Removing the barriers between church and state.

blatham, My attempt with the thread is that if we go down the road of "faith based iniative" there is going to be somebody saying no. It is when this starts happening, the discriminations and biases will begin again. The government must set down the rules, when rules are meet - money must be given out. No selective deciding allowed. Think this will happen - not a chance!

Attention all:

Debate guidelines for the Politics Forum have now been put in place. Please read and abide by them.
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2594

This is a bit of a misnomer IMO. Money DOESN'T have to be given out.

If the Congress decides they want to allocate $3 Billion towards addressing "Homelessness" then the $3 Billion is what there is. The Government's responsibility to decide where those homeless are and how to address their needs in the most efficient manner and rules for what standard must be met for a program to determine success.

If program "A" can eliminate homelessness at a cost of $1,000/person and program "B" can get the same results at a cost of $700/person then program "B" should be getting the funds simply because they can address more people with the total expenditure allowed.

The fact that a program can meet the definition for success doesn't automatically mean they will, or should, get government funds and more than the fact that 2 stores sell the same item so you are required to buy that item from both. Saying "No" to a group doesn't automatically mean there is a bias. It should mean that that group isn't the most efficient in doing the job.

The flap over "faith based' groups is a lot of nothing on all sides. The Federal Government HAS BEEN funding faith based groups all along. They given direct grants to the Salvation Army every year as well as to the United Way which then passes the money on to MANY "faith based" groups. Setting up the Federal grant system so that a group doesn't qualify just because the group originated from a religious setting is just as much a form of discrimination and/or bias as any other.

Might I suggest this article from the New York Review of Books on Marvin Olasky and his relationship to the President.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/13857

denying access on basis of religion?
I fail to see the concern over a policy that simply allows faith-based charities regardless of religious affiliation to compete with secular charities for the same funds.

Of course, the feds shouldn't be involved in charity in the first place, but since they are it seems to me to be wrong for them to deny an organization funds to do "work X" simply because the organization is affiliated with a religious group.

Pretend we're talking about individuals competing for a government grant here. Would you advocate denying access to the grant to an individual simply on the basis of his or her religious beliefs? How then do we justify doing the same thing on a group basis?

TW, i think you are missing the point that religious organizations will be permitted to discriminate in hiring on the basis of "faith" while receiving federal funds. This crosses a definite line, and seems to conflict with the clause: ". . . or prohibit the free exercise thereof [i.e., religion] . . ." in that federal dollars ARE involved. Whereas the case might be made that a religious group should be free to discriminate on that basis with regard to their private activities, once they receive federal tax dollars, their activities are no longer private, and become the business of every taxpayer.

And what is to stop those faith based groups from using Federal funding to promote their own particular religious views?

trespassers will: WELCOME

Welcome, tresspassers will. Glad to see you here. Bounce around on the Forums ... you're bound to find lots of stuff to engage you, and feel free to fire up a thread or two of your own.



timber

A very thorny problem indeed, and one which calls the question of legislating the activities of a religious entity ... slippery slope stuff.



timber

Couldn't agree more, Boss--such "slippery slope" stuff needs to be debated, loudly and over time, in the most public of fora . . .

So the faith based charities are receiving government money -- sounds like forcing chartible contributions to me. There's a contradiction there somewhere....

I posted this on the,dare I say it, the Abuzz some time ago:


Is Bush subsidizing bigotry?

THE ORIGINAL POLICY was the handiwork of A. Philip Randolph. In 1941, Randolph,
president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, threatened a march on Washington to
protest discrimination against blacks in the armed forces and the defense industry. To
avert the march, President Roosevelt agreed to sign an executive order banning workplace
discrimination in the defense industry based on ?race, creed, color, or national origin.?
Roosevelt subsequently broadened the ban to include all federal contractors, and the
policy was further expanded by Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Here is the policy?s final
iteration, in a 1965 executive order issued by President Johnson:
The [federal] contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated
during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.

DISCRIMINATION AND CREED
Bush?s new executive order in effect says that if the federal contractor is a
religious charity, it may now discriminate based on creed, but not based on race, color,
or national origin. Religious groups are already forbidden to discriminate based on sex
under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Bush executive order would essentially
bring federally subsidized religious charities in line with the requirements of the 1964
law, which allows religious charities that aren?t federally subsidized to discriminate
based on religion, but not based on race, color, national origin, or sex. (Prior to Bush?s
executive order, a religious charity could take federal dollars, but only if it agreed,
like Catholic Charities USA, to hire on a non-religious basis.)
At first blush, the Bush policy seems perfectly reasonable. Why shouldn?t
government-funded religious charities be allowed to favor members of their own religion
when hiring, firing, and promoting? If the good works such charities perform are motivated
by a strong sense of religious purpose, it would seem foolish to dilute that. The American
Civil Liberties Union is currently exercised about the fact that a Jewish psychotherapist
named Alan Yorker was denied employment at the United Methodist Children?s Home in
Decatur, Ga., which gets 40 percent of its funding from the state, for the sole reason
that he is Jewish. So what? The government doesn?t withhold grant money from Mount Holyoke
on the grounds that it won?t admit men. Why should it withhold grant money from a
Christian charity on the grounds that it won?t hire Jews?

So much for Bush's faith based initiatives and his attack on separation of church and
state.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/851260.asp?0si=-

it just gets more and more confusing to me:

Students turn to book of law when Bible club denied
Louisville school's 'discriminatory' action leads to suit

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
January 7, 2003


Two students sued the Boulder Valley School District on Monday after they were denied permission to start a Bible club at Monarch High School.

Ashley Thiele, a senior, and Amy Duvall, a freshman, proposed a club at the Louisville school that would "teach students biblical principles that will help them in life."

The proposal was turned down in November by Superintendent George Garcia.

In a letter to the girls' attorney, Garcia cited a policy limiting clubs to subjects related to the curriculum.

What do you find confusing about that suit dyslexia? As long as the school is enforcing the policy equeally they are allowed to deny the use of the building...

Setanta - No, I didn't miss that point, I don't think it's valid. Religious schools receive government money and are free to hire as appropriate to their beliefs. The law doesn't prohibit hiring decisions based on race, gender, or religious belief if that attribute has a direct bearing on the position being filled.

For example, a female acquaintance of mine used to work as a counselor for female prisoners at the local jail. She decided to have a gender-change operation, and afterwards reported back to work. She was fired. When she took her former employer to court, the judge ruled against her. the position was for a woman. Since she had chosen to become a man, she was no longer qualified in that regard.

Understand that she was fired based on her gender, and it was a legitimate action, because the job required a specific gender. Likewise, some positions within a faith-based organization would require a person of that faith. Others might not. I'm inclined to believe that any position wherein the person would be doing work funded by government monies shouldn't require the person be of the faith of the organization.

I'm also unaware of what the specific rules are for hiring decisions within any faith-based organization receiving federal monies, and I suspect you are as well.

The same thing that stops a worker at a secular-based agency from proselytizing: the law.

fishin" first of all i have to state that i am totally against any religious context in a public school, but it gets kinda fuzzy when at that same school there is a "gay-straight" group which is protected as being in the "health" cirriculum. i dont think these issues are as clear cut as they might be presented.

Lightwizard - What are government social programs if not forced charitable contributions by taxpayers? Or is an activity only charitable when performed by someone other than the government?

the obvious difference is the allowability to discriminate.