a grant or contract to a religious organization to provide assistance under any program described in subsection (c)(4) shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. A certificate shall be signed by such organizations and filed with the government agency that disbursed the funds that gives assurance the organization will comply with this subsection.
`(k) TREATMENT OF INTERMEDIATE CONTRACTORS- If a nongovernmental organization (referred to in this subsection as an `intermediate contractor'), acting under a contract or other agreement with the Federal Government or a State or local government, is given the authority under the contract or agreement to select nongovernmental organizations to provide assistance under the programs described in subsection (c)(4), the intermediate contractor shall have the same duties under this section as the government when selecting or otherwise dealing with subcontractors, but the intermediate contractor, if it is a religious organization, shall retain all other rights of a religious organization under this section.
They are talking here about the fact that religious organizations are not bound by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal money will go to support organizations that may discriminate against workers. I can find no mention of those hired by these organizations having no other qualifications than those set by the religious organization. Which means, that a counselling center does not have to hire qualified counsellors to receive federal money under HR7.
A piece of paper is all that stands between the religious dogma of an organization and the views of the client. This is insufficient. This will not stop right wing extremists from forcing their views upon those who do not believe as they do. In addition, US Civil Code is also ignored in that the organization does not have to remove their religious symbols and sayings from the space used for the service. This is in effect creating an environment that promotes the use of signs to promote the religious views of the organization. I'm sorry, but I as much despise being told I am going to burn in hell as I do having to read that filth.
The main proponent of this bill, President Bush, believes that only through faith in the Judeo-Christian God can we solve the problems facing America today. There's a fundie in the White House.
This bill doesn't skirt constitutionality it obliterates the issue. Among many of the founding fathers there was the opinion that the state should take care of the citizens by providing a standing army and that the church by the providence of its members should support the community. We saw this deteriorate with the New Deal during the 30s. Though this action did much to relieve many Americans and my grandmother chewed my hide for saying anything against the New Deal which put my grandfather to work and saved the grandparents farm.
However, when the government took on the responsibilty of providing for the disenfranchised members of our society they did so without crossing this line separating church and state. Why has it now become necessary to attempt to blur this line even further by the Charitable Choice Act of 2001? Simply because the man in the White House believes and has always believed that only through the Judeo-Christian God can any civic good be done. Several religious organizations have stood against HR 7. Citing as their reasons the separation of church and state the obvious right wing leanings of the current administration and the obvious questionability of who decides how the money is disbursed. There is the potential here for the discrimination of several groups that offer services of not receiving funding based on the fact that they may be *objectionable* to those deciding how the proposed 80 billion dollars for this will be disbursed.
As I've pointed out before there are several service organizations that raise their entire operating budgets through private grants and fund raising drives. If services are that important to an organization then let that organization move to raise private funds instead of looking to the government for supplementation. It is possible to raise funds for these institutions without government involvement.
This resolution is entirely too open to abuse and misuse by faith based organizations that have already proven they are unwilling to stop proselytizing those who use their services despite receiving public monies and their agreements not to use those monies for conversion.
You are talking about faith based organizations attempting to provide services to individuals who are at a point in their life when they are suseptible to outside influences. It is extremely easy to take a person (man, woman or child) who has been told they are worthless all their lives and tell them they are capable of finding that worth through the love of this so called loving judeo-xian god. Then tell them they have to give over 10 or 20% of their income and somehow god is more likely to show his appreciation of this sacrifice in other parts of their lives.
Rant against tithing:
Yes this does happen on a daily basis in most churches! Don't even try to tell me it doesn't! They want you to tithe 10% of your resources at my mother's church! I grew up listening to this horribly flawed reasoning. And then people getting up and talking about how tithing changed their lives and the good life started for them after they began tithing. Can you imagine a single parent believing this crap. Barely making it and trying to tithe 10% when that extra 80 bucks a month can go to bills and groceries! Does the church care that this person can barely make ends meet. NO! They don't. Yeah, they offer a lot of services, but I have seen people denied these services at my mom's church because they haven't been tithing. One young mother, (I got involved with the single mothers support group for a bit - until this incident), was having trouble paying her rent and asked the church for emergency funds to pay her rent. Because she hadn't tithed anything to the church she was told that despite being a registered member she couldn't use that service. This is a girl who spend hours at the church and during church functions helping because she felt that she had to do something since she was financially |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/10/2001 : 23:39:56 [Permalink]
|
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/010710/19/news-bush-gays
News Article: Feds Back Off Religion Exemption
By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a fresh controversy over President Bush's
"faith-based initiative," the White House backed away from a
proposal that would have allowed religious groups to receive
federal funds even if they discriminated against gays and lesbians.
Amid intense criticism, officials abruptly ended a review of a
proposed regulation that would have exempted religious groups from
state and local anti-discrimination laws.
The decision came late Tuesday afternoon, hours after Vice
President Dick Cheney and other administration officials said that
churches and other religious groups should be allowed to stick to
their principles in running secular programs with government money.
White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said senior administration
officials reviewed the matter over the course of the day and
concluded that religious groups do not need overt protections in
order to bypass gay-rights hiring laws.
Legislation now pending in Congress - and being pushed hard by
President Bush - makes it clear that any religious group that gets
government money may consider religion in making hiring decisions.
The courts have said this includes one's religious practices - and
for some religions that could mean rejecting job applicants because
they are gay.
"That's when you get into definitions that will ultimately be
decided by the courts," Bartlett said.
He added that the administration was not backing off Cheney's
statement that a group should be allowed to be faithful to its
"underlying principles and organizing doctrines" even when it
accepts government money.
"The charitable choice law provides adequate protections,"
Bartlett said, referring to a law used as a model for Bush's
initiative to allow religious charities a bigger share in providing
federal social services.
The issue was raised by an internal report from the Salvation
Army, the nation's largest charity, which suggested the White House
would put forward the regulation in exchange for support of its
initiative pending in Congress.
White House officials denied the quid pro quo, but said they
were considering the regulation, which would allow religious groups
to bypass local and state laws that bar discrimination against gays
when the groups take federal dollars.
Gay rights groups, Democrats and civil rights organizations
reacted strongly, and by day's end, it was clear that the issue
would mean a new round of controversy for Bush's overall
legislation.
"President Bush regularly talks about seeing into the good
hearts of people. Does he think that gay people do not have the
same good hearts and moral values as others? How else could he
support, in the name of faith, taking a position that values gay
people less than others?" said a statement from Kirsten Kingdon,
executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays.
"It will just deepen opposition and make many of my colleagues
more skeptical," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said before the
White House changed course.
Later, Lieberman's spokesman welcomed the change. "This is a
reassuring signal after a very disturbing signal and hopefully it
means we can now kind of refocus on finding common ground and
strengthening rather than weakening civil rights protections,"
said Dan Gerstein.
Some state and local laws bar discrimination in hiring gays and
lesbians. Others require employers to offer health insurance and
other benefits to the domestic partners of gay employees.
Typically, these laws do not apply to religious groups. But it's
not clear whether groups lose that exemption once they accept
taxpayer dollars.
The Bush administration was considering issuing guidance from
the Office of Management and Budget banning enforcement of these
laws for religious groups that get federal dollars, which often
pass through local and state government.
The Salvation Army report explicitly linked the regulatory
action with the legislation, now pending in the House.
"It is important that the Army's support for the White House's
activities occur simultaneously with efforts to achieve the Army's
objectives," said the document.
It said White House officials wanted to move the legislation
first "and use the political momentum of this" to push through
the regulatory change. And it said White House officials believed a
regulation was better than trying to move separate legislation on
an exemption, "which is more time-consuming and more visible."
It added that the Salvation Army, which operates a national
network of social services, would enlist more than 100 of its
leaders to lobby members of Congress "in a prearranged agreement
with the White House."
The Salvation Army said the report overstated the strategic
relationship between the two issues, though spokesman David Fuscus
said the regulation is needed. "As a church, the Army does insist
that those people who have religious responsibilities, who are
ministers, share the theology and lifestyle of the church."
=====================
http://www.thedaythatcounts.org/organizations.shtml
Edited by - randy on 07/11/2001 00:02:28 |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 05:24:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(Trish) ...There are already several *faith based initiatives* in practice in some states. The faith based organizations have failed to not use the tax money received for proselytization. With many of the organizations receiving funds calling it only a *gentlemans agreement*. Somehow implying they are not required to stand by their word on this issue. ...
Could you provide pointers to whatever information you have on this portion of the question. Who's not following the rules? I'd like to include that information in my letter to my congressman.
Regarding hiring practices: Can anyone here give an example of a public or private organization, anywhere in the country, which is providing professional services (on a level where they're getting reimbursed/supplemented by either public or private funds, like insurance) using staff which is not licensed?quote:
... A piece of paper is all that stands between the religious dogma of an organization and the views of the client. This is insufficient.
Well, a piece of paper, personal and professional integrity, law enforcement, as well as public and private oversight groups might be sufficient.quote:
... This will not stop right wing extremists from forcing their views upon those who do not believe as they do.
As I said earlier, and others have too (I think), "forcing" is a non-issue.quote:
... This bill doesn't skirt constitutionality it obliterates the issue.
Neither...it specifically says the Establishment clause and the Free Expression clause are not to be infringed. Once again, those are the constitutional issues here.quote:
... This resolution is entirely too open to abuse and misuse by faith based organizations...
Agreed; as I've already said, that's my objection to it, that along with the incredible amount of oversight that would be necessary. However, the same potential for abuse now exists in the public programs run by the government.
Trish, I agree with you that HR 7 is a bad idea. The good that these groups do is much better accomplished with use of private funds rather than public. And while there's nothing in the proposal that is against the Constitution, the perception (which is an important point; both TD and Greg have mentioned this) among the general public is that there are grave problems. Please remember, though, that a desire to help other people, as well as referring to one's own religious experiences, does not equate "right-wing extremist".
Thanks for posting that article, Randy...I hope that they continue examining all the ramifications that this resolution will bring to the table.
|
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 08:15:06 [Permalink]
|
It's the day after the "The Day That Counts" big press release. I've been checking abcnews.com, cnn.com, and msnbc.com, not one mention that I can find. 
well I've added my name to their petition, and spread the word to friends on the FACTS board. Lets hope there is enough response on the big day to get attention. Let's clog the white house's fax machines! 
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
