Start a Pagan Faith Based Program - Cry Discrimination if Funds Not Given

Ok, I'm sick of Bush's 'faith based initiatives' and the resultant funneling of US tax dollars to Christian organizations with radical right wing, radical evangelical Christian agendas. The Christians are crying because they say that secular policies are trying to 'stamp out' their faith.

So here's how we fix it, and help them comprehend the problem with 'faith based initiatives'. Have a Pagan organization, or better yet a Satanic (a la The Church of Satan) organization put together a proposal for a community service program. Have them apply for funding under the 'faith based initiative' program.

If the funds are denied, sue for discrimination against their religious beliefs. Cry and moan about how the government is trying to stamp out Paganism and Satanism, which are established religions. Point out that under the First Amendment, the government cannot discriminate in favor of one religion or against another religion.

Either the whole 'faith based initiative' nonsense will be stuck down as unconstitutional OR Christians' tax dollars will be going to the Church of Satan. Either way, I'd be satisfied.

where we give praise to the god within us. We could even resurrect the old Heinlein phrase, "Thou art God."

The pagan Church of All Worlds, or CAW, is based in part on Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" and uses the phrase "Thou art God (or Goddess, as the case may be)during ritual.

...let's just cry "discrimination" and skip the part about starting a new FBI.

By the way, wasn't 9/11 a "faith-based initiative"?

at least the one I'm involved with, who when * first started talking about this faith-based baloney, were all excited and behind it, because they thought they would be able to get some money to start shelters and things like that. I, along with many others, told them again and again that * was not talking about non-Fundie Christian 'faiths'. I think they finally caught on. This is a way to get public funds to go to Fundamentalist Christian organizations so they can convert people.

Would help Christians understand why we find Christan Faith Based Programs offensive.

I really think a serious proposal by a Pagan or Wiccan Organization, followed up with an aggressive legal challenge to the denied funding, turned into a feeding frenzy by the media, would put an end to Faith based programs.

Or...your friends would get some money and Christans would have to live with knowing that their tax money is going to Pagans, and they'd get a taste of what it feels like.

has a really great group going. They have about the same membership as some churches. I could totally see her trying something like this. I think maybe I'll talk to her about it.

The responses here are curious. I'm familiar with Christian groups who have been taking advantage of "faith-based" funding from the government for over a decade. Bush has merely emphasized the importance of something long since in play.

One writer long ago "spoke of the enormous potential of churches, synagogues, mosques and meetings to mobilize thousands of volunteers, acting on their faith and moral principles, to tackle social needs." Marlene Wilson was no fundy wacko. She was simply concerned about leveraging socially concerned groups to get needed social work done. By contrast, some of you are posing the creation of groups as some kind of lame "vengeance." But the courage of vindictive convictions is not likely to motivate sincere, helpful social work. The motive has to be that you care about those you serve -- not that you hate those you imagine you're competing with. But even if one could succeed for a while on hate, the motive would evanesce the moment one discovered that those one hates are grateful for the help. What can you do then, when you realize your very purpose is counterproductive, cheering rather than frustrating those you hate? Do you abandon those you only ostensively serve, proving yourself less genuine in your care than those you hated?

Another aspect of using private groups to accomplish social work is the importance of "mediating institutions" that stand between the individual and the State. I don't suspect many here have never even heard the phrase. Let's just summarize by remarking that the only thing that keeps a government from being a totalism is such mediating institutions (whether religious or not). The more frequently a person benefits from such institutions, rather than the State, the more healthy a society is.

Consider Dickens:

<>
"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge," said the gentleman,
taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in
operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman," I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had
occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
</>

Scrooge loaths the notion that anyone should accept personal responsibility to redress the misfortunes of those fallen on hard times. He deems the gentlemen soliciting him fools for imposing on men such as himself, for expecting that "it takes a village," as Hillary observed.

BTW, to my knowledge both Bush and Kerry favored an increase in charitable deductions. Heck, I'd like to see a full tax *credit*. This would encourage people to vote their dollars to worthy and effective causes in their own communities, instead of sending their tax dollars to Washington -- effective causes, whether Christian, Wiccan, or secular. Folks will give to groups they know care.

Bush's Faith Based Initiatives are a form of State sponsored Religion. They violate the establishment clause. They discriminate wildly in favor of Christianity and against all other faiths. They pay lip-service to Judaism and Islam, but no funds go there. They don't even pretend to be fair to other traditions.

They are not allowed to directly use the funds to promote their religion, but they find all sorts of indirect ways to promote their religion in the course of their activities.

Further, they are being used to undermine the role of government in providing these services. First, tax money goes to these religious groups, who use it to provide social services. Next, the case is made that the churches are meeting the needs of the poor. Finally, the right-wingers say that they have been right all along, charity should be private and not public.

How would Christians feel about their tax dollars going to The Church of Satan? Or the local Witches Coven? Well, that's how secular people feel about OUR tax dollars going to religious organizations. There is a reason for the Separation of Church and State. If the government is going to be giving money to religious groups, I'd at least like to see it going to groups that have teachings that are not offensive to me.

But I'd rather have people see Faith Based Initiatives for what they are. I think if people were forced to choose between:

1.) Christian Theocracy, or
2.) tax money going to pagan groups, or
3.) separation of church and state,

they would choose separation of church and state. It is only by providing the illusion that Faith based initiatives do not violate this principle that people accept them. If the choice were forced by a high profile case and a court battle, I think people would wake up and remember why we have the separation and the establishment clause.

"Bush's Faith Based Initiatives are a form of State sponsored Religion."

This isn't "Bush's" territory. I believe Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform law that included section 104, which "encourages states to involve community and faith-based organizations in providing federally funded welfare services to the poor and needy."

A site that can help you learn about this:
http://www.cpjustice.org/faq

See question 9 to understand the force of the law Clinton signed.

"Further, they are being used to undermine the role of government in providing these services."

Not at all. State governments are free to use no private groups at all to deliver social services. But if they elect to use private organizations, they cannot discriminate based on some religious test.

"How would Christians feel about their tax dollars going to The Church of Satan?"

Doesn't matter. Discrimination on the basis of a religous test is wrong. Let the Church of Satan provide such social services, and receive whatever funds they are capable of spending in such service.

Your rhetorical question assumes that "how people feel" is more important than justice. It's not.

Kind of hard to claim Christians are trying to foist a theocracy if they shrug and say "bring 'em on" when you pose the "what about the pagans" question, isn't it? ;-)

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

to the moral values voters

Would love to see a complete audit of the funds already doled out. I hear the books are so bad no one really knows where the money is going and what it is for.

You might want to check the books during this period, after Clinton signed the welfare bill that really got the "charitable choice" ball rolling. Bush is merely imparting further momentum to something that made this inevitable. You wouldn't want to impugn Bush for appreciating something Clinton signed off on, would you? ;-)

especially the finds used for buildings post 2000

That was soon....I thought you loved God, not you really hate the Clenis...:shrug:

allowing for discrimination in hiring, as Bush's do.

Religious organizations have always received federal funding for providing social services, but had to follow all federal laws and had to keep their religion out of the service's they provided.

Bush's FBI reversed both.

I don't like my tax dollars going to a "christian" group that can legally descriminate against gays and lesbians.

Can you cite the statutes, please? I'm unfamiliar with religious organizations which have been legally compelled -- "always" -- to hire just anyone off the street to run their social programs. I'm sure many religious organizations have, regardless.

Bush's Faith-based initiative indeed did remove the burden placed on religous organizations, to shed their organizational distinctives when providing such services.

A lot of citizens don't like where their tax dollars go. You have recourse to legislatures and the courts. A great first step would be to lobby for a strong tax credit for charitable contributions, which would encourage more Americans to support social service organizations of their choice. This would let you send your money where you'd like it to go, and permit others the same free choice.

Keep the goal in mind -- providing effective services. Those who don't have an axe to grind with religion have observed that such programs can be very effective in delivering the services -- for reasons which are, at this late stage in the national conversation on the topic, well understood.

to do the legislation thing with this. The Inititive was (rightly) stalled) in Congress because of the descrimination and separation issues -- Bush shoved it through by Executive Order, so like the dictator he is.

http://pewforum.org/faith-based-initiatives/

The President's order effectively applies charitable choice principles through administrative regulation rather than legislation. Under the existing charitable choice provision, as well as the new executive order, social service providers are not allowed to discriminate against beneficiaries of services on the basis of faith, but they are allowed to discriminate in hiring and in selecting board members on the basis of religious faith. They are not allowed to use federal grant or contract dollars to fund any "inherently religious" activity, and they must separate "in time or location" services funded by direct governmental aid from "inherently religious activities." But religious organizations can compete for government funding to provide public services without having to abandon "their independence, autonomy, expression, or religious character." They also may display religious art, icons or scripture in their facilities, and they may retain religious terms in their organization name, their mission statements and other governing documents. These and other issues are addressed in the White House's short guide aimed at helping organizations apply for federal grants, Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government.


http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/ The_Faith_Based_Initiative.pdf?docID=111

Charitable choice originated with then-Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) during the drafting of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act. The concept altered existing law to permit taxpayer-financed social service funding of houses of worship in a few welfare programs.

This approach represented a radical change. In the past, government sometimes contracted with organizations such as Catholic Charities or United Jewish Communities to provide services, but safeguards were kept in place to protect the rights of the disadvantaged, the integrity of the groups and the interests of taxpayers. Houses of worship did not contract directly with the government; rather, religious institutions created separate entities to deal with public funds and did not incorporate religion into the publicly funded program. Charitable choice removed many of those safeguards. As a result, families in need could face unwanted pressure to participate in religious exercises at facilities funded by the government. The policy also permitted groups to discriminate in hiring on religious grounds, even for positions completely paid for by taxpayer dollars.

Charitable choice became part of the welfare law in 1996, but the federal government was hesitant to implement the policy due to constitutional concerns. Moreover, only a handful of states have altered their programs to allow for government funding of religious ministries. Now, however, the Bush administration is working to apply charitable choice to nearly every aspect of government funding. If implemented, the practical effects of these proposals would be dramatic, which is why the faith-based initiative has sparked intense criticism from the religious, civil liberties, civil rights, educational and social service communities.

snip...

Another controversy raised by charitable choice is the specter of federally funded employment discrimination. Under Bush's proposal, for example, churches would be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving a massive infusion of public dollars.

A Bob Jones-style religious group, for example, could receive tax aid to hire people to perform social services and hang up a sign that says "Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply." That's not "compassionate conservatism," that's outrageous bigotry.

Should a Catholic school choose to have only teaching sisters in the classroom and only of a certain order, a lay teacher would not be able to complain of discrimination even at the college level where the students may be there on a federally funded scholarship or loan.

only fundies goy our taxpayer money. NO ONE ELSE. (It's really was W's slush fund for campaigning, you know that?)

I think the first suit should be by the Jewish Board of Family Services or Catholic Charities. Where are their faith-based initiative grants?

Give it a good enough name, and all the little Harry Potter fans will want to attend.

;)

We have enough image problems as it is.

repukes are the ones who will do the linking. Dems won't touch it.