1. Under President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, should there be any limits on religious organizations as to how they can use the taxpayer money?

2. Are religious groups better than secular groups in administering the taxpayer monies to those in need?

3. Chuck Colson's prison program, InnerChange, forces inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison. This is just one example among many. Do you think the Faith Based Initiatives involve misappropriation of taxpayer money?



http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=179
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/newsletters/article.cfm?id=5815
www.mediatransparency.org/story.php%3FstoryID%3D91+Chuck+Colson+prison+program+InnerChange&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

As a Christian, I don't want religious institutions of any kind, particularly Christian institutions, getting invovled in government policies. It's bad for society and bad for Christianity. It associates Chrisitainity with government entities and even a certain party that seems to want to use religion. In the end, this only harms the testimony of real Christians.

I think FB initiatives are unConstitutional, but even if they are not, I would discourage any real Christians from getting entangled in what is, at heart, a politicization of charity.

1. Under President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, should there be any limits on religious organizations as to how they can use the taxpayer money?

Yes, but not religious limitations. The initiatives are supposed to allow religious charities to bid on government social services contracts that were previously limited to secular groups, on grounds that it is unfair to discriminate against bidders on the basis of religion. At least theoretically, the same contract limitations apply to whoever gets the contracts, whether faith-based or not.

The main hang-up is their restriction against proselytization, also called evangelism. Evangelical groups consider evangelism integral to their religion and the success of the services they provide. Many of them believe the initiatives unfairly single out Evangelicals for discrimination and want the ban on evangelism lifted.

2. Are religious groups better than secular groups in administering the taxpayer monies to those in need?

Some are, and some are not. Part of the process for awarding contracts is an evaluation of each group's history of fiscal responsibility, along with a mandate to keep government informed in the same way as any other government contractor. As a Libertarian, I believe that all charity should be paid for by donation, not taxation; but under the current circumstances, government should not discriminate against bidders on the basis of religion.

3. Chuck Colson's prison program, InnerChange, forces inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison. This is just one example among many. Do you think the Faith Based Initiatives involve misappropriation of taxpayer money?

Some may, just like defense contractors famously getting caught spending $400 on a hammer that spawned Al Gore's Hammer Awards. But that's why the government (supposedly) monitors the progress of its contractors and conducts thorough audits.

InnerChange may not attempt to rehabilitate every inmate, but for those it does serve, it is highly effective, perhaps due to its requirement for inmates to have a real change of heart, as best they can determine. If InnerChange were the only group tasked by the government to rehabilitate inmates, then there would be a serious problem; however, inmates who prefer not to participate in InnerChange on religious grounds have plenty of other options.


I partially agree and partially disagree. My own opinion on the issue is threefold. First, the best public policy is to avoid discrimination on the basis of religion and to avoid limiting religious speech, even when awarding government contracts and tax-exempt status. Second, welfare and most other charity should be de-socialized and re-privatized (funded by private donations and guaranteed investments rather than forced taxation). Third, from a religious perspective, religious groups should avoid accepting government restrictions on pulpit messages in exchange for "filthy lucre", but should raise their own donations and even "render unto Caesar", if necessary.

As a seeker, I don't really mind when Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, Atheist, Agnostic, or other groups with a proven history of financial responsibility and effectiveness are given a chance to compete on a level playing field for social services contracts that would otherwise be awarded to less effective secular groups. I would seriously object if any religious group were given a "monopoly" to provide certain services, but the initiatives are supposedly set up to prevent that.


A legal argument in favor of the initiatives is that discrimination against contractors on the basis of religion is an outright violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, as an extrapolation from the Gentala, Milford, and Prince cases mandating equal access to government resources for religious groups. The argument against it is that the payment of government funds to religious groups has been ruled as a violation of the Establishment Clause in the past.

Today (2007-02-28) The Supreme Court began hearing Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation that could eventually settle the issue (unless the case is thrown out on the technicality that FFRF may not have legal standing to bring the suit). It's hard to even guess how SCOTUS will rule on either standing or the merits of the case, but trends in recent case law seem to favor declaring Faith-Based Initiatives constitutional and religious discrimination against potential government contractors unconstitutional.

Social Security and the entire FDR welfare state are "politicizations of charity", to borrow Landru's phrase. They were handled predominantly by religious groups before the Great Depression, after the formerly wealthy could no longer afford to donate enough to keep pace with growing need. From such a perspective, faith-based initiatives may simply begin the process of returning some charity to the private sector, now that we're no longer in the Great Depression.

1. Under President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, should there be any limits on religious organizations as to how they can use the taxpayer money?

Yes. Taxpayer money should not go to religious sects. I would hate to bring this up but getting down to the truth of it many prominent religious groups in America are charged with the duty of saving your immortal soul from hell, and of course being a heathen of such a religion means you are going to hell, which means that internet skit is correct and Muslims and Jews, and all other denominations save for the one you may be following are probably going to spend eternity in hell together.

Rant aside religion has many strings attached to it. They can do charity privately just like everyone else. Like with the prison program that charge to save your soul equates into prisoners basically having to accept a certain religious ideology as put forward in this case by the federal government, that’s a breech of the establishment clause in my modest opinion.

2. Are religious groups better than secular groups in administering the taxpayer monies to those in need?

No, people can equally be "evil" and "good" regardless of title, history proves this point about well over a million times.

3. Chuck Colson's prison program, InnerChange, forces inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison. This is just one example among many. Do you think the Faith Based Initiatives involve misappropriation of taxpayer money?

Yes, I do.

1. Under President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, should there be any limits on religious organizations as to how they can use the taxpayer money?
Yes. The limits should be the same as they are for a secular organization. If we give Bubba's Holy Roller Ministry money to provide meals to the homeless, then they should spend it providing meals to the homeless. If they spend it on Bubba's BBQ Homecoming and Cotillion for Wayward Billionaires, then they've gone astray.


2. Are religious groups better than secular groups in administering the taxpayer monies to those in need?
I don't know. I know that religious groups in general are far more effective at delivering social services for X amount of dollars than government, and may be better at it than secular NGOs, but in this country we don't have enough recent experience to answer the question.

3. Chuck Colson's prison program, InnerChange, forces inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison.
InnerChange does not force inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison. In the interests of honest debate, you should have linked to IFI itself.

Here is an academic study of InnerChange:
http://www.pfm.org/media/ifi/Docs/IFI-Study.pdf

Do you think the Faith Based Initiatives involve misappropriation of taxpayer money?
No, not as long as they deliver the service that is promised. If InnerChange results in reduced recidivism, then its not a misappropriation. If Bubba's Holy Roller Ministry feeds the homeless, its not misappropriation. If a secular organization comes along and does a better job of feeding the homeless than Bubba's, then it would constitute a misallocation.

Social security and the New Deal aren't charity. They are government policies -- good ones at that. But whether you agree or disagree with them, they simply aren't Christian charity. It's rather appaling that you either don't see the obvious difference or pretend to not see it.

Of course they are, or at least many elements of them are, moreso as time has passed and SS has grown and the New Deal has morphed into the welfare state. When you give somebody something they didn't earn, tis either charity or gift.

No argument there, but being gov't policy doesn't exempt them from being charity.

Who said anything about "Christian" charity? The "Christian" aspect only speaks to the motivation, not the action. Give something not earned = charity. The refusal to recognize that is why we now have an entitlement mentality in this country.

Oh, and fwiw, you should go back and explore the history of the rise of the welfare state, you'll find an incredible volume of appeals to Christian charity to justify the welfare state.

Before the Great Depression, the impoverished elderly, hungry, widows, orphans, disabled, and homeless were supported by the Church, not socialist programs. During the Great Depression, contributions couldn't keep pace with need, which is the only reason the government took control of many former Christian charities. They were administered just fine by the church before the depression. During the Depression, only the State had enough resources to provide for basic needs of the poor; but that condition ended with the depression, when the New Deal should have ended.

I will agree that nothing the government does can be considered "Christian charity" (agape); however, welfare can be considered "government charity" from a secular connotation of the term. The New Deal essentially moved welfare from Christian charity to government charity, now paid for by forced taxation rather than volitious generosity.

Yes, there is an obvious difference, and yes, I see it and have pointed it out.

Despite what may be read on the IFI website, a Federal Judge disagreed:

Prior to the New Deal millions of elderly, hungry, widows, and orphans, disabled were supported by NOBODY. There were millions on the street. There were food riots. Elderly people were dying in the open.

You need to review the literature of the time. It doesn't support you mythologized history that private charities were helping the poor. It shows the opposite. We tried that route. It failed.

Read this and thank FDR for saving the country from the failures of charities and free marketeers.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html

When the Great Depression began, about 18 million elderly, disabled, and single mothers with children already lived at a bare subsistence level in the United States. State and local governments together with private charities helped these people. By 1933, another 13 million Americans had been thrown out of work. Suddenly, state and local governments and charities could no longer provide even minimum assistance for all those in need. Food riots broke out. Desertions by husbands and fathers increased. Homeless families in cities lived in public parks and shanty towns. Desperate times began to put into question the old American notion that if a man worked hard enough, he could always take care of himself and his family.
The effect of the Depression on poor children was particularly severe. Grace Abbott, head of the federal Children's Bureau, reported that in the spring of 1933, 20 percent of the nation's school children showed evidence of poor nutrition, housing, and medical care. School budgets were cut and in some cases schools were shut down for lack of money to pay teachers. An estimated 200,000 boys left home to wander the streets and beg because of the poor economic condition of their families.
Most elderly Americans did not have personal savings or retirement pensions to support them in normal times, let alone during a national economic crisis. Those few able to set aside money for retirement often found that their savings and investments had been wiped out by the financial crash in 1929. Senator Paul Douglas of Illinois made this observation in 1936:
The impact of all these forces increasingly convinced the majority of the American people that individuals could not by themselves provide adequately for their old age, and that some form of greater security should be provided by society.





Yeah, here's start on reviewing that history: It involved food riots and millions of people on the street, as capitalism failed.

http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria14_3.html
How Welfare Began in the United States
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years.
MINNEAPOLIS—Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods.
—from the New York Times, February 26, 1931

Is this your vision of America's future?

I have done my reading. Perhaps you should review the quotes you cited. First of all, I discussed a time "before the Great Depression", which I intended to span from 1776 to the Roaring Twenties, not "before the New Deal" (emphasis added below):

Did anyone get the impression that I deny the Great Depression? In fact, here's what I said about it:
Here's what I concluded about the New Deal: So, yes, I'm glad the federal government stepped in to get the economy back on track. And yes, there were many structural changes made during the New Deal that continue to be of value. In my initial discussion of the New Deal, I was only targeting only the part of it I called "FDR's Welfare State", which I linked up.

The details Landru quoted about the Depression support my point of view. Many consider the beginning of the Great Depression from the market crash, whereas I count it from the beginning of the previous economic downturn, so I count most of the initial "18 million" in poverty (assuming for the sake of argument the number is accurate) as part of the Depression, whereas many others do not. It's a technicality. I'd be happy to recharacterize the time period I'm referring to as "during the 19th Century" instead of "from the Revolution to the Great Depression", if it helps any.

Is this not essentially what I have been saying?

Quite the contrary, and no mythologization required. History clearly demonstrates that the only reason private charity failed was that the economy was failing. Many private charities are highly effective. Many are performing better under Faith-Based Initiative contracts than secular contractors or government bureaucracies.

Does anyone really want to discriminate against religious contractors so passionately that they're willing to deny people access to better services at lower costs to taxpayers? My own belief is that private charities could handle almost all welfare, if everyone knew that their significantly lower taxes were no longer supporting "government charity". In the meantime, while government is sponsoring neosocialist welfare programs anyway, it might as well stop discriminating against contractors on the basis of religion.

Landru,

Your impromptu history lesson is quite touching, sniff, sniff, but it does nothing to support your contention that the New Deal wasn't charity, unless you are contending that the New Deal was a bribe to keep the odiferous hoi poloi under control.

I find it a bit of a slippery slope when it come to religion and government. So we say its ok for religion to bring charity, well that’s great, but where is it simply religion giving resources to the needy? No strings attached just simply handing out food, or money, or clothes, possibly shelter. What is the charity system in the prison, last time I checked a literate person can read, do they need bible instruction? Is that really charity?

We can argue "semantics" of this issue for what I would be sure close to infinity really. The point I am trying to make is charity is one thing, its giving, its not saying hey want some food or release from prison early? well then you have to accept our religious ideology. I don’t know of many secular programs out there activity attempting to turn people to an ideology. Could you imagine what it would be like if some secular fund raiser charity organization being funded by the government was free food if you vote democratic? I mean the point of my rant is simply religious charity typically involves strings attached to it. So in contrast to the establishment clause, you would have our system of laws that govern the nation federally via tax money in turn using tax money and law built around religion? I don’t think its discrimination save the reality of religion charity, which is hardly ever just charity and our constitution.

Secular is a term for basically everyone. There is nothing that prevents a secular organization of being composed of religions people, non religions people, people in-between religions, country music singers, metal workers, etc...

Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
Lasting from century to century.

Quoted from dictionary.com.

So in essence, what is wrong with that. If I need something at some point in my life, say for instance in I lived with the wraith of the Katrina hurricane, I don’t want to have to become catholic or Muslim in order to get my kids some much needed food. Its an abuse of charity that’s really forcing the needy into a state of being a subject.

Secular is a good starting point in contrast of dealing with the reality not everyone thinks alike, more so this pertains to religion.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Link

You know, reading those I don’t now how people ever got confused or allowed for the situations around either to get so out of hand, its pretty plain if you happen to be literate. This does however prevent people with motives and agendas.

To follow up, Monday (Jun 25), the Hein case was thrown out because SCOTUS declared FFRF didn't have standing to bring the case, on the basis that paying taxes can't be considered an injury. So, there's still no definitive decision on the initiatives. Now, the initiatives must be challenged by someone who was injured, possibly a contractor who believes it deserved a contract that was awarded to a religious group.

1. Under President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, should there be any limits on religious organizations as to how they can use the taxpayer money?

Absolutely. Not one penny of government money should go to any form of promotion for or against any religious opinion. Food for the hungry, fine; passing out copies of the Bible, not fine. (And this would also apply to government money paying for passing out copies of The God Delusion, too. I am as strongly against official government support for non-theism as for theism.)

2. Are religious groups better than secular groups in administering the taxpayer monies to those in need?

Irrelevant. What religious (and anti-religious) groups are "better" at is promoting their religious opinions. That is what must be avoided when Uncle Sam (that is to say, you and I) foot the bill.

3. Chuck Colson's prison program, InnerChange, forces inmates to be Fundamentalist Christians before they can avail themselves of treatment while in prison. This is just one example among many. Do you think the Faith Based Initiatives involve misappropriation of taxpayer money?

This is a stronger indictment against InnerChange than even I would make. It's theoretically possible to go through the InnerChange program and ignore its religious aspects. However, if we take a look at the material about InnerChange provided by Bikerdad, we see that it is (in its own words) "pervasively Christian." We see that its programs consist primarily of Bible study and other overtly religious activities. We see that its stated goal is "spiritual transformation" (and that this is limited to a strictly Christian definition of "spirituality.") Whether or not you think this is a good thing is irrelevant. I take it as absolutely axiomatic that there should be no official government support for any religious or anti-religious activity.

There are many similar programs within the Faith-Based Initiative movement. These programs are not primarily charitable, but primarily religious. It seems clear to me that government funds which pay for religious activities are directly in violation of the First Amendment. As a member of the FFRF, I was disappointed that the case brought against the administration was thrown out on a technicality. I have to live with that, just as I have to live with many other blatant violations. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

I'd like to address the first question in depth as I believe the answer to the 3rd question falls out of it naturally.

To my mind, the key piece of information re: religions delivering "secular" services hinges on how religion influences the delivery. It seems to me that religion can play four different roles (in any combination), it can be an inspiration or motivation, a means, an end or a test.

By inspiration/motivation I'm speaking of a group who exists due to religious belief or who provides a service out of a self-imposed religious obligation. An order of monks, for example, who believe that they are called to care for the sick as an example. Motivation/Inspiration doesn't strike me as falling afoul of the establishment clause and certainly would be protected by the free exercise clause. To put it bluntly, WHY someone wants to help isn't really relevant (for example, one might joint a "secular" Non-profit out of a personal motivation driven by religion). So long as all of those who qualify for the assistance (based on the government's criteria) are served and served equally, no problem.

A means to an end is a bit more complex. If a group believes that "faith" (even a non-denominational but clearly religious faith) is necessary on the part of the recipient to reap the benefits, we find ourselves in a gray area. I might use the example of AA, which I believe calls upon acceptance of a "higher power" as part of it's tactics for overcoming alcoholism. I'm not sure at what point such a means crosses into state sponsorship of a religion (or simply religion in general). AA might (I have no idea) allow the "higher power" to be a belief in the transcendence of the human consciousness. Sort of a toughie for me.

As to an end and a test, well those are obviously no-nos. If your organization's direct goal is to actively proselytize, and offering food or some service is a means towards that end (example might be a prison ministry that requires all inmates to get religious instruction in order to receive it's services or a meals on wheels program what will only deliver food if the recipient is willing to listen to a 30 minute presentation on why there is no God). Obviously, such groups have every right to offer these services privately, but not as a replacement for a government program and not funded by the government (for the record, I use the phrase "direct goal" to differentiate between attempts to preach or convert and an awareness that doing good works might make an organization or faith been seen in a positive light by reflection). A religious test falls, for me, in the same category; if a group wishes to deliver government services with government funds, no fair saying you'll only do it for Buddhists, Episcopalians or you won't deliver the services to Catholics or Hindus. Similarly, a behavioral test would be equally inappropriate (for example, a group that would only allow married couples to use there services as opposed to those who simply live together, or a group that believed that left-handed folks were an abomination and hence would not serve them). Again, you have to be willing to give the same service to all eligible recipients (per regulation) and leave the rest at the door (or, deliver the services privately).

As to which types of group are "better" at service delivery; I have no idea. Again, assuming that there is no religious test or directly religious end, then go with whichever group does the best job.

As to the specific case cited by the OP, if the group actually demands prisoners convert before delivering services, then that organization should not be given federal funds or used to deliver federal services.

Edited for clarity

As far as prior to the new deal church does the helping of the poor thing- they just plain sucked at it- goverment has done a way better job of helping the poor and such than the church had even tried to do- lets give credit where credit is due. church orphanages were horrible places with abuse and mistreatment the norm, NOT the exception. Read a dickens book, read D.L. Moody's book. Not exactly enlightened places to help everyone!

Church's aren't exacty open for oversite in philosophy, and goverment/taxpayer money needs to have some serious oversite when it comes to dispensing goverment/taxpayer money.

Unless they are willing to accept the conditions that come with the money- I am okay with faith based programs that work, that have oversite, and are not goverment paid for evangelical brainwashing centers.

Until the goverment took over the orphanages here in the 50s, the Methodist centers were basically places where you sent children to be molested. Methodist church finally apologized for all that a few years ago- but those WERE NOT nice places to be- not at all!

The faith based programs should have a very, very rigorous oversite and empirical accounting if it (whatever program it is) is to recieve goverment funding.

I want the preacher in charge's books to be made public as well, no secrecy whatsoever- I want to know where his new clothes and cars come from!

I had to quote your whole post... to add a big fat WHAT????????

This is the most biggoted post I've ever seen. Seriously.

Methodist centers were full of molestation? Orphanages from the churches were awful places? Evangelical brainwashing?

Come on. Do you have any idea how much good churches of all denominations in the US do? Seriously CR. Christianity in the US comprises a large portion of charitable giving in the US.
Read this:
http://www.thegathering.com/_pages2/content.php?resource=329

It states that in 1998, $76B of the $180B given was in a religious capacity.

In my opinion, the government should spend the money on what works. Here's a good article that talks about how that can be objectively measured.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/sr13.cfm

The good thing about faith based programs, that CR can't deny, is that the amount of money that ends up in administrative costs is a fraction of what it takes the government to get aid into the hands of the poor.

Americans ARE big on charitable giving.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder010605.asp

Let's talk about welfare in the United States and how wonderful it isn't, and how the government has screwed it up for decades. This time, instead of biggoted comments about churches, I'll use something interesting...umm... like facts.
http://www.urban.org/toolkit/issues/welfarereform.cfm

Urban.org has some very interesting information about how the welfare system and its recipients have fared.

The facts are that:
- welfare basically encouraged generations of dependancy in many US families
- the quality of life for welfare recipients was never particularly good without external subsistence
- there are/have been far more successful program that encouraged work

What does that mean in reference to the idea of socialism in the US and faith based initiatives?

My opinion is that a church that truly uses private donations for good has a sense of accountability that will never come from the US government. For instance, we give to specific causes at our church where $0.95-0.97 of every $1 go to the needy. Why? Volunteers make it happen. Do social workers for the US government work for free and are they concerned professionally with outcomes (are they measured)? nope.

Are faith based initiatives concerend with the outcomes, and are they measured? You bet. Right now, most 'church based' giving is private (as I've shown). If a program doesn't work or is flush with corruption, people stop giving. If I stop paying a portion of my (absurdly high) taxes, I go to prison.

The one thing that secular (and often times cynical/apathetic) Americans want to perpetuate is that they don't want THEIR tax dollars going to a church based program. Fine. Let me spend MY tax dollars on these programs, OR give me a dollar for dollar refund for my spending. It's absurd to think that the government, who has little or no recourse for failing, is going to be nearly as successful as a non-gov't program that relies on personal contribution.

I do not think there is any Const reason why faith-based initiaves cannot be used by govt.; The first am has been misinterpreted over the years. Heck, if it meant in 1790 what it is deemed to mean today, the first am would never have been enacted.

I agree with Landru (scary, indeed) that as a Christian, I do not want my faith and the Bible on which it is based watered-down so it will be acceptable in the context of a govt initiative. This is very dangerous--for Christianity.

As an aside, when did it become fashionable to call the Supreme Court of the United States, "SCOTUS"? This sounds like part of a male reproductive organ. The US Supreme Court, Supreme Court, SCt, or USSCt, should be sufficient.

SCOTUS, POTUS, FLOTUS, COTUS, SOTUS, etc. have been in use for a long time because they were the initials of the official titles. I'm no Scotist, but I think the SCOTUS acronym fits because Scotus, Aquinas, and Occam were the triumvirate of medieval scholarship in theology, philosophy, science, and logic. It sounds intellectual, not vulgar.