|
|
|
JRB
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
 Posted - 07/11/2001 : 12:20:46 [Permalink]
|
I've read (in the Secular Humanist newsletter) that even Pat Robertson is against this initiative.
At first, he was for it, and then reversed his stance.
Why?
Because he realized that non-Christian organizations would be eligible for funds.
The whole situation is sad, even more so because the Christian leadership thinks it has dominion over helping the needy.
So, if they can't be the only ones helping out, then nobody should.
You'd think after 1000's of years of killing in the name of religion, they would get a clue and try to work together for a change.
Note:I added my name to the "Day That Counts" petition, and am against the whole faith-based initiative thing.
"Dear God. We paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."
~Bart Simpson saying grace |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 23:33:35 [Permalink]
|
The following are some organizations available to receive funds from the federal government should Dubya's Faith Based Initiative pass. No where, have I read in HR 7, that all organizations offering counselling services or other types of services to the public are required to be certified or lisenced in their respective feilds. The language of the bill is such that any individual hired by the religious organization is subject only to that organizations specified hiring practices. Since the government refuses to apply the US Civil Code and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to religious organizations. The bill specifically says religious organizations are exempt as they have always been from these two sets of laws regarding hiring practices.
These peices are excerpted from AANews:
-------------------------------------------------
In one, the New York Times has unearthed evidence of how faith-based organizations funded with state grants in New Jersey and New York continue to blatantly promote religion. Government authorities seem oblivious to the problem, or unwilling to enforce any regulations that public money be used only for the secular component of any social outreach. This raises questions of whether it is even possible to segregate public funds from the sectarian mission that religious groups carry out; and it is cause for concern about President Bush's federal faith-based initiative which he vigorously promoted over the July 4th weekend with a high-profile visit to Philadelphia. We also cover a breaking story where five workers at a "Christian Academy" -- identified inaccurately in wire service reports as a "community center," not a religious school -- have been charged with forcing children to stand in a manure pit as punishment. * While state funds support a number of social services administered by religious groups in New York and New Jersey, at least some of those programs use proselytizing, prayer and sectarian instruction as part of their outreach program. "Religion," says Times writer Iver Peterson, "is an integral part of how they operate." -- A spokeswoman at one Lutheran Home for Children declared, "We are all Christians here," and said "we want these children to understand that this is a religious program. We're not just doing a job, we're doing a ministry." This woman also distributes "children's Bibles" to youngsters under her care -- blue for the boys, pink Bibles for the girls. It is not mentioned if these, too, are paid for with government funds. -- A nun who manages a publicly financed shelter for homeless and abused moms said that "she will preach to the women if they'll listen." There are no prohibitions on this religious exploitation, though, of vulnerable women who are victims of spousal or boyfriend abuse and are obviously at a critical point in their lives. * Andy Williams, identified as chief spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that he was "surprised" to find that contractual grant agreements with religious organizations are identical to those signed by secular providers, and that "No contract language specifically forbids proselytizing or evangelizing with the public dollar." A coordinator for Catholic Charities for the Diocese of Rockville Center on Long Island, Scott Stepp said he assumed the language was in the contracts, but then admitted: "The sense that I get from people here is that there aren't these clauses ... about religious practices. What we get are the same basic boilerplate contracts than any secular social service provider would get."
-------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the president of Lutheran Social Ministries for New Jersey said that any prohibition against the use of using tax dollars to underwrite religious activities was simply a "gentleman's agreement." Rev. Roger L. Arnholt added that religion was the "framing" for his group's $14.5 million worth of public social work contracts. "If our word did not come out of an understanding of what it means to be a child of God, I think our board would say that we don't have any reason to exist." * In New Jersey, the Department of Human Services is already paying out $113 million a year in contracts to religious groups to operate social services. That's 10% of the total welfare budget, similar to the percentage in Connecticut. The Times added that according to Bill Van Slyke, deputy commissioner for public affairs at the New York State Office for Children and Family Services, the agency "does not even distinguish between its religious and its secular social service contractors, making it all but impossible to separate either the dollar value or the number of contracts with church entities..." * David C. Heins, director of the New Jersey Human Services Department's Division on Family Development cagily avoided the use of terms like "religion" and said that faith-based groups bring a "value structure" to the programs they operate. "We not only engage with the faith community because they provide a service, but because they also express a particular value in their outlook toward life and caring for people," Heins added.
-------------------------------------------------
AANEWS has covered a number of stories concerning abuse -- particularly of children -- at religion-based institutions. Recently, we reported on developments at the Roloff compound outside of Corpus Christi, Texas, where police last spring raided the Anchor Home for Boys amidst allegations of child abuse, and similar outrageous examples of "Bible discipline" at an Atlanta, GA. church. A "supervisor" for that Texas institution was convicted of several charges, and among other sentencing requirements was told to finally obtain a GED certificate since he did not even possess a complete high school education. Even without the GED, though, this individual could head, or be hired by a religion-based social provider seeking government funds under President Bush's faith-based initiative scheme. Like the revelations in the New York Times, there are powerful indications that religious groups ostensibly providing "services" to children are immune from much government oversight. These sects are often in full mental and physical control of the youngsters in their care. Should public funding aid these groups, or be used to expand their outreaches? Last Friday in Missouri, five workers at a center for troubled youngsters were charged with forcing the children in their care to stand in a pit filled with cow manure as punishment for minor infractions, including fighting, talking and being "disrespectful" to their overseers. The eleven youths ranged in age from 13 to 15. An Associated Press story said that the incident took place at Sharpe Farms and the Heartland Community Center. In fact, the alleged manure pit punishment involves Heartland Christian Academy in rural northeastern Missouri, an institution founded by insurance millionaire Charles Sharpe. Workers at a dairy farmed owned by Sharpe reported that they saw youngsters being forced to stand in manure, in some cases up to their chests, and another child smeared with the unpleasant residue from head to toe. Sharpe told reporters, "We don't abuse children." His Christian Academy works with about 200 youngsters from around the country. According to at least one news account, Sharpe admitted to the manure punishment, but said that it was stopped six weeks ago.
-------------------------------------------------
On Monday, Sharpe answered the charges by filing a lawsuit under the aegis of Heartland Academy Community Church and CNS International Ministries, two groups he heads. The lawsuit is directed against Lewis County and its Sheriff, Patricia McAfee, and Michael Waddle, chief juvenile o |
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2001 : 23:48:21 [Permalink]
|
Had some problem logging on here this morning but finally made it.
Picked this link up this a.m. thru another e-group here in Austin. Jeff Dee, quoted below, is a local good guy here. Has a Austin Atheist TV program on Sunday evenings.
Imagine that! Atheists on the toob! The program had been nicely juxtaposed during Sunday mornings.
Jeff made a trip up to D.C. for the pre-event yesterday and was actually quoted in the W.Times.....
-----------------------------------------------------------
ATHEISTS BLAST FAITH-BASED INITIATIVE
Emily Rahe
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atheist and other secularist groups announced plans yesterday to
flood Congress on July 17 with e-mail, letters and telephone calls against
President Bush's faith-based initiative.
"The Day That Counts" initiative, led by Madalyn Murray O'Hair's
former group American Atheists, encourages nonreligious citizens to contact
members of Congress to oppose what the groups deem to be a "religion tax"
imposed on Americans.
The groups have an array of complaints against the initiative, but
collectively agree that it is unjust and a violation of the First Amendment
clause barring the establishment of religion.
"Justice and logic and history and religious freedom and our
Constitution all make it clear that it is simply wrong to take money away
from people with no religion and use it to pay for advancing any religion,"
Ed Buckner, the executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism,
said at a news conference yesterday at the National Press Club. "No tax
support of religion can be justified. Not now, not ever."
Added Jeff Dee of the Atheist Community of Austin: "It is wrong
because it gives your tax dollars to groups whose stated goal is to convert
your children, your friends, and your neighbors to religious viewpoints
which may oppose your own.
"Of course those groups are free to try and persuade others to agree
with them, but the government is not free to give them your tax dollars to
help them do it," Mr. Dee said.
A spokeswoman for Rep. Tony P. Hall, Ohio Democrat and primary
co-sponsor of the House version of Mr. Bush's plan, called such opposition
to the proposal on church-state grounds unfounded.
Rep. J.C. Watts, Oklahoma Republican and the principal author of the
bill, "took great pains to ensure that this does not violate the
Constitution in any way," said Deborah De Young, a special assistant to Mr.
Hall. "The more people that start thinking this through on their own, the
more likely they are to come to the conclusion that this proposal has a lot
of promise and is not at all risky."
A number of groups said the initiative inherently discriminates on
the basis of religion by using a "religious litmus test" to distribute
federal funds.
David Silverman, the president of the Alliance of Lucent and AT&T
Atheists and Secularists, said the plan promotes and practices bigotry,
discriminating against groups that don't "believe in the right religion."
Ron Barrier, the national spokesman for American Atheists, called the
plan an "insidious conspiracy to rape both the Constitution and the
American public."
"Religion is a multibillion-dollar marketing and recruiting
juggernaut with a singularity of purpose that would make the Borg envious,"
he said, referring to the hive-minded race depicted in some of the "Star
Trek" series.
The groups also said the initiative's administrators will not enforce
regulations on the participating religious groups for fear of appearing to
attack ministers.
"Our leaders refuse to hold religious groups and leaders
accountable," said Stuart Bechman of the Atheist Alliance International.
"Before we open up our public purse to outside groups, we should expect our
leaders to find strong evidence that potential recipients are deserving,
willing and capable of the mission they are asked to deliver."
The coalition has a Web site, www.thedaythatcounts.com, devoted to
publicizing the campaign. The groups said yesterday that about 2,000 people
have already signed an online "statement of personal endorsement"
supporting their efforts. Group organizers say there are about 27 million
atheists or other nonreligious people in the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This article was mailed from The Washington Times
(http://www.washtimes.com/national/20010711-3162328.htm) For more great
articles, visit us at http://www.washtimes.com
Copyright (c) 2001 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 18:56:22 [Permalink]
|
More on how our moral, upright, compassionate ape of a President intends to pay off his fundy buddies for getting him appointed to his present job.
http://www.au.org/press/pr8601.htm
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 19:27:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
More on how our moral, upright, compassionate ape of a President intends to pay off his fundy buddies for getting him appointed to his present job. ...
Normally I don't respond to egregious ad hominem attacks, but this is ridiculous.
Yes, he seems to be moral, upright and compassionate, as much as we are able to see. Calling him an 'ape' belittles you, not he...nor was he appointed by any fundamentalist buddies. He was elected by our Constitution-based electoral college.
Personally, I'm happy to see *anyone* in that office other than the adulterous perjurer who was there previously, but that's my opinion.
As to the article on the AU website, I've read both it and the World article it refers to, and I see little in the World article to justify what seems like hype in the AU work. Both are from biased sources, and I'm certain that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 20:45:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Normally I don't respond to egregious ad hominem attacks, but this is ridiculous.
Personally, I'm happy to see *anyone* in that office other than the adulterous perjurer who was there previously, but that's my opinion.
completly agree on first, i, on the other hand, miss slick willie. i think bush has a prettly low regard for the first amendment.
in my opinion, very moral people generally want to limit the freedom of the less moral of us.
i don't share the president's faith and its damned unconstitutional for the United States Government to fund his religious ideals.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2001 : 21:38:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
in my opinion, very moral people generally want to limit the freedom of the less moral of us.
At the risk of starting a long drawn out thread, define "moral". Do you lie, cheat, steal, commit assault, or drown puppies for entertainment? Persons of certain faiths would indeed define many on this board as "less moral", only because of a difference of faith (or lack thereof). I ain't buying it. From cruising this board alone, there's quite a few differnt belief systems/lifestyles represented. I certainly wouldn't define anyone here as immoral. (Caustic and sarcastic, yes)
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 04:17:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Normally I don't respond to egregious ad hominem attacks, but this is ridiculous.
I was not arguing ad hominem, I was simply stating my opinion of the man himself (obviously loaded with sarcasm)and not arguing against his policies. The link was attached so that one could make up ones own mind about that. The policy should stand on it's own merit. The article states that the administration knows full well and is willing to help with proslytising efforts. This being the case, the President is knowingly asking the American people to fund religious prosyletising while telling them to their face that he's working to make sure that it doesn't happen. What would you call that?
quote:
Yes, he seems to be moral, upright and compassionate, as much as we are able to see. Calling him an 'ape' belittles you, not he
Let's see, DUI, AWOL, joking about executing people, removing the US from every international human rights and non proliferation initiative,... I thought that I was being kind calling him an ape.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2001 : 08:41:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
in my opinion, very moral people generally want to limit the freedom of the less moral of us.
At the risk of starting a long drawn out thread, define "moral".
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done
moral=bible believing christian for the purposes of my argument. thus, i as a non-believer am destined for hell, while the liar, cheat or murderer who is "born again" spends eternity in heaven.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
