A Modern Secular Religion

See, Setanta, you do read what I have to say.

Good for you. You may learn something.

Yes Patio,

You're getting at something I want to comment on when I have time to sit down long enough to do it. I believe our government is both a set of previously established laws as well as composed of individuals who are making or modifying those laws (or court decisions, as the case may be.) These individuals are elected (well most of them, in GWs case to say he was elected is a stretch to say the least) but being elected, the government is at least representative of the people. We all live by certain principles and those values developed by our elected officials will become a part of government. This is why it's so important for our politicians to be honest and up front about their personal convictions especially when they represent an agenda which that politician intends to implement once in office. That's enough for now, I have to go.

God, you crack me up . . .

(wiping tears from my eyes) Yeah, Boss, i may learn something, and if i find a teacher i'll let ya know . . .

"learning carries within itself certan dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies"
Leon Trotsky

I have made no such claim; I agree that they are very different things. My point is that when the government attempts to shut out all religions, they are doing that which the non-establishment clause seeks to have them not do. I question whether it matters that a religion does this or whether it is the absence of religion, if the outcome is the same.

What specific role do you see for religion in gov't, scrat?

The government is not attempting "to shut out all religions."

At best, the government is attempting to disengage government from religion -- and allow religion to carry on in the non-government sector.

That, I maintain, is exactly what the founding fathers intended.

Frankly, I don't think they are doing an especially good job of disengagement...but, right now a bunch of religious nuts have the helm and I guess we have to be happy with what we are getting.

In any case, I guess it is easier to make a case against the notion that "government should not attempt to shut out all religions" -- and that probably is the reason it has been made the focus of your arguments, Scrat, rather than have your focus be the reality of the situation.

None.

What I think is wrong is the marginalization of religion and religious groups by government.

For example; the whole debate about Bush's faith-based initiatives high-lights the fact that previously these organizations have been barred from competing equally for federal aid dollars with other groups BASED ON THEIR RELIGION. The effect for each religious group is the same as if the government had established a religion and blocked other specific religions--accept the official one--from receiving those government aid dollars.

Scrat --

Thank you. I'm perusing the federal grant sites linked to by the site specifically for faith-based initiatives to look at what's been implemented. I have to admit I have not done so previously because it's not a hot-button topic for me.

Okay, I've gotta say, from what I've looked at so far, the "Faith-Based" thing looks to be something of a misnomer. Just going by the name, it sounds like the gov't was intending to set aside monies specifically for religious organizations. This does not appear to be the case at all; the programs that are now open to religious organizations are all pre-existing (at this point, anyway), and in the couple where I browsed through what organizations have received awards, it didn't appear to have been a boon for churches anyway.

I am curious about how the programs in question (all social programs -- early education, crime prevention, resources for abused women and children and the like) are monitored. I'm very familiar with the review processes of NIH and NSF, and they are fairly comprehensive: the science has to be good, all expenditures have to be accounted for (at least before the fact; there doesn't appear to be much financial review upon completion of projects), the credentials of applicant organizations are thoroughly reviewed. Naturally this is more difficult with social programs, where objectives and results are more difficult to quantify.

Interesting. Mulling. Again, something to which I haven't given a whole lot of thought before....

my understanding, and yes i am often wrong, the problem faith based programs have is that they are required to adhere to all employment regulations which many of them refuse to do. to give them an exception allowing discrimination with tax monies is, in IMO, wrong. another obvious conflict is persons severed with those self-same tax dollars being distributed to only those deemed worthy, ie would the souuthern baptists be equitable to jews or muslims or atheists as they are to their own. I see a problem.

(Damn, I am ignorant. I don't even know what's at the core of the debate. More reading to do....)

You constantly assert this as though it were an a priori point of departure for discussion. You've never provided the least shred of evidence that this is the case.

Patio, the Civil Rights act allows religious organizations to discriminate in hiring based upon professed religious affiliation. This is a major legalistic point of objection to "faith based initiatives."

One of the attractions of ATK is the concentration of interesting, if occasionally cranky and difficult, people with different backgrounds, points of view, knowledge, talents, and experience who inhabit it. I have had several occasions in which to learn that beyond the individual cranky idiosyncracies there were very interesting people who had something useful to offer or teach me - tho I as a rule never acknowledge it.

Three cases come to mind here - Blatham, Setanta, and Frank.

At one time I thought Blatham was a self-righteous, opinionated ass who made no distinction between what he knew and what he merely believed and who didn't understand what the term 'ad hominem' means. Later I learned I had been dealing with the goddam dwarf, and the man himself has a wonderful and quick wit, is very knowledgable and able to create unexpected and delightful turns of phrase and images , has a different way of looking at things that forces me to think, and doesn't fall for my attempts to force my line of thought. Can't be all bad!

Setanta can be - how shall I say it? - volatile, and occasionally wordy as well (a fault which perhaps I have no right to cite). He also, in my view, sometimes comes down too hard on his interlocutors when he disagrees. However he thinks, has a great knowledge of history, and occasionally blows me away with his wonderful prose and compact, almost lyric encapsulations of complex ideas. He is also Irish !

Frank, I know only from this thread. He challenged me stubbornly over a narrow aspect of my poorly worded and broad topic, and pissed me off in the process. For some reason I hung on and was later rewarded by a sharp mind that forced me to deal with some of my own posted ambiguities and which sorely challenged me on ground I regarded as my own. A refreshing, stimulating and pleasant experience.

I'm confident these are not the only odd, but memorable characters here and I hope to similarly get past the surface with others (Dyslexia comes quickly to mind). I hope also that I can occasionally add something of the sauce that they all do to this dialogue. I value the interactions with each of them and hope you can do the same with each other -- goddamit.

Well, yer right about one thing, there, Boss . . . one of the three of us you've mentioned is indeed a brilliantly unique individual . . .

just to set all the cards on the table George, getting past the surface with me would be damn near impossible as i am quite shallow.

LOL. Shallow ??? You don't even know shallow.

Goddammit, george, watch your language.



Okay, so I've been reading a bit to educate myself, and came across this passage in the Admin's own pamphlet on the matter (click here to download if you like...)



To my mind this is bass-ackwards, given the stated intent of the order. I'm willing to concede Title VII exemption to grant awardees far more readily than I am to contract recipients (though I have very, very strong reservations on either, and I am pondering these as they relate to the programs). I'm only looking at this from my own limited experience in the sciences, but a grant is generally awarded on a proposed scope of work that the hopeful awardee is uniquely qualified to perform. Example: "To achieve these general aims, as stated by this federal program, we propose to pursue these specific aims using these and these other resources, and we will need funding for this and this and this."

A contract, on the other hand, is largely delineated by the contracting organization (i.e. the Feds) both in terms of its general and specific aims -- that is, both in its goals and, to a certain extent, in its mechanisms. Since this is tantamount to the government hiring individuals to perform specific tasks, I don't think a Title VII exception should be allowed; the contracting organization is not necessarily uniquely qualified to perform the service.

A thought, that I'm not sure what to do with: most of the proposals we write here specify positions that will be funded by the grant. We don't just say, "we need some money for materials so we can examine the properties of this enzyme"; we say, "we need to hire a postdoctoral research associate with these qualifications to perform this research in this manner." I do wonder if this is generally the case with organizations proposing to these social programs or if they just ask for money for services so that the people who do the actual work never fall under any sort of federal umbrella....

there was a case brought to the fed appeals court last year, where a church based daycare program received fed $ to run an intervention program for behavior disorder children and a highly qualified child therapist applied for a postion and was denied an interview because he listed his rabbi as a reference. I have not followed the case so i do not know the result of the appeal.
In a minor segue, i am listening to NPR and the topic is legal issues relating to marriage and one of the panel just remarked that atheists have a lower divorce rate than to protestant christians, i cant verify the data nor infer meaning, but its an interesting note regarding the "moral tone" of much christain rhetoric.