Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DamagedGoods · 05-29-2003, 01:44 PM

I heard a blurb today that reminded me of the Bush administration's desire for this faith-based charity stuff. Does anyone know if these proposed programs would be required to consider a non-theist organization if they applied for funds under these programs?

At the Godless Americans' march in DC this year, Michael Newdow said (paraphrasing) that atheists should make an effort to define atheism as a religion, to make it harder to automatically discount them in situations like this. If atheism isn't considered a religion, will that be sufficient reason for atheist charities to be excluded from 'faith-based' programs?

fromtheright · 06-02-2003, 10:01 PM

You guys really need to make up your minds. When the Alabama judge declared secularism humanism a religion several years ago the contemptuous guffaws from you guys was almost deafening.

Doubting Didymus · 06-02-2003, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fromtheright
You guys really need to make up your minds. When the Alabama judge declared secularism humanism a religion several years ago the contemptuous guffaws from you guys was almost deafening.

"you guys"? Just which cohesive united group do you think you're referring to?

DamagedGoods · 06-04-2003, 03:59 AM

Just to make it clear, my mention of Newdow's statement doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him. It just seems odd to me that we would set up a federal charity program that automatically excludes some organizations simply because they aren't religious in nature.

What would happen if a Democrat administration proposed a homosexuals-only charity initiative? Or if a Republican administration advocated a straights-only charity initiative? Neither one of them could survive such a move, because it would offend too many people. But proposing something that only offends a small group is just fine and dandy, since there are no significant political consequences. The Constitution and law be damned - the only thing that restrains our 'leaders' is potential damage to their political career.

Personally, I don't think that the federal government has any power to be involved in the benevolence business. But since they've grown into that role, and they take atheists' money to fund their programs, they have no justification to exclude us from federal programs just because we don't believe in fairy tales.

05-29-2003, 01:44 PM	#1
DamagedGoods Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Norfolk, VA, USA Posts: 219	Will non-theist organizations be eligible for faith-based program funds? I heard a blurb today that reminded me of the Bush administration's desire for this faith-based charity stuff. Does anyone know if these proposed programs would be required to consider a non-theist organization if they applied for funds under these programs? At the Godless Americans' march in DC this year, Michael Newdow said (paraphrasing) that atheists should make an effort to define atheism as a religion, to make it harder to automatically discount them in situations like this. If atheism isn't considered a religion, will that be sufficient reason for atheist charities to be excluded from 'faith-based' programs?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-02-2003, 10:01 PM	#2
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	You guys really need to make up your minds. When the Alabama judge declared secularism humanism a religion several years ago the contemptuous guffaws from you guys was almost deafening.

06-04-2003, 03:59 AM	#4
DamagedGoods Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Norfolk, VA, USA Posts: 219	Just to make it clear, my mention of Newdow's statement doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with him. It just seems odd to me that we would set up a federal charity program that automatically excludes some organizations simply because they aren't religious in nature. What would happen if a Democrat administration proposed a homosexuals-only charity initiative? Or if a Republican administration advocated a straights-only charity initiative? Neither one of them could survive such a move, because it would offend too many people. But proposing something that only offends a small group is just fine and dandy, since there are no significant political consequences. The Constitution and law be damned - the only thing that restrains our 'leaders' is potential damage to their political career. Personally, I don't think that the federal government has any power to be involved in the benevolence business. But since they've grown into that role, and they take atheists' money to fund their programs, they have no justification to exclude us from federal programs just because we don't believe in fairy tales.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.