A Center for Public Justice "Guide To Charitable Choice," aimed at prospective faith-based social welfare providers notes: "Participating faith-based organizations, notwithstanding their receipt of federal funds, retain their exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which permits employment discrimination on the grounds of religion."
I truly wasn't trying to bait anyone with that comment about the Catholic Church. The link kind of goes along with what I'm thinking here -- the Faith Based Initiative as far as I've read an interpreted it will be far more instrusive into the books of the organizations. If there is a church that is dominant in a certain area of the country who refuses to comply and doesn't want these funds for various reasons (some of them I wouldn't want to push any hot buttons right now to say what I think) may leave an entire community without the funding and without any government safety net.
au1929 wrote:However the tax dollars are supposedly for secular pursuits such as shelter, food and etc. Why should religion of the care giver be considered? Because along with the services comes a bit of proselytizing. I say not on my tax dollar.
au - You are asserting as a certainty something that is merely possible. A provider might engage in proselytizing, true, but then so might a worker for a secular organization. In the end the issue is with the actions of the workers, not whether the organization is faith-based. You might reasonably argue that you think it more likely with a faith-based agency's worker, but that still doesn't mean we should bar them from competing for funds, it means we should watch what they do with those funds.
Frankly, I'm puzzled that people who share your concern aren't calling on the federal government to fire all workers who are religious. Clearly there is a reasonable concern that these individuals might proselytize on the job, while being paid by the federal government. It would seem consistent with the standard you wish to set for faith-based charitable providers.
Setanta wrote:Well, TW, in the interest of fairness, i did go back to read what you'd written--and remain confident that i've understood what you wrote. Your attempt at a corollary fails, in my estimation, because you seem to think that there is some manner in which a religious organization could claim that participation in the dogma of their faith would be a requisite qualification for hiring someone to dispense federally funded aid.
With respect, you have read, but not understood. For the third time now I will write this again:
I wrote this:
Quote: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.
Do you understand now? I could rewrite it, but I think it's pretty clear.
You complain that you don't think they should look at faith if hiring someone using federal dollars. Is that not exactly what I wrote? Your argument therefor seems completely based on a lack of understanding of my statements, rather than an actual difference of opinion with them.
Hope this clears it up.
i have to say that the most significant problems are in hiring discrimination and provision of services requiring conforming to a religious affirmation. while i support the Salvation Army as one of my few charities i also recognize that they require prayers for meals etc. as long as they are not receiving public dollars i can't complain but that may be a peril if Bush continues his desire for faith based inititives.as faith based social programs continue to seek funding and expanding their provision of services into the realms of child day care, teen outreach, elder care and others, the danger of "crossing the line" consitiutionally is a serious threat.
Setanta wrote:Well, TW, in the interest of fairness, i did go back to read what you'd written--and remain confident that i've understood what you wrote. Your attempt at a corollary fails, in my estimation, because you seem to think that there is some manner in which a religious organization could claim that participation in the dogma of their faith would be a requisite qualification for hiring someone to dispense federally funded aid.
With respect, you have read, but not understood. For the third time now I will write this again:
I wrote this:
Quote: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.
Do you understand now? I could rewrite it, but I think it's pretty clear.
You complain that you don't think they should look at faith if hiring someone using federal dollars. Is that not exactly what I wrote? Your argument therefor seems completely based on a lack of understanding of my statements, rather than an actual difference of opinion with them.
Hope this clears it up.
Lightwizard wrote:I truly wasn't trying to bait anyone with that comment about the Catholic Church.
I didn't take it as bait but it is one institution that can be used as an example.
I don't really understand the comments about the lack of a safety net though. Just as an example, if the Federal government decides it wants to allocate $30 million to help those who are HIV positive they aren't just going to find one group and give then the full $30 million and tell them to address the problem nationally. That has never been the way grants have been distributed before and I don't see why that would ever change.
A typical scenario would be that the government would study the problem and determine the relative population of the HIV positive pepople in each area. Groups within each area where HIV positive populations were identified would would submit their grant applications and the money is supposed to be parsed out amongst several of the applicants in each area based on how many people can be helped throughout their area. In some areas the only groups that may apply might be faith-based. In other areas there might only be secular groups applying.
Yes, if there is NO group whatsoever then there might be a hole but we've had that all along. How does including faith-based groups change what we have now one way or the other?
trespassers will, there are already in the courts cases involving religious service organizations refusing to hire or firing employees for faith based reasons NOT related to the performance of their duties.
as an aside the Republican House today relaxed the ethics rules to allow charities to lobby with gifts including meals and travel for members of the House of Representatives.
By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer
January 7, 2003, 7:07 PM EST
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans unraveled some of their strict ethics rules Tuesday, passing changes that would allow charities to give lawmakers free travel and lodging at resorts and make it easier for lobbyists to send complimentary food to congressional offices.
The move by the Republican leadership was so well hidden that it even caught leaders of the House ethics committee by surprise. A Republican leadership aide called the changes cosmetic, but Democrats characterized them as a serious erosion of ethical standards.
dyslexia wrote:trespassers will, there are already in the courts cases involving religious service organizations refusing to hire or firing employees for faith based reasons NOT related to the performance of their duties.
And you are pointing out that this practice is being challenged in court, so what is the problem? Apparently people are already on their guard and the courts will decide what is acceptable and what is an abuse.
Or is it your contention that if it can be shown that something can be abused, it must not be done?
At the five-year mark of Texas's implementation of the Bush Faith-based Initiative, TFNEF found that "it is impossible to demonstrateĀ
a single positive outcome."
But a number of negative outcomes have been detailed, including:
1. Far from "leveling the playing field," Texas now gives preferential treatment in state contracting to faith-based service providers, often appearing to pass over more experienced and cost effective secular providers in favor of faith-based applicants.
2. Individuals in need have been forced, in some cases by a court order, to seek services from faith-based providers. Individuals under court order have no recourse if they are dissatisfied with such faith-based treatment.
3. As a condition of treatment, individuals in need have been forced to participate in religious activities funded, in part, by taxpayer dollars.
4. Faith-based providers have been given exemptions from state licensing and health and safety standards, allowing some faith-based programs with documented histories of abuse and neglect to continue operating while their clients remain unaware that the program does not meet strict standards.
5. Deregulation of faith-based programs under Bush's initiative has allowed providers to treat physical diseases like alcoholism and drug addiction as "sins" and to refuse to offer individuals medical treatment for these illnesses.
According to TFNEF, these and other consequences of the Faith-based Initiative have caused Texas state lawmakers who formerly supported the initiative to begin reversing course. President Bush, meanwhile, has already taken steps within the executive branch to create a national Faith-based Initiative modeled on Texas's failure. In recent weeks the Department of Health and Human Services began awarding millions of dollars in government grants to organizations charged with distributing the funds to faith-based and community organizations. Among the grant recipients is Pat Robertson's Operation Blessing International, which is to receive $500,000 to allocate to providers of its choice.
This I do not doubt in the least. Let it be settled in court, which are controlled by who?
dyslexia wrote:At the five-year mark of Texas's implementation of the Bush Faith-based Initiative, TFNEF found that "it is impossible to demonstrateĀ
a single positive outcome."
I did a quick search to find what the TFNEF was. This is from their Web site:
Quote:The Texas Freedom Network Education Fund (TFNEF) was founded in 1996 by Cecile Richards, a longtime labor organizer and daughter of former Texas Governor Ann Richards.
Link:
http://www.tfn.org/aboutus/tfnef.htm
Now, how much credibility are we supposed to give to the findings of a liberal organization founded by the child of a former Democrat governor of Texas? Clearly this is an organization with a bias and an agenda.
Of course, it's possible that everything they claim is true, but they are simply too partisan a source for you to suggest that people simply accept their
findings as facts.
dyslexia
Thanks. that is exactly what we can expect on a national scale.
um partisan well yes i would agree and liberal as well, on the other hand as of yet and until the Supreme Court finds specific cases to render decisions on most likely all we are going to find are partisan opinions. i don't go on auto-pilot when a conservative source is mentioned unless i have reason to question its validity.
dyslexia wrote:i don't go on auto-pilot when a conservative source is mentioned unless i have reason to question its validity.
I don't tend to offer partisan sources, period. I go for primary sources wherever possible (the text of a bill, as opposed to a report of what it reads, for example). Second to that I'll offer official government sources or mainstream news sources, and then there's a tier below that, but I've seen too many citations from sources with names like "bushsucks.com" or "clintonsucks.com" that I try to keep my standards high.
In this specific case I think the source is highly questionable. This is not a dispassionate report of the pros and cons, this is a partisan slash and burn job on a policy they want to kill.
I don't know where my manners went today, trespassers. and I didn't check in the welcoming members thread but
Welcome to A2K!
As you headed for the political threads, I assume you have a suitable suit of armor.
trespassers, WELCOME! c.i.
