Bush's new faith-based czar

[Toto]

"Right wing think-tanker Jay Hein" (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21300)
. . .the appointment of Hein followed on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that raised serious questions about the faith-based initiative. "There are two big issues facing the faith-based initiative these days," both of which do not look good for the future of the program, Rob Boston, the assistant director of communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a non-sectarian, non-partisan organization, told me in a telephone interview.

"Number one, to what extent religious-based discrimination will be tolerated in a taxpayer funded program. And number two, the question of effectiveness and results."

Boston also pointed out that "From the very beginning, it appears that the faith-based initiative was at least in part designed with political goals: keep the religious right happy and, as a side, yet significant, benefit, bring a host of Latino and African American organizations to the Republican Party."



Hein is the founder and president of the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research (http://www.sipr.org/). His Board of Directors includes Reverend Herbert H. Lusk II, a major recipient of faith based money.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

Great... I mean, thanks for the news. He sounds like he really respects the Constitution... :rolleyes:

Also, Lusk is the million-dollar award recipient here in Philadelphia, who got his big faith-based funding taxpayer payout after shilling for Bush from the puplit.

[Professor]

Boston also pointed out that "From the very beginning, it appears that the faith-based initiative was at least in part designed with political goals: keep the religious right happy and, as a side, yet significant, benefit, bring a host of Latino and African American organizations to the Republican Party."

That is an interesting statement considering that the faith-based initiative began as the Charitable Choice program which was approved by half the democrats in the house and a majority of democrats in the senate, and was proudly signed into law by president Bill Clinton. Many democrats, including Clinton, Gore, and Lieberman, were enthusiastic about exempting religious charities from some of the civil rights based regulations that still apply to secular charities. These politicians certainly didn't want to support the religious right, but they did intend to buy the votes of religious voters in general and African-American voters in particular.

Democrats sold out the principle of separation of church and state for potential political gain, and that backfired since the republicans won control of the entire government apparatus. They helped punch a hole in the wall of separation and then got upset because Bush got to crawl through it first. To complain that these programs had a built in bias toward the right is just sour grapes. Does anyone doubt that there would have been a liberal bias to these programs had the democrats won congress and the white house?

Which raises an interesting issue. Assuming that democrats get control of the white house, what exactly do you think they will do with this faith-based political apparatus? Given their recent, almost desperate attempts to change their image as the "godless" political party I can't believe that they will dismantle or even limit the program. Cutting funding to faith-based programs or "infringing" on their newly granted "religious freedom" to discriminate would provide Ann Coulter with a new book deal, but it wouldn't earn them any more votes or money. More likely it would cost them both.

The potential for fundraising is one of the most seductive aspects of the faith-based programs. Currently Bush gives government dollars to right-wing religious charities, and the leaders of those groups typically pay him back with large political donations from their non-charitable organizations. Effectively Bush is filling republican coffers with tax dollars laundered through religious organizations which are quite happy with the deal since they keep the bulk of the money. Are democrats going to be able to turn down a chance to feed at this government trough when re-election is at stake?

Certainly I would expect to see more funding for churches which support liberal positions and candidates, but I wouldn't be surprised to see democrats continue to fund some of the religious right organizations. This would, after all, provide them with a certain measure of control of those groups. Having Fallwell, Moon, and Robertson by the short hairs would be mighty tempting. This, of course, is the problem.

These actions are all be terrible violations of the first amendment no matter which party is committing them. I won't feel better just because those violating the constitution have a "D" next to their name when they are on CNN. Considering the massive democratic support for issues like the pledge, the California missions, and the Mt. Soledad cross I'm not sure if there are any prominent democrats who really support church-state separation as a matter of principle. The framers separated church and state precisely because they knew how tempting the power of religion was. I don't have any confidence that these democrats have the strength of conviction necessary to resist using that power any more than the republicans have.

[Pseudo-Deity]

That is an interesting statement considering that the faith-based initiative began as the Charitable Choice program which was approved by half the democrats in the house and a majority of democrats in the senate, and was proudly signed into law by president Bill Clinton. Many democrats, including Clinton, Gore, and Lieberman, were enthusiastic about exempting religious charities from some of the civil rights based regulations that still apply to secular charities.This just goes to show that you can't trust the Republicrats. The Democrats aren't supporters of church/state seperation, the Republicans simply promote the idea because they need to galvanize their base. We definitely are in need of a third party.

[Izmir Stinger]

When I read title of this thread, I thought it said "Bush's new faith-based car," and that it would be some sort of parody or link to an Onion article about how President Bush is promoting faith in Jesus as an alternative fuel.

Screw ethanol - this car runs on God-Juice. If it breaks down it is because you didn't pray hard enough, or your son is gay or something.

[breathilizer]

I read the same thing as Izmir. lol

I was really excited too, because if Bush were to find an alternative to oil, I would probably get pulled out of this shit hole.

[Professor]

When I read title of this thread, I thought it said "Bush's new faith-based car," and that it would be some sort of parody or link to an Onion article about how President Bush is promoting faith in Jesus as an alternative fuel.

Screw ethanol - this car runs on God-Juice. If it breaks down it is because you didn't pray hard enough, or your son is gay or something.

:rolling: :rolling:

I almost peed reading this. :notworthy:

"The new Ford Immaculata gets 25 miles per rosary bead."


By the way, how do you like living in Montgomery? I graduated from the Montgomery Academy. I haven't been back in 20 years.

[Professor]

This just goes to show that you can't trust the Republicrats. The Democrats aren't supporters of church/state seperation, the Republicans simply promote the idea because they need to galvanize their base. We definitely are in need of a third party.

The Republican party is completely lost to the religious right. I still find it hard to believe how much it changed in the 20 years that I belonged to it, and today I find it almost impossible to believe that Robert Ingersoll once received accolades for his speech at the republican convention. He would weep to see what the grand old party has become.

My concern now is that the democratic party could easily go the same way. Most atheists I know take it for granted that the democratic party won't be taken over by the religious left. Liberal evangelicals are seen as having little real power, and their influence is seen as largely symbolic. We republicans thought the same thing about the religious right just a few decades ago.

There isn't any "law of conservation of secularism" that would prevent both parties form becoming religiously based. To some extent they are now. Most democratic leaders are outspoken about their religions, and one of the core constituancies, black protestants, is as far right on many religion-related issues as most republicans.

My senators, Feinstein and Boxer, are considered about as liberal as they get, yet both voted to support the pledge of allegiance, sponsored a bill to give federal money to California missions which are still being used as churches, and recently led the fight to turn the Mt. Soleded cross into a federal war memorial. Feinstein has made comments to the effect that no one in California objects to this sort of thing. The democrats simply take the non-religious for granted. After all, where else are we going to go now?

[Padre Bear]

The Republican party is completely lost to the religious right. I still find it hard to believe how much it changed in the 20 years that I belonged to it, and today I find it almost impossible to believe that Robert Ingersoll once received accolades for his speech at the republican convention. He would weep to see what the grand old party has become.

My concern now is that the democratic party could easily go the same way. Most atheists I know take it for granted that the democratic party won't be taken over by the religious left. Liberal evangelicals are seen as having little real power, and their influence is seen as largely symbolic. We republicans thought the same thing about the religious right just a few decades ago.

There isn't any "law of conservation of secularism" that would prevent both parties form becoming religiously based. To some extent they are now. Most democratic leaders are outspoken about their religions, and one of the core constituancies, black protestants, is as far right on many religion-related issues as most republicans.

My senators, Feinstein and Boxer, are considered about as liberal as they get, yet both voted to support the pledge of allegiance, sponsored a bill to give federal money to California missions which are still being used as churches, and recently led the fight to turn the Mt. Soleded cross into a federal war memorial. Feinstein has made comments to the effect that no one in California objects to this sort of thing. The democrats simply take the non-religious for granted. After all, where else are we going to go now?

Read Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming if you want to understand the incestual connection between the RR and the Bushies

[Seeker630]

from the Professor:

I don't have any confidence that these democrats have the strength of conviction necessary to resist using that power any more than the republicans have.

You are unfortunately correct. Just thinking of Dem's like Lieberman and the statements he made during the Gore campaign, I am seriously thinking of changing my voter registration from Democrat back to Independant or Green or something. The Dem's will sell us out in a heartbeat if it means political survival.

[Dick Springer]

from the Professor:

I don't have any confidence that these democrats have the strength of conviction necessary to resist using that power any more than the republicans have.

You are unfortunately correct. Just thinking of Dem's like Lieberman and the statements he made during the Gore campaign, I am seriously thinking of changing my voter registration from Democrat back to Independant or Green or something. The Dem's will sell us out in a heartbeat if it means political survival.

But please wait until Shrub is gone.

[expatlady]

My concern now is that the democratic party could easily go the same way. Most atheists I know take it for granted that the democratic party won't be taken over by the religious left. Liberal evangelicals are seen as having little real power, and their influence is seen as largely symbolic. We republicans thought the same thing about the religious right just a few decades ago.



Sadly, I agree, and am terrified of the potential consequences.

I checked the White House's official personnel announcement last week, and was disgusted but not surprised to find Mr. Hein is CEO of the Foundation for American Renewal (look it up) and of course graduated from Eureka College (very worth looking up).

As for the Sagamore Institute, digging a bit deeper made me aware that these people were pushing welfare reform (which I too supported) as a means to drive the needy straight into the open arms of Christian organizations or cults as far as I'm concerned.

:mad:

[Seeker630]

But please wait until Shrub is gone.

Well he can't run again anyway. But my point is that I'm having a hard time staying with the Dem's because so often they sound just like the Repub's, and vote WAY too often the way of the majority. Herre in Florida the Democrats are helpless and pathetic--the State House and Senate are so lopsided Republican it's not even a good joke.

But I might go over to Political Discussions and look for a thread about how people feel on this issue. A related matter is one I've seen before about those just don't vote because they can't give coin to one candidate or party or the other.