Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Megusic · 02-19-2003, 09:14 PM

If there's already a good thread on this, kindly redirect me

In my American Religions class we just briefly touched on the faith-based initiative right as class was ending. Good for me cuz it gave me some time to look into it more before commenting in class...

anyway, I've already got some ideas for arguments against the program, but if anyone out there can think of anything that would be good to highlight, i'd appreciate it!

meg

Toto · 02-19-2003, 10:28 PM

There isn't a single thread, but there are these three recent ones.

ACLU action alert

Lawsuit challenges Faith Based Prison Program

Tax money to build houses of worship

You should be able to find some good material on www.au.org

You could also search the archives for Marvin Olasky or John DiIulio.

The idea behind faith based funding is that religious groups can deliver social services better and cheaper than secular agencies. There is no data to support this idea, and there is no way to implement faith based funding without violating church state separation.

Additionally, in practice faith based funding is a giant vote buying scheme by which Bush intends to neutralize the Democratic hold on the black churches.

More threads:

Veterans homeless program

Edit to add: there are a lot of good links in this thread:

Faith Based Initiative

GaryP · 02-20-2003, 05:25 AM

From;

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/4883461

* Use of public money for discrimination in hiring. Bush has issued an executive order that exempts church groups from a longstanding ban on using taxpayer funds to fill jobs restricted to those of a specific faith or belief.

* Public funding of church construction. A proposed rule change by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (news - web sites) would allow public funds to help finance houses of worship if parts of the buildings are used for social-service programs. Never in U.S. history have federal taxes gone to support specific denominations.

* Poor oversight of publicly funded programs. A $600 million proposal in Bush's 2004 budget for vouchers covering faith-based anti-drug programs would set few requirements for drug-treatment operators. That could invite unqualified individuals or groups to tap taxpayers' money without any government oversight.

Gunnaheave · 02-20-2003, 01:15 PM

Frankly, I'm just hoping the Native American Church or the Church of Satan will apply for some big grants under this program. That should force the non-preferentialists to re-examine their commitment to the idea that general support for religion is okay, just as long as they don;t discriminate between churches. When these crackpots are faced with supporting a church they abhor, then maybe they'll understand how some of us feel about supporting their own institutions. �scratch that, not much hope fundies will ever understand any of this.

And on a side note, the Native American Church has a reasonable shot at setting up some good substance abuse treatment programs, at least as good as these Christian groups. But I'm sure most of the advocates for the faith-based initiative will never be able to wrap their minds around drinking peyote & orange juice as a means of getting people off ocean or cheap tokay wine. The controversy would be absolutely delicious.

Toto · 02-23-2003, 06:57 PM

Here's the latest:

Bush's Focus on Antidrug Ministry Irks Some

Quote:

. . .

Many drug treatment professionals were thrilled to hear a president direct the nation's attention to a social epidemic that they say has too long been ignored and underfinanced. But some were troubled that of all the nation's treatment programs, the president seemed to hold up as a model deserving government support a program that is religiously sectarian, unlicensed, untested and not clinical in its methods.

. . .

The administration said that no one from the White House had visited Healing Place Church to observe the program before endowing it with the president's blessing. If administration officials had, they would have found an endeavor that its founders acknowledge is neither a recovery program nor a drug treatment center, but a ministry.

. . .

"We're more of a support group," Mrs. Myles said in an interview here. "If people need rehabilitation, we try to refer them to somewhere."

Appreciative anecdotes from participants in a newspaper article caught the president's eye, but no one has studied the ministry's impact on those who attend.

. . .

The White House says the plan does not violate constitutional prohibitions on government support for religion because the money goes toward the addicts' vouchers, not to the programs directly. Critics call it a strategy designed to dodge laws on separation of church and state.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, said, "Again and again, this president has demonstrated that he doesn't understand the Constitution, or just doesn't care about it."

Toto · 02-24-2003, 11:20 AM

Raze the Church/State Wall? Heaven Help Us! (Free registration required)

Quote:

It is not uncommon for a president to work to undo the policies of his predecessor. Certainly, George W. Bush surprised no one by systemically undoing the work of Bill Clinton. More unnerving are Bush's recent efforts to undo the work of two other former presidents: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

. . .

Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam is an anti-Semitic and racist organization, but it can also qualify for funds based on its strong anti-drug message. The Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church too can demonstrate success in convincing drug addicts to go clean. Its followers simply replace a narcotic with a messianic dependence.

By funding religious buildings and programs, Bush is reversing the work of Madison, who, despite his own deep religious beliefs, vetoed efforts by Congress to give federal aid to religious organizations.

Grumpy · 02-24-2003, 03:07 PM

I went to a scoping meeting for our state F-B-I last week. There was much applause from the "congregation" whenever anyone mentioned "more government money."

Many of the groups also used the same phrase, saying they want to help the "whole person." (The head chaplain for the prison system was particularly keen on this concept.) I could give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think everybody knows this is simply a code word for conversion.

In those terms, it's very clear: government money should not be spent to assist missionaries out to convert vulnerable people. Provide social services without any religious component (or with a "secular bias," which received boos at the meeting), and let the individual worry about their own salvation. A one-stop shop -- soup, job training, and Jesus -- is just begging for trouble.

Oh, and while the room was overwhelmingly Christian, there was one guy who stood up at the end of the meeting and identified himself as the local pastor of Scientology. "Will there be anything for me?" His question was quickly passed along to an aide.

There are some things an F-B-I might do: maintain a database of available social services, secular and religious, and make sure those in need can find those services easily.

Toto · 03-09-2003, 11:53 AM

A very good article, except that it presents Alcoholics Anonymous as a secular organization.

What Mr. Jefferson Would Think of Ms. Myles's Addiction Program (free reg required)

Quote:

Faith-based social services are the latest missile the Bush administration has fired at the wall between church and state. Earlier this year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to allow tax dollars to be used to build churches, as long as part of the building is used for social services. . . .

Meeting the ebullient Ms. Myles, it is instantly clear why the Bush administration likes her. She is a natural communicator. Her arms waving, and her voice soaring, she compares her audience's bitterness and covetousness to cracks in her home, which recently allowed a mouse to get in. "You left a little bitty crack for the Devil to get in and destroy your life!" she cries out. "It's time that we seal up the cracks."

Ms. Myles's turbulent personal history is well known � sexual abuse, drug use and dealing, institutionalization and suicide attempts � and she draws on it freely: "I went from the crack house to the White House!"

. . .

Still, Ms. Myles should not get government funds for the reasons Jefferson set forth. Using tax money to spread her religious views would violate the freedom of conscience of every taxpayer who does not share them. And if Ms. Myles's small program gets government funds, larger and more powerful religious groups will receive far more. As Jefferson observed, the combination of large-scale organized religion and the state would simply be too potent a force.

Supporters of faith-based initiatives accuse opponents of being anti-religion. But it is the Bush administration that denigrates religion by presenting it as simply another "option," no different from secular choices like Alcoholics Anonymous or Weight Watchers. Jefferson insisted on the need for a wall between church and state not because he failed to appreciate religion, but because he understood its power all too well.

Toto · 03-14-2003, 04:59 PM

Faith No More: Texas' record show dangers of faith based funding

Quote:

In 1996, Texas appointed an almost entirely Christian commission to eliminate regulations that prevented faith-based providers from receiving government funds. Then Governor Bush pushed agencies to change policies and eliminate licensing and inspection requirements for religious charities, and Texas became the first state to implement taxpayer-funded religious services.

After five years of such experimentation, Texas discovered many serious flaws:

After Texas� Department of Protective and Regulatory Services stopped regulating childcare providers, rates of confirmed abuse and neglect at the religious facilities rose quickly and are now 25 times higher than at state-licensed facilities. Religious facilities had a 75 percent complaint rate, compared to 5.4 percent at state-licensed facilities.
Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse inspectors presented Teen Challenge, a Christian residential drug treatment program and one of Bush�s highly-touted models, with a 49-page list of violations of state regulations. Teen Challenge said its mission was �to evangelize people� and �initiate the discipleship process to the point where students can function as Christians � applying spiritually motivated Bible principles.� The program had no credentialed counselors, no chemical dependency services, failed to inform clients of their rights, and was found to be illegally handling medications.
Jobs Partnership�s stated mission was to help clients �find employment through a relationship with Jesus Christ.� The group�s budget and curriculum show that $8,000 of state money was used to buy Bibles and that the program focused primarily on Bible study.
A district court found use of the state funds unconstitutional because they were used for religious purposes, and also said the state had violated clients� religious freedom by not providing a secular alternative. The only other job training program in the area was located in the next county.
The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, run by religious and crime-fighting Texas conservatives, was given $1.5 million in state funds for a religious-sponsored job training program that required �total surrender to Christ.� IRFFR beat out a Lockheed Martin and University of Texas-sponsored program in competition for the funding, despite the fact that the university program had a job placement rate almost 300 times greater than IRFFR�s.
Bypassing public debate, the Department of Criminal Justice used $1.5 million to fund the Inner Change prison pre-release program, a �Christ-centered, bible-based� program sponsored by Prison Fellowship Ministries, founded by Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson. The program, which proposes to encourage �the spiritual and moral regeneration� of offenders and create respect for �God�s law,� received funding despite a lack of evidence that the program reduces recidivism.

Texas� faith-based program created so many problems that, in 2001, the Texas legislature chose not to renew the state�s accreditation program for church-run childcare providers.

Grumpy · 03-16-2003, 09:49 AM

Quote:

from the New York Times article:
"Using tax money to spread her religious views would violate the freedom of conscience of every taxpayer who does not share them."

Arguments like this are a two-edged sword. Should taxpayer money be used to support artists, whose individual views often conflict with some taxpayers'? I think so, though I recognize it is subject to debate. Likewise, the public funding of medical procedures which some people disagree with, like oh let's say abortion.

Using public money for these things surely tells some taxpayers that the government is hostile to their views, which are often grounded in their religious beliefs. That's why I prefer to stick to arguments against "Faith Based" funding that focus on a)efficacy, b)fairness, c)Establishment Clause violations.

I now see that the problem with letting religious (particularly Christian) groups handle social services is that Christians, evangelicals especially, see the Gospel as a cure-all. Trouble with your personal finances? Come to Jesus. Can't find a job? Come to Jesus. Drugs got you down? Come to Jesus. Kids need something to do after school? Come to Jesus.

This is why they are confused when you tell them that government-funded social services must be separate from religious indoctrination. Either they don't recognize what they do as indoctrination, or they don't see any difference between the two.

02-19-2003, 09:14 PM	#1
Megusic Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: OH Posts: 1,292	Faith Based Initiative If there's already a good thread on this, kindly redirect me In my American Religions class we just briefly touched on the faith-based initiative right as class was ending. Good for me cuz it gave me some time to look into it more before commenting in class... anyway, I've already got some ideas for arguments against the program, but if anyone out there can think of anything that would be good to highlight, i'd appreciate it! meg

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

02-19-2003, 10:28 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There isn't a single thread, but there are these three recent ones. ACLU action alert Lawsuit challenges Faith Based Prison Program Tax money to build houses of worship You should be able to find some good material on www.au.org You could also search the archives for Marvin Olasky or John DiIulio. The idea behind faith based funding is that religious groups can deliver social services better and cheaper than secular agencies. There is no data to support this idea, and there is no way to implement faith based funding without violating church state separation. Additionally, in practice faith based funding is a giant vote buying scheme by which Bush intends to neutralize the Democratic hold on the black churches. More threads: Veterans homeless program Edit to add: there are a lot of good links in this thread: Faith Based Initiative

02-20-2003, 05:25 AM	#3
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	From; http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/4883461 * Use of public money for discrimination in hiring. Bush has issued an executive order that exempts church groups from a longstanding ban on using taxpayer funds to fill jobs restricted to those of a specific faith or belief. * Public funding of church construction. A proposed rule change by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (news - web sites) would allow public funds to help finance houses of worship if parts of the buildings are used for social-service programs. Never in U.S. history have federal taxes gone to support specific denominations. * Poor oversight of publicly funded programs. A $600 million proposal in Bush's 2004 budget for vouchers covering faith-based anti-drug programs would set few requirements for drug-treatment operators. That could invite unqualified individuals or groups to tap taxpayers' money without any government oversight.

02-20-2003, 01:15 PM	#4
Gunnaheave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: AZ Posts: 3,250	Frankly, I'm just hoping the Native American Church or the Church of Satan will apply for some big grants under this program. That should force the non-preferentialists to re-examine their commitment to the idea that general support for religion is okay, just as long as they don;t discriminate between churches. When these crackpots are faced with supporting a church they abhor, then maybe they'll understand how some of us feel about supporting their own institutions. �scratch that, not much hope fundies will ever understand any of this. And on a side note, the Native American Church has a reasonable shot at setting up some good substance abuse treatment programs, at least as good as these Christian groups. But I'm sure most of the advocates for the faith-based initiative will never be able to wrap their minds around drinking peyote & orange juice as a means of getting people off ocean or cheap tokay wine. The controversy would be absolutely delicious.

02-24-2003, 03:07 PM	#7
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	I went to a scoping meeting for our state F-B-I last week. There was much applause from the "congregation" whenever anyone mentioned "more government money." Many of the groups also used the same phrase, saying they want to help the "whole person." (The head chaplain for the prison system was particularly keen on this concept.) I could give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think everybody knows this is simply a code word for conversion. In those terms, it's very clear: government money should not be spent to assist missionaries out to convert vulnerable people. Provide social services without any religious component (or with a "secular bias," which received boos at the meeting), and let the individual worry about their own salvation. A one-stop shop -- soup, job training, and Jesus -- is just begging for trouble. Oh, and while the room was overwhelmingly Christian, there was one guy who stood up at the end of the meeting and identified himself as the local pastor of Scientology. "Will there be anything for me?" His question was quickly passed along to an aide. There are some things an F-B-I might do: maintain a database of available social services, secular and religious, and make sure those in need can find those services easily.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.