http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021212_128.html
Equal treatment of religious groups, or special treatment?
It depends.
It’s “equal treatment” in that faith-based organizations are not barred from federal contract awards, as they were in the past.
It’s “special treatment” in that faith-based organizations are permitted to hire members of a particular faith when the job reasonably requires it. Other organizations are not.
However, it’s unclear to me how that “special treatment” will operate to the advantage of the group in question. In other words, of two organizations, one permitted to hire anyone they please, and another committed to hiring only Southern Baptists, let us say, while both are now permitted to receive federal contracts, one has a much broader range of applicants to choose from and, presumably, a much better quality of worker as a result.
What am I missing?
- Rick
Why don’t we just perferate the constitution into convenient little squares for Bush to wipe his ass with?
I hope that this little fiat of his will be subject to some kind of review by the SCOTUS. :mad:
I mean perforate, not perferate.
…and, what you’re missing, Bricker, is that it is unconstiutional in the first place to hand out federal money to religious groups unless you’re going to treat all religions equally. GWB is picking and choosing which religions he deems WORTHY of receiving federal money. IMO this is tantamount to a federal endorsement of those religions, and thus violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
This is another of Bush’s sops to social conservatives. It won’t mean too much money, but he’s thowing scraps at them. Much like his support of snowmobiles in national parks, or drilling in ANWAR. Small change to actual conservatives, the big rewards to his crony capitalism buddies.
My prediction - more of the burden of social programs wil be shifted to the private sector, then they will be defunded. It’s what’s happening vis a vis state governments.
BTW - card carrying ACLU member here - get ready for descent into the BBQ pit!
My fear exactly. I also expect to see something like this in regards to school vouchers and de-funding of public schools.
Here are links to the Executive Orders. You’ll note that there are in fact, two of them released yesterday on this topic.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-6.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021212-5.html
It might be good to have the actual documents at hand, rather than ABC’s analysis.
I must be missing that - what is your support for the proposition that all religions are not treated equally under this scheme?
- Rick
If the Church of Scientology applies for a grant will they get it? 
—What am I missing?—
That I now pay taxes to support an organization I cannot be a part of? That doesn’t strike you as being a little, oh, fucked up?
The fact is, religious charities can ALREADY get government money, as long as it actually goes to actually providing charity. The idea that charity efforts run by religious people are discriminated against is just ridiculous. In this city alone there are tons of organizations founded by churches and temples that take state and federal funds and provide real services to people. The difference from what Bush is proposing is that these people are actually out to provide services, not to shill for their beliefs while doing so. They offer spiritual services, but they don’t ask for federal funding for them.
Bush has tried to argue that his orders wont allow funding of religious programs. But if that were true, why would we need to change the laws at all? The only reason I can see is to allow religious charities to mix their finances together, making the distinction between funding religious activities and funding charity completely moot.
And then, Charitable Choice has already been tried in Texas: with troubling results, and the legislature considering not renewing the Accredidation program any further.
The admittedly partisan Texas Freedom Network claims:
http://www.tfn.org/issues/charitablechoice/report02.html
-Loosening regulations over faith-based providers has not served the faith community at large, but has instead provided a refuge for facilities with a history of regulatory violations, a theological objection to state oversight and a higher rate of abuse and neglect.
-Loosening regulations over faith-based providers has endangered people in need and lowered standards of client health, safety and quality of care in Texas.
-Faith-based deregulation has allowed physical diseases to go medically untreated.
-Regulatory changes have resulted in preferential treatment of faith-based providers in government contracting opportunities.
-Taxpayer funds have been co-mingled with church funds and spent on overtly religious activities.
-Clients have been ordered by the courts to attend unlicensed faith-based providers.
—If the Church of Scientology applies for a grant will they get it?—
According to Bush so far: Farrakan wont get it. Wiccans wont get it. Who decides that Farrakan’s group cannot run a charity because they are too hateful, and other religious groups are not? Who decides that Wicca isn’t a “real religion”? This is EXACTLY the sort of bussiness the government was NEVER supposed to get into.
A historical note here too: Bush’s involvement with this issue came back in 1995, when a place called “Teen Challenge” (a residential, faith-based drug treatment program for teens) was written up on health and safety violations. Bush, defending the program, began looking for ways to exempt the program from health and safety standards. It wasn’t until Ashcroft, in the Senate, got the “Charitable Choice” bill through Congress that states began being able to contract out services to explictly religious programs.
As Apos pointed out, the administration has already specified that Scientology, The Nation of Islam, and Neo-Pagan religious groups will not be eligible. Maybe he can find weasely reasons to deny the first two groups. There si no excuse whatever to deny Wiccans other than sheer ignorant bigotry.
I’m sorry, but I am still unable to lacte the citation that supports Apos’ and Diogenes the Cynic’s claims that all Wiccan groups and all Farrakan groups are ineligible to participate. Where exactly was it that Bush said this?
On Wicca “I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it.” (in conservative terms, “allow” is often used as a synonym for “promote” but I don’t think that comes off well either way you take it)
On the Nation of Islam: "it is hard to envision a program sponsored by hate, hateful groups, groups that want to pit one against another, being able to achieve that which we want. I don’t see how we can allow public programs where spite and hate is the core of the message.’’ So now it’s the government’s decision about what messages are appropriate? That it funds organizations where there are religious messages to worry about in the first place?
Scientology is a grey area: many influential people in his administration are against it, calling it a cult, but some are for it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason we have a wall of seperation between church and state.
Correction: That’s why we used to have a wall. Well, maybe we still have it, but there’s some mighty big holes gettin’ blasted into it.
Is this your idea of a cite?
For all I know, you made up those quotes. What was the context? For example, the Wicca comment, I seem to recall, pre-dated the executive order and had nothing at all to do with the subject; it related to whether Wiccan practicioners would have access to base facilities, not whether they would be excluded from competitive status for social service contract awards.
So this is no cite at all. Where was it said, and what was the context, and what is your source?
If this is the best criticism you offer of Bush’s executive order is lies on the order of the above, I am certainly entitled to conclude that it’s a fine idea, since its opponents can offer naught but untruths to discredit it.
- Rick
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush000301.html
Lies? Before you say that they might be untrue, why don’t you spend half a second googling them? And don’t you be calling my homey Apos a liar.
Don’t worry, Apos. This G is watching your back. Yo.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/bush000301.html
There ya go Bricker, the results of a whole thirty seconds of Googling. I know it’s not your job to get other peoples cites for them, but immediately jumping to calling people liars isn’t going to cut it either.