Bush To Push Faith-Based Initiative Again
Related Topics
Steven Litvintchouk sdlit...@earthlink.net
Bush to push faith-based initiative By Nicholas M. Horrock UPI Chief White House Correspondent From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 11/29/2002 6:41 PM WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- With a Republican-controlled Congress at his back, President George W. Bush plans to push his faith-based initiatives again next year, but the thorny questions of whether they violate civil rights laws and constitutional separation of church and state are unsolved, critics claim.
Perhaps no initiative is more important to conservative Republicans than to give evangelical religious organizations access to the billions of dollars in federal social programs, which they say they have been denied for decades. Jim Towey, the director of the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is quoted in the conservative magazine World as saying that "faith-based communities have been stiff armed by the federal government for years. They've been excluded, discriminated against." For the president, too, the faith-based initiative took a personal dimension, and when campaigning for it, he often mentioned that it was religion that helped him stop drinking and refocus his life when he was in his 40s.
Bush made the proposals a first order of business when he took office nearly two years ago. But when the administration had to agree to limit federal funds to religious groups for their secular services alone, the draft law ended up being criticized by conservatives as well as liberals.
The outcry by Bush's core Republican constituency was so great in the summer of 2001, it was said to have caused the sudden departure from the White House of John DiIulio, director of the faith-based office.
DiIulio was a widely respected conservative social scientist. Marvin Olasky writing in the Nov. 23 edition of World said under DiIulio, "the attempt to solicit liberal allies appeared to drive the whole process" and as a result "conservative Christian groups did not fight to keep it alive." He had lambasted DiIulio in an earlier article for having been an adviser to former Vice President Al Gore.
Now comes Bush with a new head of the faith-based office: Towey, a Catholic, also with bipartisan credentials (he once worked for the Democratic Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles) and people often note that he was tutored by the late Mother Teresa -- one of the most renowned religious workers for the poor.
Bush won an extraordinary increase in House seats for a sitting president in a mid-term election and recaptured the Senate. Earlier this week, Sen. Rick Santorum, Pa., who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, said the president's key conservative issues will be pushed next year with the faith-based initiative first among many. Senate Majority leader Trent Lott said ideas like giving money to churches to help families are "considered bad on the two coasts... but where the meat is in the sandwich, the rest of America, these are pretty mainstream ideas." Last year, Santorum and Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman won committee approval for what they called a compromise bill, the Charity, Aid, Recovery and Empowerment (C.A.R.E.) Act.
But opponents like Rep. Bobby Scott, the Newport Virginia Democrat who led the fight against the president's plans in the House, claims that the neither the president nor the White House will give the public "a straight answer" to what he calls fundamental questions: "Can you directly fund a church, write a government check to the First Baptist Church of Jefferson Park?" "Can you use government funds to proselytize and press your faith or beliefs on others?" "Can you discriminate in hiring?" Scott argues that the bills presented in both the House and the Senate are "stealth" measures, where the administration has gone to great lengths to hide its real intentions. He and others suggest that the ultimate goal of Bush is to allow religious organizations to apply and directly receive government grants -- which they say would violate the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof." They argue giving the money directly to a church or religious group would effectively be supporting their establishment over others. Under present law, religious groups who perform social services usually create a tax-free foundation, a "501C3" program named after the section of the tax code which requires monies be used solely for the social service.
Scott and others believe that unless controlled, funds will be given to religious groups that are most favorable to the administration, not the most qualified. "If the Black Muslims had the best prison release program," government cash would still go to a white, accepted group like former Nixon-aide Chuck Colson's prison charity, Scott charges.
At present, religious groups cannot use the funds they get to provide social services to exhort people to join their religion. They must offer their services to any person of any faith, and the person needing the services must not be made to listen to any religious message in order to receive it.
Hiring too was a major issue in last year's debate. Many evangelical religious groups want the right to refuse employment even in non-religious jobs to homosexuals, and others have tried to limit employment to their own co-religionists.
A recent lawsuit in Georgia may the put the issue of discrimination in hiring to the test. According to an account in the New York Times, Alan M. Yorker, who said he was qualified to be a psychologist therapist with degrees from Columbia University, Georgia State and Emory was refused a job at Methodist children's home because he was Jewish. The home, The Times reported, receives about 40 percent of its income from the federal government. Under Georgia law, it is illegal to discriminate in this employment and Yorker is suing.
Among the original faith-based proposals was one in both houses that would protect faith-based organizations from these lawsuits.
At a Rockefeller Foundation panel several weeks ago, Towey seemed to dismiss these issues as a "hysterical response" and complained as others have that the Senate bill was stopped by a parliamentary trick of two senators who put a hold on it. One of those senators, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., echoed Scott's criticism -- the bill and these issues had never been heard in open hearing.
Scott believes that when Americans find out what these bills say, the support for them will melt away. He claims they are the "ugliest" pieces of legislation he recalls in public life.
Copyright ?© 2002 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021129-051337-4212r
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit...@earthlink.net
Norm no...@lvcm.com
Many mosques should be happy.
"Grinder" tho...@earthlink.net
May not be too bad of idea. If they accept federal money they will have to open their books to audit somewhere down the road. They will also be audited to make sure they comply with U.S. employment practices and laws.
Nobody mentions how much the churches save by being exempt from income and property tax. The Catholic church is one of the biggest property holders in the Northeast but pays no property tax. But this may not be a bad of idea.
If they accept federal money they will have to open their books to audit somewhere down the road and will happen. They will also be audited to make sure they comply with U.S. employment practices and laws. Accepting public money may be more trouble than its worth but it sure will enable a close and public examination of many of their practices.
"SpeakOut" nos...@cox.net
Bush the moron tried the faith based crap in his own state of Texas and it failed...
http://www.au.org/churchstate/cs11023.htm What a moron.
...
Bush to push faith-based initiative By Nicholas M. Horrock UPI Chief White House Correspondent From the Washington Politics & Policy Desk Published 11/29/2002 6:41 PM WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 (UPI) -- With a Republican-controlled Congress at his back, President George W. Bush plans to push his faith-based initiatives again next year, but the thorny questions of whether they violate civil rights laws and constitutional separation of church and state are unsolved, critics claim.
Perhaps no initiative is more important to conservative Republicans than to give evangelical religious organizations access to the billions of dollars in federal social programs, which they say they have been denied for decades. Jim Towey, the director of the White House's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is quoted in the conservative magazine World as saying that "faith-based communities have been stiff armed by the federal government for years. They've been excluded, discriminated against." For the president, too, the faith-based initiative took a personal dimension, and when campaigning for it, he often mentioned that it was religion that helped him stop drinking and refocus his life when he was in his 40s.
Bush made the proposals a first order of business when he took office nearly two years ago. But when the administration had to agree to limit federal funds to religious groups for their secular services alone, the draft law ended up being criticized by conservatives as well as liberals.
The outcry by Bush's core Republican constituency was so great in the summer of 2001, it was said to have caused the sudden departure from the White House of John DiIulio, director of the faith-based office.
DiIulio was a widely respected conservative social scientist. Marvin Olasky writing in the Nov. 23 edition of World said under DiIulio, "the attempt to solicit liberal allies appeared to drive the whole process" and as a result "conservative Christian groups did not fight to keep it alive." He had lambasted DiIulio in an earlier article for having been an adviser to former Vice President Al Gore.
Now comes Bush with a new head of the faith-based office: Towey, a Catholic, also with bipartisan credentials (he once worked for the Democratic Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles) and people often note that he was tutored by the late Mother Teresa -- one of the most renowned religious workers for the poor.
Bush won an extraordinary increase in House seats for a sitting president in a mid-term election and recaptured the Senate. Earlier this week, Sen. Rick Santorum, Pa., who is the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, said the president's key conservative issues will be pushed next year with the faith-based initiative first among many. Senate Majority leader Trent Lott said ideas like giving money to churches to help families are "considered bad on the two coasts... but where the meat is in the sandwich, the rest of America, these are pretty mainstream ideas." Last year, Santorum and Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman won committee approval for what they called a compromise bill, the Charity, Aid, Recovery and Empowerment (C.A.R.E.) Act.
But opponents like Rep. Bobby Scott, the Newport Virginia Democrat who led the fight against the president's plans in the House, claims that the neither the president nor the White House will give the public "a straight answer" to what he calls fundamental questions: "Can you directly fund a church, write a government check to the First Baptist Church of Jefferson Park?" "Can you use government funds to proselytize and press your faith or beliefs on others?" "Can you discriminate in hiring?" Scott argues that the bills presented in both the House and the Senate are "stealth" measures, where the administration has gone to great lengths to hide its real intentions. He and others suggest that the ultimate goal of Bush is to allow religious organizations to apply and directly receive government grants -- which they say would violate the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free practice thereof." They argue giving the money directly to a church or religious group would effectively be supporting their establishment over others. Under present law, religious groups who perform social services usually create a tax-free foundation, a "501C3" program named after the section of the tax code which requires monies be used solely for the social service.
Scott and others believe that unless controlled, funds will be given to religious groups that are most favorable to the administration, not the most qualified. "If the Black Muslims had the best prison release program," government cash would still go to a white, accepted group like former Nixon-aide Chuck Colson's prison charity, Scott charges.
At present, religious groups cannot use the funds they get to provide social services to exhort people to join their religion. They must offer their services to any person of any faith, and the person needing the services must not be made to listen to any religious message in order to receive it.
Hiring too was a major issue in last year's debate. Many evangelical religious groups want the right to refuse employment even in non-religious jobs to homosexuals, and others have tried to limit employment to their own co-religionists.
A recent lawsuit in Georgia may the put the issue of discrimination in hiring to the test. According to an account in the New York Times, Alan M. Yorker, who said he was qualified to be a psychologist therapist with degrees from Columbia University, Georgia State and Emory was refused a job at Methodist children's home because he was Jewish. The home, The Times reported, receives about 40 percent of its income from the federal government. Under Georgia law, it is illegal to discriminate in this employment and Yorker is suing.
Among the original faith-based proposals was one in both houses that would protect faith-based organizations from these lawsuits.
At a Rockefeller Foundation panel several weeks ago, Towey seemed to dismiss these issues as a "hysterical response" and complained as others have that the Senate bill was stopped by a parliamentary trick of two senators who put a hold on it. One of those senators, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., echoed Scott's criticism -- the bill and these issues had never been heard in open hearing.
Scott believes that when Americans find out what these bills say, the support for them will melt away. He claims they are the "ugliest" pieces of legislation he recalls in public life.
Copyright ?© 2002 United Press International http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021129-051337-4212r
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit...@earthlink.net
"SpeakOut" nos...@cox.net
It's against all America stands for to give OUR money to religious groups that discriminate.
Bishop Bush is a moron.
...
Steven Litvintchouk sdlit...@earthlink.net
Senator Joseph Lieberman, DEMOCRAT from Connecticut, enthusiastically backs the faith-based initiative.
And he may well run for President against Bush in 2004.
Which means that either way, faith-based programs are the wave of the future.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit...@earthlink.net
Roedy Green ro...@mindprod.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:18:30 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote or quoted : There are two sides to this: preventing religion gaining control of the government and preventing the government gaining control of religion.
It is a dangerous move for a faith-based group to get on the government dole. Gradually they will find themselves "behaving" to keep their grants.
You see it all the time with various non-religious (e.g. antipoverty) organisations that become toothless after getting addicted to government money.
The Government can encouraging one denomination over another by directing funding. Surely they could compete on their merits.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, contract programming for $50 US per hour or fixed price.
For rapid answers to Java questions, see the glossary at http://mindprod.com/jgloss.html
Roedy Green ro...@mindprod.com
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 21:46:26 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote or quoted : Given that he drafted the homeland security bill, we must now put a black hat on him. He is a Bush toady now.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, contract programming for $50 US per hour or fixed price.
For rapid answers to Java questions, see the glossary at http://mindprod.com/jgloss.html
Steven Litvintchouk sdlit...@earthlink.net
I've had this concern too. As Bush's initiative was originally structured, there was no way to prevent this problem.
But in America, "Catholic Charities USA" has already been getting Government money for years. http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/index_flash.cfm They do this, by spawning separate charitable organizations with a clear "firewall" between the charity organization and any religious activity.
The charity organization gets government money, the religious activity does not.
Bush's "faith-based" initiative can work, if it is restructured to require such clear firewalls between the religious activities of the applicant organization and its religious activities.
Finally, note that Clinton had already signed legislation that allowed organizations like Catholic Charities to get Government money. That was already happening. What Bush's initiative does, is it enables organizations like Catholic Charities to compete on an equal footing with non-faith-based organizations for Government money.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit...@earthlink.net
"pkgojak" pkgo...@mydeja.com
That's a leap..but anyway, let's hope the money gets distributed evenly and that the Muslim community gets every bit their share.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
Norm no...@lvcm.com
I can see it now, new legislation requiring the Pledge of Allegiance be perform before worshipping. Churches will be required to take in gays.
Falwell and Robertson will state that churches should be exempt from accepting sinners of sodomy.
Steven Litvintchouk sdlit...@earthlink.net
I have no problem with them getting their share.
So long as the charitable work is kept separate from religious proselytizing.
The same principle that YOU would want applied to fundamentalist Christian organizations.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Church of Scientology get their fair share as well.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk Email: sdlit...@earthlink.net
Roedy Green ro...@mindprod.com
On Sun, 01 Dec 2002 02:17:18 GMT, Steven Litvintchouk <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote or quoted : In what sense then is the group receiving government money "faith based"? I thought Bush's idea was that churches could for example get money to preach Christianity to hookers to get them off the street. Faith is their technique.
Are these spin offs permitted to discriminate? only hiring people of the faith? avoiding blacks, gays etc.
If you build a really strong firewall, then you have no need for faith based grants. These groups would compete like any other for funding.
They would be effectively secular groups. They might receive grants from the church.
How do you choose which faiths to support? only Christian? only big 5. Any whacko sect that registers itself?
Have you ever heard Garrison Keillor's spoof about the factional rivalry in the church? Oh boy. I would hate to be the one in charge of handing out the grants.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, contract programming for $50 US per hour or fixed price.
For rapid answers to Java questions, see the glossary at http://mindprod.com/jgloss.html
| To Top |