Removing the barriers between church and state.

trespassers will



Am I to take that question seriously or is it just thrown out to cloud the issue. The question was and is the government funding of religious organizations. It is not to question the religion of government employees. If religion or lack thereof was a criteria for federal employees would they than only be allowed to hire atheists?

Nonsense. No one here is saying that people of religious conviction should not receive either federally-funded or a direct federal payroll for doing secular work. What is being questioned is wheter or not a religious group should be allowed to both receive federal funds and discriminate based on religious conviction in their hiring process. Those of religious conviction who receive a federal paycheck are not being paid to promote any religious belief or agenda, and the people here who have been objecting to the "faith-based" initiative proposed are concerned that federal money will be paid to groups which discriminate in hiring based on religious conviction, and are therefore justifiably suspect in their motives. If the truth is told here, the Shrub and company don't give a damn about this issue, it's just another political payoff--this time to the religious right. I don't doubt for a moment that the administration is already fairly certain that their program will be a target for many court cases if anyone can even remotely make the case that federal dollars are going to an organization which is promoting their religious beliefs through the program funded. There are no lack of people in our society willing to make and attempt to support such a charge in court. The administration makes this offer to the religious right cynically, and they know their customers pretty well, too. I doubt that the likes of Falwell or Robertson are fooled by this, but then, they have their agendas as individuals, as well, and will undoubtedly tout the administration for this policy.

What people have been saying here is nothing like what you've characterized. You're restating what people are saying, and misstating their positions, in order to provide an oversimplistic argument which you believe you can demolish.

A clearly defined position there, dys.



timber

am i being too vague?

If one buys into that form of debating and don't believe there should be some rules of decorum -- caveat emptor.

I believe I asked that people give it serious consideration and not toss it aside out of hand.

What is an organization, but a group of people working together? Besides, I thought that most people's concern was what actions religious persons working for these organizations might take while being funded by tax dollars. Isn't that the case? That's the specific reservation many people have expressed here, and that is what I am attempting to address.

Hi Setanta. Okay, I understand that that is your concern, but that is not the concern being expressed by many others here. My comments go directly to responses of others, who expressed concern about what a religious person working for a faith-based agency might do while on the job that would cross the line between secular work and religious proselytizing. It would seem to me to be a logical extension of that concern to consider whether a religious person might likewise be suspected of crossing the same line. So if that is a reason to bar faith-based groups from using tax dollars, it should also be a valid reason to likewise bar faith-based individuals.

But since that is not your specific concern, you might simply want to ignore my comments along this line.

Lastly, I understand and respectfully disagree with your concern regarding hiring based on faith. Since I don't know how broad the exemption is for agencies getting tax funds, I can't express a valid opinion either way. I do think I've clearly stated what I think previously, and it seems to me you and I agree in some ways, though you seem to have drawn conclusions I am unwilling to draw, given that I lack sufficient information to make those calls.

Phoenix, I think you've stumbled onto the real crux of this issue and the solution to everyone's concerns. The problem here isn't that the government is trying to cut faith-based groups in on their charitable programs while keeping some semblance of separation of church and state on both ends.

Now, I personally think that so long as the government is offering the funding equally to ANY religion, it has no constitutional problem at all.

But the more important issue, which phoenix has illuminated for me, is that this would not be an issue if the federal government simply left charitable work to private agencies. Period. Rather than trying to cut faith-based groups in where secular groups have been allowed until now, it seems it would solve all of these problems if the government simply got out of the charity business altogether.

Lightwiz, What is your OVERALL take on this
situation as of today for example? Are you still in the
same position as you were in the beginning of this
thread when you stated (and I did sincerely hope it
to be true) "it is just another crass political move"??
Who can he be wooing, and how many of you feel
that Bush has a shot at a second term??? How can
Bush (who is, by the nature of his office, a singular
figurehead of the government only) make any political
move which COULD actually alter/effect any changes with
respect to the church and state barriers??? Or make ANY
move that could, as mentioned in the article, plant seeds
of what could (at any indistinct point in the future) become
a very sticky, ugly issue. Surely, Bush can't singlehandedly
cause any changes which would cause an upheaval of the
traditional church & state barriers - status quo. What
concerns me the most about Bush, are ALL the things that
seem to be happening while Bush has the public eye focused
neatly elsewhere.
This WHOLE ENTIRE TOPIC- with the cutely turned phrase
"compassionate conservatism" is nothing but ridiculous.
Those are two words, which can not be put together in
any one meaningful sentence that I can possibly think of.
Right winged conservatives exhibiting compassion, SINCE
when? ( Or are we more on the grounds of noblesse oblige,
here?) I sure would like to hear a WHOLE BUNCH OF YOU
AGREE about JUST one thing here, anything - but promise
me that the way that this "sounds" (which, by the way, does
not sound normal or good to me) is naught but political
hogwarsh and BS.

Yes, Babs, I still think it is another of the pass-the-buck strategy of Dubya's administration. As much as they declare that they aren't playing the political game, the more they become entangled with political mumbo jumbo.

TW, much earlier in this thread, Dyslexia posted the statement that the Center for Public Justice, in a document on charities, has stated that religioius organizations, under the "faith-based initiatives", would have their traditional exemption. I went to the site for the CPJ, and confirmed that information--that, is, that this is the contention of the CPJ. The CPJ is a self-avowed christian organization--historiographical method suggests therefore, that their testimony is to be trusted on this issue.

Below is the relevant subsection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"EXEMPTION

SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702]

(a) This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect
to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious
corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect
to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work
connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association,
educational institution, or society of its activities."

I obtained the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from the web site of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.

Let us hope that you will not have any doubts in future about the nature of the exemption which religious organizations enjoy with regard to hiring practices.

Setanta - Thanks for the information. I understand the nature of the exemption, where I have a question is whether within the context of this faith-based initiative stuff, the exemption goes to employees doing work funded by tax dollars, or whether the government has simply clarified that taking tax dollars for such work does not destroy the exemption for all employees of such an organization.

Though perhaps that information as well has already been offered and I just didn't catch it?

Unfortunately the same old NYT had not bestowed its attention to expose the relious peopl's role and the political leader's participation.
The result is there to see around the globe

Moreover.
American media spread the views of corporate NEWS.

Whichever brand of church you belong
and what ever your patriotic views
the life is hard and dog is not god