Atheist Group Takes on Bush Initiative

[Evermore]

Atheist Group Takes on Bush Initiative
Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:20 AM EST
The Associated Press
By RYAN J. FOLEY

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks with a soft voice, but her message catches attention: Keep God out of government.

Gaylor has helped transform the Freedom From Religion Foundation from obscurity into the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, with a fast-rising membership and increasing legal clout.

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush's faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

"What's at stake is the right to challenge the establishment of religion by the government," Gaylor said.

The 51-year-old once donned a nun's habit as a college student in 1977 to protest a judge who blamed rape on women who wear provocative clothing.

She uses different tactics these days, though her activism remains strong.

Among its victories, the group has stopped funding for a Milwaukee charity that Bush visited during the 2000 campaign and an Arizona group that preached to children of prisoners.

The case in front of the high court claims White House conferences to promote the faith-based initiative turn into unconstitutional pep rallies for religion.

The initiative helps religious organizations get government funding to provide social services.

George Washington University law professor Ira Lupu called the Madison-based foundation "by far the most aggressive litigating entity against the faith-based initiative."

"When they can prove there's religious content in those programs, they've been quite successful and they've won a few cases," Lupu said. "When they've tried to go after the initiative as a whole, they've been less successful."

Critics say the group imposes such an extreme view of the First Amendment that religious groups can't receive tax dollars for even laudable purposes.

"They are successful in the sense that they have disrupted government funding for faith-based initiatives," said Jordan Lorence of the Alliance Defense Fund, which defends religion in the public arena. "But real people with real problems are no longer getting help because of some of their lawsuits."

The group has grown as its legal challenges mount. It claims 8,500 members in 50 states, with the most coming from California, after adding a record 400 in December.

Members consider themselves freethinkers who form opinions based on reason, not faith.

Gaylor is hoping an advertising campaign on progressive talk radio, the Internet and in liberal magazines helps the group reach 10,000 members this year.

She and husband Dan Barker, a former fundamentalist minister who turned against religion, are co-presidents. Her mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, founded the group in 1978 to counter religious influence in government after clashing with religious leaders over abortion.

Its leaders say the surge in membership reflects a U.S. population that is becoming less religious and growing liberal alarm since Bush's re-election.

"There was a feeling that there was almost a near religious-right takeover of our government and that we better speak up now," Gaylor said.

The American Religious Identification Survey in 2001 estimated that 29 million Americans had no religion, double the number from 1990. The survey, which was conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, estimated that 1.9 million identified themselves as atheist or agnostic.

Before its battle against the faith-based initiative, the group stopped prayers during the University of Wisconsin's commencement and overturned Good Friday as a state holiday in Wisconsin.

"We've applied some very needed pressure through going to court on keeping state and church separate," said the elder Gaylor, 80. "We hope we've done some educating that will be lasting."


Intelligent discussion only please

[Martrae]

At this moment in my life, I'm pretty agnostic. I don't 'get' this group though. Who does it hurt to have Good Friday be a holiday? It wasn't promoting religion, it was acknowledging that most people (when the holiday was established, at least) observed that holiday and wouldn't show up to work anyway.

Praying at a commencement speech? Yes, it's boring and adds to the tedium of an already long day but argue against it on those points and not on personal hatred of all things religious.

Really that's what it all adds up to, promoting hatred.

[Evermore]

i tend to agree, thou i am not a fan of religion mixed in with government. she seems to be a bit on the ridiculas side of the issue.

[Lyion]

The group has grown as its legal challenges mount. It claims 8,500 members in 50 states, with the most coming from California, after adding a record 400 in December.

My guess is they have about a dozen real members and are trying to utilize the media to grow their organization.

Given the power of dolts like James Dobson, more power to these people. Although I think they'll get shot down by SCOTUS since none of their arguments seem to have legal strength.

[Martrae]

I just wish people wouldn't insist on pushing their personal dislikes and agendas onto the courts.

Everyone is so concerned for THEIR rights...they don't stop to consider the rights of the nation as a whole. This self-absorption really is the nation's biggest problem.

[Lyion]

Until we get actual Tort reform get used to it, unfortunately.

[Martrae]

You think congress will ever actually do anything about it? They're just as self-absorbed as everyone else. It might mess up their chances for re-election!!

[Lyion]

When the baby boomers start to die off I think we'll get actual change...

[Arlos]

What's wrong with insisting that the government follow the Constitution? That's all this comes down to, really. There's a well-defined principle that there is a wall between church and government, and that wall should never be breached.

Does it not say in the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"? If the government is giving money to some faiths and not otherrs, that is easily describable as the government giving preference to one faith, which is at its core unconstitutional.

Churches already get significant breaks from the government to allow them to do charity work, ie tax free status, etc. There are plenty of completely secular charities as well that the government could give money to that would accomplish exactly the same objectives. What if a Scientologist group asked for money? They're a legal religion. How about the Satanists? Same thing. You think Bush & Co. would give a satanist charity (if one existed) money? How then is that not promoting one faith over another, which is, of course, Unconstitutional?

I repeat myself, lest I be accused of being "anti-faith" by Lyion again, another of his laughably untrue smear charges, that I wouldn't support the government giving money to catholic charities that my parents were in charge of, or completely pagan charity groups either. The prohibition of mixing church and state is a universal appelation. Just because it would go to a faith I, or family members of mine support, it would still be wrong. Faith and Government are 2 things that should never mix, period.

So, more power to this group in their mission of abolishing the faith-based initiatives. Good luck to them. I certainly won't join them, not being an athiest or agnostic, but I can still support their objectives.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Does it not say in the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?

This means they can't establish a religion. This doesn't mean they can't acknowledge and work with ones already in existence.

Just like corporations, the government has to pick and choose who to do business with. Which organizations are more likely to reach more people in need, which already have established procedures in place, which has the proper support system, etc. It's foolhardy and inefficient to deny a perfectly good outlet simply because it's religious.

This is besides the point, however. Again, I want to know who does it hurt to have Good Friday as a day off? Why is it worse to have a person of faith (no matter what it is) give a helping hand rather than some government official?

Really, though, I'd just as soon they scrapped all government handouts...but that's another subject entirely.

[Ginzburgh]

I disagree. If the government acknowledges and works with one group more than another, they are in a sense saying, group 1 is more important to us than group 2 based solely on their faith.

[Martrae]

If Faith was the sole criteria....yes. You'll see I had a host of other criteria there as well, however.

[Lyion]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

Much FUD and too few facts here. This program is not just about one religion, but about community groups.

Faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) have a long tradition of helping Americans in need and together represent an integral part of our nation’s social service network. Yet, all too often, the Federal government has put in place complicated rules and regulations preventing FBCOs from competing for funds on an equal footing with other organizations. President Bush believes that besides being inherently unfair, such an approach can waste tax-payer dollars and cut off the poor from successful programs. Federal funds should be awarded to the most effective organizations—whether public or private, large or small, faith-based or secular—and all must be allowed to compete on a level playing field.

The Initiative in Action
President Bush created the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives and Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in eleven Federal agencies to lead a determined attack on need by strengthening and expanding the role of FBCOs in providing social services. The Federal government has worked to accomplish this mission through an array of regulatory and policy reforms, legislative efforts, and public outreach to FBCOs. Additionally, by making information about Federal grants more accessible and the application process less burdensome, the Initiative has empowered FBCOs to compete more effectively for funds. The ultimate beneficiaries are America’s poor, who are best served when the Federal government’s partners are the providers most capable of meeting their needs.

Focus of the Initiative

* Identifying and eliminating barriers that impede the full participation of FBCOs in the Federal grants process.
* Ensuring that Federally-funded social services administered by State and local governments are consistent with equal treatment provisions.
* Encouraging greater corporate and philanthropic support for FBCOs' social service programs through public education and outreach activities.
* Pursuing legislative efforts to extend charitable choice provisions that prevent discrimination against faith-based organizations, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.

Increasing Accessibility
The underlying premise of the President’s Initiative is that a more open and competitive Federal grant-making process will increase the delivery of effective social services to those whose needs are greatest. Thus, Federal agencies have successfully undertaken a variety of measures to do this, including:

* Making information more accessible
* Providing training and technical assistance
* Broadening program eligibility
* Changing regulations
* Streamlining grant applications
* Focusing on the unique needs of grassroots organizations; and
* Eliminating preferential treatment for existing and former grantees

White House Conferences
The White House is hosting a series of regional conferences and targeted workshops to continue its support for the work of effective faith-based and community social service programs. The events will provide participants with information about the government grants process and available funding opportunities, an overview of the legal responsibilities that come with the receipt of Federal funds and various grant writing tutorials. The conferences will also provide an opportunity to inform State and local officials about equal treatment regulations and other central elements of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative.

The conferences are supported by the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, and Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration, and the Agency for International Development.

Written Documents
The White House Office has published several written resources to assist grassroots groups in navigating the Federal grants system. These documents include Federal Funds for Organizations That Help Those In Need (a catalog of Federal grant opportunities), Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government (a guide to the legal responsibilities associated with the receipt of Federal funds), and Protecting the Civil Rights and Religious Liberty of Faith-Based Organizations (a booklet which outlines the protection of religious hiring rights).

[Arlos]

Well, it means more than that, really. By long legal tradition and many SCOTUS decisions, it means that the government cannot promote one religion over any other. Giving money to a faith is easily construable as promoting that religion, especially if they at the same time refuse to give money to equally worthy secular groups or to charities run by non-traditional faiths. Therefore, as previously mentioned, such favoritism is Unconstitutional. As I keep repeating, it doesn't matter what faith it is, governmental actions must be completely faith-neutral, which means giving money to religions is verboten.

As for the holiday, again, it's the government recognizing a specific religious holiday of a specific religion, which again is a no-no. They can of course declare that friday off, they just need to declare it as a non-denominational holiday. Again, I'd be just as opposed to a governmental holiday for Beltane, Imbolc, etc. Doesn't matter to me which faith it is, it's still wrong.

As I said before, religions already get huge benefits from the government to theoretically allow them to run charities, etc. Tax exempt status, etc. etc. etc.They are perfectly capable of running charities without direct handouts from the government, if they're no funneling all their donations into a new BMW every week for its leadign televangelist, say. There are plenty of entirely secular charities for helping the poor, that established procedures in place, proper support systems, etc. There was no issue giving to those charities before Bush's tenure, why should there be now?

-Arlos

[Evermore]

As for the holiday, again, it's the government recognizing a specific religious holiday of a specific religion, which again is a no-no. They can of course declare that friday off, they just need to declare it as a non-denominational holiday. Again, I'd be just as opposed to a governmental holiday for Beltane, Imbolc, etc. Doesn't matter to me which faith it is, it's still wrong.

Arlos,

Christmas, Yom Kippur, Passover, Rosh Hashana...

[Arlos]

preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities.

Translation: We want to create a loophole that lets the government give money to groups that discriminate against hiring gays, in spite of existing federal anti-distcrimination statutes.

-Arlos

[Arlos]

Yom Kippur, Passover, Rosh Hashana.

These are not government holidays. Does the post office not deliver mail on those days? I do believe they do still deliver (unless it's a sunday), in which case they're not holidays.

Christmas, well, that's a complex issue. I'm not fond of it as such, but since there are so many faiths with festivals at exactly this time of year, and since as a society we're recognizing that fact by the growing use of "Happy Holidays", it lessens my objection. I'd still prefer if it was referred to by a faith-neutral type name, like Winter Festival (Winter Solstice would probably be considered to have too much of a pagan connotation to be valid, despite the fact that that's a correct term, so just go generic and say Festival)

-Arlos

[Evermore]

Yom Kippur, Passover, Rosh Hashana.

These are not government holidays. Does the post office not deliver mail on those days? I do believe they do still deliver (unless it's a sunday), in which case they're not holidays.

Christmas, well, that's a complex issue. I'm not fond of it as such, but since there are so many faiths with festivals at exactly this time of year, and since as a society we're recognizing that fact by the growing use of "Happy Holidays", it lessens my objection. I'd still prefer if it was referred to by a faith-neutral type name, like Winter Festival (Winter Solstice would probably be considered to have too much of a pagan connotation to be valid, despite the fact that that's a correct term, so just go generic and say Festival)

-Arlos

Problem is these are all religious holidays. how can they be made faith neutral? not possible imo.
or we can make all holidays = Festivus!

[Arlos]

You misunderstand. In people's private lives, they're welcome to celebrate whatever religious holidays and observances they wish. By all means, if you want to, celebrate Yom Kippur, Passover, Rosh Hashana, Beltane, buddhist festivals, etc. More power to you.

It is strictly in the area of governmental recognition that the problem lies. The government, at this time, makes no recognition whatsoever of the first 3 holidays you listed. That is exactly as it should be. Christmas, as I said, is a more complex issue.

So, I have no problem with people celebrating those other holidays, just with the GOVERNMENT recognizing strictly religious holidays. Right now, the only one it does is Christmas, and I already discussed my feelings about that one.

-Arlos

[Lyion]

It has nothing to do with recognizing a religions holiday. You can legislate any holidays you want. It is just official non work days for the Fed as passed by congress due to convenience for the majority who want that day off. It makes a bit more sense to take Christmas off since 350 Million people want it, versus Beltane for both pagans who work for the government.

Corporate America can do as they please, and are not mandated to do anything.

[Arlos]

Well, the Wisconsin case was definitely a religious holiday, ie, Good Friday. As I said about the federal holidays, the only one I can think of with a religious bent is Christmas, and I've already discussed my opinion of it. If a private corporation wants to give people Yom Kippur off, then that's their right. But again, that's a PRIVATE corporation, NOT the Government.

-Arlos

[Reynaldo]

I'd love to see a group protest MLK day as being a holiday and watch the ensuing shitstorm.

I'm just happy for the day off.

[numatu]

This sort of litigation over trivialities is really getting out of hand.

Establishment Clause was to defend against a Church of England clone in the United States. There is no way that will ever happen in this country; and it's lunacy to even suspect it could.

For those worried about interpretation, the same officials that ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights also started each session of Congress with a prayer, as well as many other examples of apparently Establishment contradiction (if one were to use the interpretation that this topic's group advances).

It's one thing to argue the point that you don't believe the government should have anything at all to do with religion because that's how you personally feel as atheists (or any other 'sect'). The issue can then be debated based on its own merit.

It's quite another thing to masquerade the justification of the argument from either a singular or group's opinion, to one unquestionably grounded by the supreme law of the land, especially when that supreme law's authors engaged and even created some of the very same things this topic's group would be as vitriolic to denounce.

[Shneider]

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us."

From The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Vis-à-vis: Faith Based Initiatives as a de facto Department of Faith

One could easily make the above arguement, but if a religious institution can succeed where government fails in rehabilitating prisoners even if it's through "Finding Jesus" more power to them. I'm genralizing but would you rather have said persons continue living self-destructive life-styles or become functioning members of society? It's just another tool, the ends justify the means and all that.

Like the above poster said the trivialities are getting out of hand... drawn out legal battles over religious iconography on goverment buildings using <Generic Holiday Greeting/Description> instead of the accepted holiday... don't these people have anything better to do with their lives than be offended over such pettiness?

[Lueyen]

This sort of litigation over trivialities is really getting out of hand.

Establishment Clause was to defend against a Church of England clone in the United States. There is no way that will ever happen in this country; and it's lunacy to even suspect it could.

That is my perspective. Justice Black setting precedence quoting Thomas Jefferson out of context regarding the words "wall of separation" does not insert those words into the constitution. The only problem is that with this issue that can not be taken by it's self stand alone. While governmental funding or donation to a particular religious organization does not directly force acceptance and practice of it, it does force involuntary support in the form of tax dollars. The issue that arrises here is one that can be traced back to a previous one, the authorization of congress to levy income tax in the 16th amendmant. In short the issue here isn't at the root an issue about the establishment clause because it arises as a result of personal income taxation. Becuase federal funds are gained through taxation of individual income, use of these funds granted to any thing with religious conotation raises in issue because in essence it is forced support of an ideology via monetary donation.

Now the real kicker... if government funds toward an organization or project of a religious nature is deemed support of it and if this is considered unconstitutional then by the same logic would not government funds going toward something that people took religious objection to also be government infringment upon freedom of religion via forced support? This might be the surface of a huge can of worms.