Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-23-2003, 12:01 AM

Bush Plans to Let Religious Groups Get Building Aid (requires free registration)

Bush's proposed rules would allow religious groups to use federal money to build houses of worship, as long as part of the building was also used for certain specified social service activities.

Quote:

. . .

Opponents said the change forced the government into the difficult position of having to determine which part of a building is used for worship and which is for social services.

"You run into the nightmarish problem of having the government monitor what goes on inside churches" and sanctuaries, said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who promised to seek hearings on the change. "Are we going to start sending in the inspector general to charge people with committing a bar mitzvah?"

. . .

Some civil rights advocates and Congressional critics promised to fight the change. Several legal experts said the new policy might not pass muster under a 1971 Supreme Court case, Tilton v. Richardson, that restricted aid to religious institutions.

"The question is whether you can legitimately allocate, say, 80 percent of a building for religious use and 20 percent for secular use and say that the federal money is only paying for the secular use," said Douglas Laycock, a professor and religious liberties specialist at the University of Texas Law School. "The answer to the allocation question right now in the courts is no, you can't do it."

A professor at the Cardozo Law School, Marci Hamilton, said that it might be difficult for government lawyers to argue that they can truly separate a religious and social functions in a building and that many religious groups might not even want to try to do so.

"Once religious entities start arguing that any portion of their building is for nonreligious purposes," Professor Hamilton said, "they start opening themselves up to all sorts of problems like their tax-exempt status as religious institutions. It's a whole Pandora's box."

The public has until March 7 to comment before the department is scheduled to issue its final approval.

Melkor · 01-23-2003, 07:30 AM

Hmmmm.... can we say L A W S U I T?

B. H. Manners · 01-23-2003, 10:21 AM

Somebody needs to lose his re-election bid in 2004.

MacPrince · 01-23-2003, 11:05 AM

Well, there goes any hope I ever had of seeing fewer mega-churches instead of more...

ELECTROGOD · 01-23-2003, 02:18 PM

Then let's help the government make sure that they are part of the churche's business so the religious will come to understand why seperation is so important. Let us also see that the government does away with the tax exempt status of religious groups since they will now be getting government assistance. Then if things ever go back to seperation then we won't have the tax exempt bullshit to get screwed with anymore.

gilly54 · 01-23-2003, 11:18 PM

When I read this article, I wondered how to mobilize the godless 14% of US taxpayers to tell Congress that we don't want any of our taxes going to any religious entity.

A petition perhaps, orchestrated through the AU on their website? or the ACLU? or the Secular Web?It's sad to say but I don't think individual letters to politicians have much impact, whereas thousands of names on a petition does.

lisarea · 01-24-2003, 10:41 AM

This whole thing confuses me.

I found the proposed rule, and it's almost word-for-word identical in most aspects to the wording of the overall FBI. (Oh. I guess that's why they're not using that abbreviation, huh?)

As written, the guidelines for the Faith Based Initiative, while suspect, are relatively clear.

They require government funds to go specifically for secular services, with NO government monies going to fund proselytizing, worship, etc. The major sticking points in the general guidelines are:

1. They allow for sort of ambient religion--that is, they can have a government funded day care in a room full of crucifixes or goat heads or whatever. Not a huge deal, but not a nonexistent deal, either.

2. They allow for religious discrimination in hiring, even when the positions are part of the organization's supposedly secular mission. Huge deal. HUGE.

Now, the thing that doesn't parse to this HUD thing is that it still allows for mixed-use rooms. That is, you can get HUD monies to build a room in which you hold Bible studies and house your sacrificial altars and where you keep the box in which you store your god or whatever, so long as you also provide some non-discriminatory charitable service there as well.

The relevant passage, unique to the proposed HUD rule:

Quote:

5. Structures Used for Religious Activities
The proposed rule would also clarify that HUD funds may not be used for the acquisition, construction or rehabilitation of structures to the extent that those structures are used for
inherently religious activities, such as worship, religious instruction, or prayer.
HUD funds may be used for the acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation of structures only to the extent that those structures are used for conducting eligible activities under the
specific HUD program. Where a structure is used for both eligible and inherently religious activities, HUD funds may not exceed the cost of those portions of the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation that are attributable to eligible activities.

That looks mighty squishy to me. If the walls and the ceiling and the floors are all used for secular activities, could HUD rules pay for them, leaving only those 'inherently religious' artifacts up to the churches to fund?

You could certainly argue that terms like 'to the extent that those structures...' and 'attributable' mean that there will be some kind of timeshare designation, in which the space is designated as secular or religious a given percentage of time, and HUD pays the secular percentage. But it doesn't spell that out quite clearly enough for me to believe it. And in light of the creative interpretations of the separation clause we've been seeing, any even remotely ambiguous wording is suspect.

And I don't know much about HUD stuff, but is there some kind of minimum requirements for the length of time in which a facility will have to comply with this? I mean, can they get HUD funds to build a combination sacrificial altar/day care, and then abandon the day care at some point without repaying HUD?

On the one hand, I know I should look this stuff up myself. On the other hand, I really should be doing other things entirely right now.

Final question: Does anyone have a good alternative to that stupid analogy about frogs and boiling water?

pug846 · 01-24-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gilly54
When I read this article, I wondered how to mobilize the godless 14% of US taxpayers to tell Congress that we don't want any of our taxes going to any religious entity.

Oh come on. There's now way that 14% of Americans don't believe in the existence of God.

admice · 01-24-2003, 12:55 PM

I have a question pretty much like gilly 54's. What is the procedure to fight such things. I have read about Bush's executive orders - how does one contest those? Or this situation? When do civil suits come into play? When does it have to go thru legislators? Trying to learn the flow here. Anyone know?

Toto · 01-24-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pug846
Oh come on. There's now way that 14% of Americans don't believe in the existence of God.

The 14% refers to Americans who tell the survey taker that they are "not religious." Only about 1% of those surveyed use the word atheist, but the other 13% (more or less) have some reason to object to government sponsored religion. But then so do the 86% who are religious, and might not want the government meddling in their religion, or might not want their tax dollars going to a false religion.

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

01-23-2003, 07:30 AM	#2
Melkor Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The Void Posts: 396	Hmmmm.... can we say L A W S U I T?

01-23-2003, 10:21 AM	#3
B. H. Manners Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 1,213	Somebody needs to lose his re-election bid in 2004.

01-23-2003, 11:05 AM	#4
MacPrince Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: A suburb of Chicago you've probably never heard of Posts: 282	Well, there goes any hope I ever had of seeing fewer mega-churches instead of more...

01-23-2003, 02:18 PM	#5
ELECTROGOD Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: GR, MI USA Posts: 4,009	Then let's help the government make sure that they are part of the churche's business so the religious will come to understand why seperation is so important. Let us also see that the government does away with the tax exempt status of religious groups since they will now be getting government assistance. Then if things ever go back to seperation then we won't have the tax exempt bullshit to get screwed with anymore.

01-23-2003, 11:18 PM	#6
gilly54 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New Almaden, California Posts: 917	When I read this article, I wondered how to mobilize the godless 14% of US taxpayers to tell Congress that we don't want any of our taxes going to any religious entity. A petition perhaps, orchestrated through the AU on their website? or the ACLU? or the Secular Web?It's sad to say but I don't think individual letters to politicians have much impact, whereas thousands of names on a petition does.

01-24-2003, 12:55 PM	#9
admice Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: S Cal Posts: 327	I have a question pretty much like gilly 54's. What is the procedure to fight such things. I have read about Bush's executive orders - how does one contest those? Or this situation? When do civil suits come into play? When does it have to go thru legislators? Trying to learn the flow here. Anyone know?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.