NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheist group takes on Bush initiative

By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press WriterThu Feb 22, 4:20 AM ET

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."

If a religious organization uses its money in a way that has nothing to do with the religion itself, I couldn't care less if the government gives tax dollars to them.

Just some advice for the future...

The problem is that you post articles in their entirety without adding any comments of your own or any analysis of your own. This qualifies as spam. ...or possibly even trolling (which is posting controversial material merely to ruffle feathers and make people mad).

Don't just copy-and-paste. State if you agree or disagree with the article. Describe why you agree or disagree. This is a political discussion forum; discuss any articles that you post or link to. Don't just reproduce them verbatim.

Right or wrong? Depends what side you're on.

How about a Reverends view?


. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

Source:

Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.


I don't like Faith Based initiatives. Sure they could be using the money to help people; however, that could also free up other money to help get faithed based political leaders elected.

I see no fight between religion and secularism. I see a fight between those who would like a theocracy and secularism.

It is perfectly possible to be both religious and secularist (if the latter is really a word, that is).

If a religious organization uses its money in a way that has nothing to do with the religion itself, I couldn't care less if the government gives tax dollars to them.Under the current administration, however, that's a hell of an if. In fact, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to lower the wall between secular and proselytizing uses of the federal money faith-based groups receive.

If a religious organization uses its money in a way that has nothing to do with the religion itself

Is that even possible?

I say kill 'em all and let God sort it out.

Erm . . .

Is that even possible?

It is possible for a religious organization to use government money to provide aid without any push for religion. There are religious organizations which run charities without proselytizing. There are others, of course, which either have some sort of religious requirement for receiving aid or constantly proselytize to those they are aiding. And there are all shades in between. There are hospitals and charities all around the country which are religiously affiliated but do not actively proselytize.

Just as I can go work at a soup kitchen because of my religious views, but never preach to those who use it, a church could run such a soup kitchen without doing so. The question is, do they? Any charitable organization that requires those they are aiding or their workers to adhere to any given faith or uses the facilities/meetings/etc. as a way to proselytize should be ineligible for government funds. Otherwise, they're just another charity which happens to be religiously affiliated.

It is possible for a religious organization to use government money to provide aid without any push for religion. There are religious organizations which run charities without proselytizing. There are others, of course, which either have some sort of religious requirement for receiving aid or constantly proselytize to those they are aiding. And there are all shades in between. There are hospitals and charities all around the country which are religiously affiliated but do not actively proselytize.

Just as I can go work at a soup kitchen because of my religious views, but never preach to those who use it, a church could run such a soup kitchen without doing so. The question is, do they? Any charitable organization that requires those they are aiding or their workers to adhere to any given faith or uses the facilities/meetings/etc. as a way to proselytize should be ineligible for government funds. Otherwise, they're just another charity which happens to be religiously affiliated.

I was surprised (and pleasantly so) to discover that Habitat for Humanity is a Christian organization. Someone finally putting words into actions :fluffle:
But I don't know if they impose any religious qualifications on their beneficiaries.

I was surprised (and pleasantly so) to discover that Habitat for Humanity is a Christian organization. Someone finally putting words into actions :fluffle:
But I don't know if they impose any religious qualifications on their beneficiaries.

They say they don't:

http://www.habitat.org/getinv/apply.aspx

From what I've seen of the program, they don't seem to push religion on those receiving the homes or those who volunteer to work on them (I've been the latter).

They say they don't:

http://www.habitat.org/getinv/apply.aspx

From what I've seen of the program, they don't seem to push religion on those receiving the homes or those who volunteer to work on them (I've been the latter).
If their faith doesn't impact their behaviour at all, then I would deny the assertion that they're a Christian organisation. Just because the people who work there or started it are Christians is irrelevant.

Under the current administration, however, that's a hell of an if. In fact, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to lower the wall between secular and proselytizing uses of the federal money faith-based groups receive.

True. It's an idea that is in the right place, but unfortunately there are people out there who prefer to use it for political purposes rather than to help others. Things might change in the future, but this is one of the reasons why this program has to be monitored to make sure it doesn't violate the Constitution or provide a means to political corruption.

If their faith doesn't impact their behaviour at all, then I would deny the assertion that they're a Christian organisation. Just because the people who work there or started it are Christians is irrelevant.

Where do you get the idea that their faith doesn't impact their behavior? Just because they don't proselytize while doing their work doesn't mean they're not driven by their faith.

To be a person of faith is to have the world challenge that faith. Was the universe designed by God? That's up to everyone in the US to decide for themselves because the framers of our Constitution believed that if the people were to be sovereign and belong to different religions at the same time then our official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold experiment then, as it is now. It wasn't meant to make the US comfortable. It was meant to make the US free. - Matt Santos

The US is secular, and if it is to remain free, it must remain secular. Clearly some people do not understand or worst, do not accept the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.

Where do you get the idea that their faith doesn't impact their behavior? Just because they don't proselytize while doing their work doesn't mean they're not driven by their faith.

So, it would be OK if they were already regular government employees (instead of separate faith based groups).

So many Federal employees are already religious believers of one type or another. Are you going to read their minds to exclude them from Federal service?

So, it would be OK if they were already regular government employees (instead of separate faith based groups).

So many Federal employees are already religious believers of one type or another. Are you going to read their minds to exclude them from Federal service?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Nice answer. You were inferring that because people had faith based beliefs, then they couldn't be trusted to act outside of that.

You applied it to faith based groups. It follows that you would apply that to individuals, even if they were not in a faith based group, but merely Federal employees.

It's not that hard to grasp, is it? Or do I overestimate your intelligence?

So, it would be OK if they were already regular government employees (instead of separate faith based groups).

So many Federal employees are already religious believers of one type or another. Are you going to read their minds to exclude them from Federal service?

Nice non sequitur.

The religious beliefs of a federal employee are irrelevant unless they affect how they do their job. Certainly a federal employee cannot use federal money to proselytize. Neither can a separate faith-based group.

Mmmmm, delicious copypasta (http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/704frost.html)...

Lol, I am not allowed to quote my favorite President of United States.;)

To be a person of faith is to have the world challenge that faith. Was the universe designed by God? That's up to everyone in the US to decide for themselves because the framers of our Constitution believed that if the people were to be sovereign and belong to different religions at the same time then our official religion would have to be no religion at all. It was a bold experiment then, as it is now. It wasn't meant to make the US comfortable. It was meant to make the US free.

The US is secular, and if it is to remain free, it must remain secular. Clearly some people do not understand or worst, do not accept the doctrine of the Separation of Church and State.

Mmmmm, delicious copypasta (http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/704frost.html)...

Mmmmm, delicious copypasta (http://westwing.bewarne.com/seventh/704frost.html)...

The quote should have been attributed, but it is apt.

Nice answer. You were inferring that because people had faith based beliefs, then they couldn't be trusted to act outside of that.

You applied it to faith based groups. It follows that you would apply that to individuals, even if they were not in a faith based group, but merely Federal employees.

It's not that hard to grasp, is it? Or do I overestimate your intelligence?
I inferred nothing of the sort. I suggest you go back and parse out what I said and what I was replying to, and then try not looking like such a dumbass.

Nice answer. You were inferring that because people had faith based beliefs, then they couldn't be trusted to act outside of that.
You applied it to faith based groups. It follows that you would apply that to individuals, even if they were not in a faith based group, but merely Federal employees.

It's not that hard to grasp, is it? Or do I overestimate your intelligence?

You were so quick to take offense, you found something offensive that was never said, inferred, or implied.

You and your paranoia should have a talk.

I inferred nothing of the sort. I suggest you go back and parse out what I said and what I was replying to, and then try not looking like such a dumbass.

It's right here in black and white:

Where do you get the idea that their faith doesn't impact their behavior? Just because they don't proselytize while doing their work doesn't mean they're not driven by their faith.

So you assert that faith impacts behavior, and that these people are driven by their faith.

So how could you trust any religious person to do any work at all for the government?

It's right here in black and white:



So you assert that faith impacts behavior, and that these people are driven by their faith.

So how could you trust any religious person to do any work at all for the government?

And what was I replying to? A statement challenging the christian bonafides of Habitat for Humanity. It had jack fuck-all to do with the federal government, DK. But nice try.

And what was I replying to? A statement challenging the christian bonafides of Habitat for Humanity. It had jack fuck-all to do with the federal government, DK. But nice try.

Sorry, I'm not DK, and it's a pathetic answer to my question.

The question I made still applies. If you don't trust religious people if they work for Habitat for Humanity, how can you trust them in any other government related job?

Sorry, I'm not DK, and it's a pathetic answer to my question.

The question I made still applies. If you don't trust religious people if they work for Habitat for Humanity, how can you trust them in any other government related job?

Read this slowly DK--where did I say in this discussion that I didn't trust religious people, except in your pathetic, deluded mind?

But if they don't provide benefits based on faith or hire based on faith or proselytize, then their faith is immaterial to the people with whom they interact. I wouldn't bother characterising them as faith-based.

Read this slowly DK--where did I say in this discussion that I didn't trust religious people, except in your pathetic, deluded mind?

Read this slowly.

I am not DK.

And you said that faith affects people's actions.

Tell you what. I'll report you to moderation for your false accusations and your comments to a completely normal question.

Read this slowly.

I am not DK.

And you said that faith affects people's actions.

Tell you what. I'll report you to moderation for your false accusations and your comments to a completely normal question.Go right ahead--I haven't broken any rules.

And yes, if a person has faith, that faith can affect their actions. So what?

But if they don't provide benefits based on faith or hire based on faith or proselytize, then their faith is immaterial to the people with whom they interact. I wouldn't bother characterising them as faith-based.

That's a personal judgment as to the quality of their faith, and back when I was a believer, that was akin to questioning someone's legitimacy of birth. It's also a very limited way of looking at faith.

But if they don't provide benefits based on faith or hire based on faith or proselytize, then their faith is immaterial to the people with whom they interact. I wouldn't bother characterising them as faith-based.


Exactly.

And the problem with Bush's program is that it often crosses that line.

Go right ahead--I haven't broken any rules.

And yes, if a person has faith, that faith can affect their actions. So what?

Making false accusations.

Flaming me on the basis of those accusations.

It's in nearly every one of your posts back to me.

Making false accusations.

Flaming me on the basis of those accusations.

It's in nearly every one of your posts back to me.

I'm quivering.

By the way, the person to whom I replied originally seemed to have no issue with understanding the crux of my comment.

But if they don't provide benefits based on faith or hire based on faith or proselytize, then their faith is immaterial to the people with whom they interact. I wouldn't bother characterising them as faith-based.

Their faith may not be immaterial to the people with whom they interact. They are "living by example," as it were. The fact that they hold a given faith can come up in casual conversation or may even be part of the charter of the organization itself. They aren't going to fail to help anyone based on religious faith, nor are they going to push their faith, but the knowledge of it will be there, and that is often a stronger voice for a given faith than proselytizing.

Their faith may not be immaterial to the people with whom they interact. They are "living by example," as it were. The fact that they hold a given faith can come up in casual conversation or may even be part of the charter of the organization itself. They aren't going to fail to help anyone based on religious faith, nor are they going to push their faith, but the knowledge of it will be there, and that is often a stronger voice for a given faith than proselytizing.

The problem is that many can't stop talking about their faith. It quickly turns into proselytizing.

Keep religion and politics seperate, because otherwise there would be long discussions about what goes against religion, and so many things would take longer to decide on then normal.

Atheist group takes on Bush initiative

By RYAN J. FOLEY, Associated Press WriterThu Feb 22, 4:20 AM ET

...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."...

This is the main point to me. These critics are bullshitting.

Religious organizations that also provide charitable social services NOT involved in gaining converts (except by example) have always been eligible for the same federal funds that go to strictly secular charities. They just had to leave government money out of their proslytizing efforts. The Faith Based Initiative allows money that would otherwise be spend on actually helping people to be spent on promoting religion. They're not looking for help in helping people. They're looking for advertising revenue.

Their faith may not be immaterial to the people with whom they interact. They are "living by example," as it were. The fact that they hold a given faith can come up in casual conversation or may even be part of the charter of the organization itself. They aren't going to fail to help anyone based on religious faith, nor are they going to push their faith, but the knowledge of it will be there, and that is often a stronger voice for a given faith than proselytizing.

That's fine. The money isn't being used for the proslytizing.

The problems arise when groups start saying "unless you convert to our religion, you can't receive our charity's aid."

And some of them do say that.

Worse, some of them throw out almost all pretense of helping people and consider their charitible efforts to be the proslytizing itself. They think they are helping people by converting them to a church. That is not help, and that money could be going to groups that really will provide help.

There was a case in Detroit a few years ago (I posted about it here) in which a man who was sentenced to drug treatment in lieu of prison was told by the "Faith Based" treatment center that if he didn't convert from Catholocism to Pentacostalism that they would not sign his completion certificate. He went to the judge and said what they were trying to do and he said "if you don't complete the program, you go to jail." That's the problem with goverment money going to religous causes.

If this group had simply told him congratulations on completing your drug-treatment program, if you find yourself in need of any other spiritual guidance, our doors are always open. Then that would have been fine.

Is that even possible?


Soup kitches, running clothing drives, etc..? Or is helping poor people considered a religious activity?

The question I made still applies. If you don't trust religious people if they work for Habitat for Humanity, how can you trust them in any other government related job?
This is not complex. Try to erect a straw man if it makes you feel big.

At no point has Nazz said he doesn't trust religious people. He has simply stated that a religious person can work somewhere, still hold their faith, but yet, not proselytise.

Here's an analogy to make it simpler. I believe that Cricket is a good game. I could work alongside you and never mention cricket. Does that mean I don't have faith in cricket. No. See your strawman is very poor.

A cricketless infidel could work for the government. A bound for hell atheist could too. A bible thumping religious nut-jub (who doesn't allow his religion to affect his job) could also work for the government.

Soup kitches, running clothing drives, etc..? Or is helping poor people considered a religious activity? it would be if those poor people were expected to share in a prayer or some other religious activity...

How the hell are religion and secularism mutually exclusive?

How the hell are religion and secularism mutually exclusive?

Secular: Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred.

They are by definition mutually exclusive.

Secular: Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred.

They are by definition mutually exclusive.

I meant secular government...That's usually what I think of when I hear secularism...

I meant secular government...That's usually what I think of when I hear secularism...
then I do not understand the question. regardless of the level, secularism and religion are mutually exclusive. religion can exist under a secular government, but the government cannot take interest in it, and cannot be swayed by it. the question at hand is whether a constitutionally secular (secular in name only) government should sponsor a bill with the word 'faith' in it (to oversimplify).

I meant secular government...That's usually what I think of when I hear secularism...
then I do not understand the question. regardless of the level, secularism and religion are mutually exclusive. religion can exist under a secular government, but the government cannot take interest in it, and cannot be swayed by it. the question at hand is whether a constitutionally secular (secular in name only) government should sponsor a bill with the word 'faith' in it (to oversimplify).