Ouch. A simulpost with the same cites. I bet you’re complexion matches you name now, Bricker.
It’s my first simulpost, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. 
And yet…none of your cites touches upon who will be excluded from being eligible for faith-based charity work.
In fact, from your ABC link, it says:
So from your own links, the Nation of Islam would not be excluded from the faith-based initiative. Except, we still don’t know. Because that has nothing to do with the Executive Order at hand. It was something said back in March.
And your beliefnet link says:
The link never mentions an official White House policy to exclude certain religions.
No one has been able to produce a link that says that such a policy even exists. Please provide one, or stop saying that Bush is going to pick and choose which religions get federal funding.
Did you two even read the links before you posted them?
So Neurotik, is there any particular reason why you ignored the last two paragraphs of the ABC link, where Karen Hughes starts backpedaling?
Furthermore, the links were in response to Bricker’s accusations of lying. Neither Roberliguori or me said anything about official policies. Kindly stop building strawmen.
Actually, it was just the last sentence. And I missed it because I had started skimming during the last two paragraphs. My mistake. But that’s Hughes…Bush clearly said something different.
What strawmen? Apos gave those quotes as a cite for his assertion that certain groups were officially barred from being eligible to work in the faith-based initiative program. They are nothing of the sort. His use of them as a cite for an official policy amounts to a lie.
Well, the official policy isn’t quite determined until the EOs are put to actual use. While waiting for that to happen, we don’t really have much else to go on except Bush’s earlier opinions on related subjects.
I’ll concede that Apos’ quotes fall short of concluding the matter, but to portray them as lies is IMO very bad faith on the objector’s part.
After all, they do establish what Bush thought on Wiccans and Nation of Islam in the near past.
Sorry, Jaakko, but I stand by my characterization of ‘lies.’
It’s of absolutely no probative value what the President thinks of any particular religion. The question under consideration comes from Diogenes the Cynic’s response to me:
We’re not debating anything except whether the administration has already specified that Scientology, The Nation of Islam, and Neo-Pagan groups are not eligible.
Cites were posted in support of that claim, but they did not support that claim. It is fair to call those claims lies.
If you have a citation that shows how the administration has already specified that these groups are not eligible, then by all means offer it, Jaakko. If not, please withdraw your support of Diogenes’ claim.
- Rick
I haven’t expressed support for Diogenes anywhere in this thread. Why do I have this feeling that when I agreed with one part of Apos’ argument, you took it as implicated support for everything anyone said on that side of the debate? I assure you that isn’t the case.
Bricker, whether or not Bush’s statements reflect official policy, he said them. Therefore, they aren’t lies.
I asked :
In response, the VERY NEXT post, by Apos, offers the (unattributed) Wiccan and Nation of Islam quotes. Those were, at least in my view, pretty clearly being offered in reply to my request. They did not, however, demonstrate that the Nation of Islam and Wiccans were ineligible to participate. For what purpose were they offered, if not to answer my challenge?
In response to Apos, I said:
As is hopefully clear from the bolded portions of my earlier comment, while I mention off-handedly the possibility that they were never said, I focus much more strongly on the context – that is, did the quote support the premise it was being offered to support. Indeed, I say above that I remember the Wicca quote, and point out it was nothing to do with whether certain faiths were being favored overs other by the executive order.
So when I say ‘lies’, I’m referring to the claim:
I’m also referring to Diogenes’ post as I mentioned above, and to anyone who said, in essence, that those claims were true and offered those links as evidence.
No link or citation in this thread gives any measure of support to the claim that under the executive order some faith-based organizations will be treated differently than others based on the respective faiths involved.
Now, if I could have been more clear, and was not, I certainly apologize. As I said myself in the quote that starts this post, I recalled the Wiccan quote. It’s obvious, at least to me, that I wouldn’t say I remembered it in one post, and then go on to call someone a liar for saying it happened.
So to claify, the following statements are lies, according to me:
Apos: 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.
Diogenes: *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. * AND 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.
If someone has evidence that I am wrong, and these statements are not lies, please, by all means, offer it up, and I will must humbly apologize. I am not, however, holding my breath.
- Rick
—They did not, however, demonstrate that the Nation of Islam and Wiccans were ineligible to participate.—
I argee. And I doubt there is or ever will be any sort of policy that prevents them officially from participating, and I overstepped reality by saying that Bush had said there was. Saying “according to Bush so far” was wrong. He has not said that these groups are ineligible (many concerned groups have demanded that they be, but Bush has not followed their lead).
What those quotes do reveal to me, however, is that Bush is not neutral when it comes to religion. He does not accord them the same status or think they should be treated the same as other religions. Even regardless of whether he did or did not, however, it is a very bad thing that the government will now be in the bussiness of judging not just the programs offered, but also how much it approves of their messages.
And Bush’s statements about the Nation of Islam confirm to me that he is not at all disinterested in the messages these groups have when it comes to funding. The Texas push to implement similar laws was likewise very indicative: it used not the general terminology of religion, but talked instead of churches. Either highly subjective factors obviously played a huge role in which programs got funded, or there were orders to practice a sort of affirmative action for Christian programs. And religious organizations taking public money were all but exempted from public oversight.
Well, clearly I was wrong when I said you lied, when I can now see you merely “overstepped reality.”
Indeed? I think this last sentence might be another “overstep” of reality, unless you can show me a citation that shows the religious content or message of any group will be a factor in that group’s getting, or being denied, a government contract.
Mr. Bush’s statements about the Nation of Islam had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Nation of Islam would be eligible to participate in the programs under discussion, did they?
The last point you’ve raised deserves some consideration. You argue, if I understand you correctly, that Mr. Bush implemented similar programs in Texas, and, regardless of the language of the laws and orders creating those programs, the actual effect was contract awards to Christian social service organizations in preference to non-Christian organizations, and it occurred because of the inherent bias in the program administrators, or the governor, or both. We can thus reasonably suppose, you argue, that a similar evolution will occur at the federal level.
Is that a fair summary of your point?
- Rick
Apos wrote:
Weak. Unless you are willing to concede that people without children are being screwed by public schools, and so forth.
I for one am willing to be flexible with the Bush Admin’s “faith Based” (but why the euphamism?) initiative, despite the potential for unconstitutional church-state issues to arise and the potential for illegal discrimination to take place.
But what burns me up is the Bush Admin’s refusal to be flexible with international family planning organizations who are associated–however indirectly–with abortion or even abortion-rights lobbying.
Faith-based charities “do good work”? So do family planning orgs.
Some people don’t like abortion and don’t want their tax cents going to organizations which “promote” it? Well some people don’t like anti-gay discrimination and don’t their tax money going to orgs which do that.
There are real legal hurdles for Bush’s FBI to overcome. The Gag Rule is based purely on politics. It’s worse than a double standard.
Well, discrimination based on religion is impermissible - if the charges levelled above by Apos and others had been true, it would have been a serious problem.
However, there is no constitutional or statutory bar for the administration to refuse to fund abortion providers overseas. You may not like it, but there’s nothing illegal about it.
But you seem to suggest there IS a legal issue. What is it?
- Rick
If people who feel that there was proselytization, and potential employees who feel that they weren’t hired due to their beliefs, can both sue for damages, I say go for it. I wonder how many lawsuits they can survive before they go back to just doing good deeds for the sake of their fellow man.