DiIulio Resigning White House Religion Post

[Eve]

I figured this belonged in GD because of religious content. Anyway, from today's AP Newswire:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The leader of President Bush's effort to open government programs to religious groups is resigning after seven controversial months. John DiIulio, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, will leave as soon as a transition team can be put into place, said a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

DiIulio, a Democrat and academic, was regularly frustrated by the politics of Washington as he tried to steer the controversial Bush initiative through Congress. He was also exhausted by his commute several times a week from Philadelphia, where he is on leave from the University of Pennsylvania. His initiative was attacked by conservatives and liberals alike, who for different reasons opposed sending tax dollars to churches, synagogues and other religious groups.

He is leaving at a critical time for the initiative. DiIulio helped push legislation opening 10 government programs to religious groups through the House, but the measure faces a tougher time in the Senate. So far, no Democrat has been willing to sponsor the legislation, though Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., is working on a bill.

—Me, I'm still anxiously waiting for the Church of Satan to apply for a government grant . . .

[Revtim]

Good, maybe this utter travesty and blatant Constitutional violation will be flushed away like the worthless piece of filth that it is.

I'm against it, by the way.

[Soup_du_jour]

Revtim, don't be afraid to say what you really mean, now. Don't hold back!

[Sofa King]

I suspect that the rock of salt in this bucket of slugs is going to be just what Eve suggested.

I look forward to the semantic jungle-gym that some poor junior White House staffer is going to have to climb through to show that somehow, Satanists, Wiccans, Scientologists and the like aren't eligible for the money.

Come to think of it, in my capacity as a Reverend of the Universal Life Church, I may be eligible to apply for some funding for the faith-based program I've been working on....

Coming soon: Free Blessed Beer from the Reverend King

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Sofa King
Come to think of it, in my capacity as a Reverend of the Universal Life Church, I may be eligible to apply for some funding for the faith-based program I've been working on....

Coming soon: Free Blessed Beer from the Reverend King

Hey, not only am also a fellow Reverend, but that's where my username comes from! Revtim = Reverend Tim. Maybe I should rethink my views on this faith based stuff, I may be able to finagle a big fat check from Uncle George Bush!

[Sofa King]

Right on, dude! Let's soak those bastards for an Olympic-sized swimming pool so we can baptize people for free.

[astorian]

The notion that the government HAS to grant money to ANY group that calims to represent SOME religion is both silly and dishonest... though it's not surprising that people who oppose the whole concept of tax dollars going to religious groups would latch onto that argument.

In reality, NO minister/priest/rabbi/shaman of ANY denomination, (Christian or otherwise, mainstream or not) was ever going to walk into the White House, say "Gimme some money," and walk out with a blank check. ANY religious group that sought funding from the government was going to have to demonstrate that it was providing some service that was of SECULAR benefit to the community (by operating a homeless shelter, a soup kitchen, drug counseling, whatever). Moreover, whatever religious group received the funds would have to account for every penny, just as any beneficiary of government largesse would be.

If ANYONE can point to a soup kitchen or homeless shelter run by the Church of Satan, THEN I'll worry about the possibility that they'd receive government money.

[Sofa King]

But, astorian, what prevents Revtim and I from creating a faith-based organization which meets the criteria which the White House and Congress agree upon, and then soaking up all that beautiful, fluffy, free money?

That's a real question, by the way. The only out I can see is if some sort of grandfather clause is inserted which states something like "you must have been performing a public service prior to the enactment of this bill."

To which I would answer, the Krishna-conscious have been distributing karma-free flowers at airports for decades, now.

[Xan]

First of all this is just a plan so Bush can give money to the churches. He doesn't care about any other religion. You see if they go by how much community service the religious groups go by only the churches will qualify. Cause they are the only groups (to my knowledge) that do community service. I seem to remember a certain little Bush attacking Wicca and saying it was not a religion (when infact it is). It's a little plan by Bush to help his religion. Also its unconsititional to quote the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

[Ranger]

In the event this proposed bill comes to fruition, I'm pretty sure before they start doling out the cash, they're going to want to examine records of a specific church's EXISTING secular charitable program or programs. Speaking as a legally ordained minister of the Universal Life Church myownself, I'm afraid it would be a waste of my time to appear at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in a clerical collar with my hand out.

[Freedom]

Xan

I have a feeling that the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc..etc....

....are going to have a problem with your assertion that only the Christians provide outreach programs.







_{Man, I hate disagreeing with a blue plant}

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Eve
DiIulio, a Democrat and academic, was regularly frustrated by the politics of Washington as he tried to steer the controversial Bush initiative through Congress. He was also exhausted by his commute several times a week from Philadelphia, where he is on leave from the University of Pennsylvania. His initiative was attacked by conservatives and liberals alike, who for different reasons opposed sending tax dollars to churches, synagogues and other religious groups.

Most news reports are now saying it was planned from the beginning that DiIulio was to leave after six months.

Is this true, or backpedalling? The AP wire report quoted by Eve in the OP implies his quitting was unplanned.

[Muffin]

Originally posted by astorian
ANY religious group that sought funding from the government was going to have to demonstrate that it was providing some service that was of SECULAR benefit to the community . . .

The Temple of Ishtar ougt to be a shoe-in.

[astorian]

I repeat, NO plan proposed by ANYONE in the Bush administration involves forking over money to ANY church, simply because it's a church. IF religious groups are to receive money, it will not be because they are Christian, it will be because they are providing valuable social services.

A Baptist minister can't simply walk into the White House and say, "Hey, George, I could use some cash." On the other hand, if that minister's church has been operating a free medical clinic for inner-city children, that clinic MIGHT be eligible for (and worthy of) government assistance.

A rabbi won't be able to get tax dollars to fix the roof of his synagogue- but if his synagogue is running a large-scale food pantry for the poor, that pantry MIGHT be eligible for (and worthy of) federal help.

The elders of a black Muslim mosque can't stroll into the Oval Office and say, "So, George, where's OUR share of the loot?" On the other hand, if they've been running a homeless shelter or soup kitchen out of their basement, they MAY get some federal assistance.

I'm neither Baptist, Jewish, nor Moslem, but I'd have NO objection at all if the government gave a grant to Baptists, Jews or Moslems running the type of services I've mentioned. It goes without saying, of course, that monies granted must be spent for the specified purpose, and that any mismanagement of funds should lead to investigation, prosecution and punishment.

And when anti-religious folks ask (as they love to), "What if the Moonies or the Hare Krishnas or the Wiccans or the Satanists ask for money," I always ask the same question: where are the successful Satanist food pantries? Where are the Wiccan medical clinics? Where are the Moonie homeless shelters?" As far as I know, there AREN'T any, which makes Sofa and Tim's arguments moot. SInce those "churches" don't seem to provide any social services, they aren't eligible to receive any money.

Now, if such services DO exist, point them out. I'd be interested in learning more about them. IF such groups are running any worthwhile social services, and IF they can demonstrate fiscal responsibility, they should be eligible, too.

If that possibility was supposed to scare me, sorry Tim & Sofa. It didn't work. Try again.

[MEBuckner]

My question would be, how much will churches have to separate their basic religious mission from their state-sponsored social welfare programs? Can you get tax dollars to run your soup kitchen, if everyone who comes to the soup kitchen gets preached at about taking Jesus as their personal savior while they're eating the soup?

[super_head]

I may be wrong, but wasn't another concern of this program that government funds might be doled out to organizations which discriminate in their hiring practices as well?

[MEBuckner]

A good point. This article from Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Church & State magazine and this AU press release discuss the case of a lesbian fired by Baptist youth home in Kentucky--or perhaps one should say a "Baptist" youth home, since almost 70% of the organization's budget comes from the taxpayers, and reportedly only about 5% actually comes from Baptist churches.

Baptists do, however, get to run the place, and decide how to spend the money.

[MeCorva]

Well, I don't know enough about the Shriners to figure out if their "brotherhood" and "Order of XXXX and their ladies" statements mean that they intentionally only one gender or if the documents are just old. However, if that is the case, it's a pretty good example of a program that does good work, is fiscally responsible ( IMHO ), yet has some fairly strong discrimatory practices.

St. Joseph Peace Mission is catholic, which at least some groups consider the anti-christ.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/...6223/comm.html
tells of the SCAR covens community service efforts.

But, admittedly, with wiccans being such a small community group in the states, and with Satanists being hard to actually find, it is logical that their community service events will be much smaller.

And, astorian has another good point. A church that provides free abortions has about 0 chance of getting federal funding, IMHO.

But, with all that, astorian, I have to say, a friend of mine went around the country as a homeless person, checking out the various homeless shelters. (she was working for a homeless outreach program, and wanted to get some first hand information.) To hear her talk about how much proseltyzing went on makes me sick. I hope I am never in a situation where I need to make the choice between starving and allowing someone to attempt mind control on me.

BTW, let me make clear about the proseltyzing (spelling). I don't mind getting food and being told "This is from Jesus". If you believe that fine. I do mind being required to listen to hymns beforehand -- but as long as it isn't onerous, it would just be a bit nasty. But, to be subjected to hours of prayer groups is just wrong.

In my ideal world, no one would need to make that choice.

Me'Corva

[Revtim]

Astorian, is it your opinion that this does not violate the principle of separation of church and state, or do you not believe in the principle at all? Or do you feel that somehow this does not violate it?

It is my opinion that a soup kitchen created and run by a church is indeed part of that church, even if there is no preaching or prayer done in that kitchen (as unlikely as that is). Giving money to the soup kitchen is giving money to at least a part of a church, and a direct violation of the Constitution.

And your argument that because there are no Satanist soup kitchens there is no problem is totally moot. No one is suggesting such a thing exists; the point that is being made is that some believe that the government neither has the ability nor the right to decide which faith-based organisations are valid or not. If you think they aren't going to be prejudiced by their own beliefs, then I have some bridges in a swamp to sell you.

And what is your opinion about these organisations not hiring gays? Do they have the right to discrimate AND get tax money?

[CalMeacham]

I repeat, NO plan proposed by ANYONE in the Bush administration involves forking over money to ANY church, simply because it's a church. IF religious groups are to receive money, it will not be because they are Christian, it will be because they are providing valuable social services.

Hmmmm. And when the Scientologists come in claiming that their Narconon program and Applied Scholastics aren't really sneaky ways of pushing the Faith, but really community service, are you going to give them cash?

They can hire the million dollar attorneys to argue their case. They'd do it for the publicity value alone.

[Stoid]

Interestingly enough, I have long made it my policy never to give money to any charitable organization that springs from a church. Not just to be rude, but because I have always been offended by the willingness of some religious organizations to use charity as a tool to shove their religion down needy people's throats. That irritates the hello outta me.

You want to feed the hungry, then just feed them, don't make them listen to your stupid sermon first. Go ahead and leave your door open and tell him who fed 'em if you want, but leave it at that.

The fact that the government is seeking to do what I will not do privately, and spit on the constitutional separation of church and state in the process, makes me seethe.

So I don't think about it.

stoid

[Eve]

Me, I am ready to join the Church of Satan and open a soup kitchen just to see Our President furiously backpedal . . .

[MeCorva]

Stoid, I couldn't have said it better.

Doing something nice for someone because your religion tells you it is a good thing is a fabulous sign of tenderness. Doing something nice for someone with strings attached (You must sing this song) is a pointless trade -- you trade your food for their outward acquiescence.

Depressing.

Me'Corva

[Dangerosa]

Originally posted by CalMeacham
[

Hmmmm. And when the Scientologists come in claiming that their Narconon program and Applied Scholastics aren't really sneaky ways of pushing the Faith, but really community service, are you going to give them cash?

They can hire the million dollar attorneys to argue their case. They'd do it for the publicity value alone.

I just saw or heard an piece in the past two weeks on this. The Scientologist are indeed ready to claim their grants for Narconon. The guy they interviewed from the CoS was quite exicited by the "opportunity." Can't remember where I saw/heard it through, probably NPR.

[Revtim]

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/6/kaminer-w.html

Only a few weeks after President George W. Bush announced a federal initiative to fund sectarian religious organizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was reportedly pressuring the administration--with some success--not to underwrite the Nation of Islam. According to The New York Times, ADL representatives left a meeting with John J. DiIulio, Jr., director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "reassured that the president would not allow financing for the Nation of Islam's programs."

The administration is already deciding what is a worthy religion and what is not, based on the precise philisophical tool of "lobbying".

Don't take this as an endorsement of the Nation of Islam, but note that nobody has said they are unworthy of funding because their charitable programs aren't effective. It is clear that they are being denied funding because of their beliefs.

[Sofa King]

astorian says:

"What if the Moonies or the Hare Krishnas or the Wiccans or the Satanists ask for money," I always ask the same question: where are the successful Satanist food pantries? Where are the Wiccan medical clinics? Where are the Moonie homeless shelters?" As far as I know, there AREN'T any, which makes Sofa and Tim's arguments moot.

Well...

Looks like Prabhupada is in, by your definition, doesn't it? Go Krsna!

And it would appear that to be a good Moonie,you have to perform lots of community service.

And you still haven't explained what would prevent Eve, or the Right Reverend Tim and I from setting up a community service program through the Church of Satan and getting subsidized for it.

That is, after all, what this bullshit is supposed to be about, isn't it?

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Revtim
Astorian, is it your opinion that this does not violate the principle of separation of church and state, or do you not believe in the principle at all? Or do you feel that somehow this does not violate it?

Wee bit redundant. I think what I planned to ask in that last sentence is "Or do you not believe in the sep. of church and state at all?"

[London_Calling]

Just for informational purposes, an alternative method available in the UK:

You pay tax on your income in the usual way to Government >
You make a donation to a charity of your choice from your disposable income >
Charity receives the money, then claims from Government the amount of tax you paid when earning the amount you contributed >
Government adds 10% to that sum.

http://www.allaboutgiving.org/other/taxchanges.cfm

In effect, tax free giving plus a Government donation of 10%

Seemed a good idea to reduce Government influence so they wouldn't be tempted to determine eligibility and entitlement according to their political agenda.

[magdalene]

Originally posted by Stoid
You want to feed the hungry, then just feed them, don't make them listen to your stupid sermon first. Go ahead and leave your door open and tell him who fed 'em if you want, but leave it at that.

The fact that the government is seeking to do what I will not do privately, and spit on the constitutional separation of church and state in the process, makes me seethe.

First Six Feet Under, and now this. I'm agreeing with Stoid all over the place these days.

[vanilla]

I don't believe Any satanist would sponsor a soup kitchen.
Their beleifs are pretty much survival of the smartest and strongest, every man for himself.

Sofa King: Church of the Sofa?
I suppose the change under the couch pillows would be tithes.

[deb2world]

Bush received quite a bit of support from Pat Robertson and the Christian coalition. He therefore owes them. What Pat Robertson wants to do is amend the faith based initiative to exclude what he doesn't consider churches. He also want to amend it to limit government control of how the money is spent. You can read Robertson's thoughts on the subject here patrobertson .

Another interesting reading is from The Interfaith Alliance -- Oppose the "Charitable Choice" Provisions in the Watts-Hall Bill, H.R. 7 . They list some very compelling reason why this initive stinks. Such as taxpayer dollars supporting discrimination. Currently churchs are exempt from discrimination laws, but should that continue when government money is being used to fund their community programs? The complete article http://www.interfaithalliance.org/In...lergy_ltr.html

From an Article in Liberty Magazine "There are also issues raised about the fungibility of money provided to religious charities. If faith-based organizations are able to use federal funds for their "secular" charitable activities, funds that they had previously used for those activities will be freed up to be used by their religious activities, essentially taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. In a real sense, the effect would be the same as if the federal government were directly funding the religious activities. This is what the Supreme Court has called "a legalistic minuet." In fact, this is exactly the same logic that President Bush used in barring government funds to organizations that provide abortion counseling overseas." The article http://www.libertymagazine.org/issue.../article2.html

There are currently ways a church organization can receive public money and that is by declaring 501(C) nonprofit status. This requires the church to set up a separate, secular organization to receive the funds.

So I guess it shows that I am against this initiative.