The atheist group Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding a summary judgment that federal funding of the program cease citing the First Amendmemnt.
Is this a First Amendment issue or isn't it?
Is this a First Amendment issue or isn't it?
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK, I am retarded but how do I personally "allow" the FLL's to "sidestep" the issues???
Oh and how it "trashes the Constitution and Amendments", come on, because it has been rendered null and void by the FLL Agenda of course, surely have to realize that by now, you folks voted for it.
Sorry calling you retarded was uncalled for.But Comments like that just set up a strawman for him to attack, which allows him to stray from the point.
Its first amendment in that you limited in what you can express in a group that is federally funded.
Originally posted by: eigen
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OK, I am retarded but how do I personally "allow" the FLL's to "sidestep" the issues???
Oh and how it "trashes the Constitution and Amendments", come on, because it has been rendered null and void by the FLL Agenda of course, surely have to realize that by now, you folks voted for it.
Sorry calling you retarded was uncalled for.But Comments like that just set up a strawman for him to attack, which allows him to stray from the point.
No problem, you really don't need to apologize, I've been called a lot worse, happens when one is loved so much, just look at Bush for example, lot's of Love going on there too.
eigen, let me help you out.
Here's a good resource:
A GUIDE TO CHARITABLE CHOICE
Constitutional Issues
The Charitable Choice provision is designed to fit the constitutional guidelines for government interaction with religious organizations, not in defiance of those guidelines. Of course, the provision represents an innovation in collaboration between government and the religious social sector, a change that requires care and evokes some disquiet. The U. S. Constitution forbids government to establish religion. But it also requires government to honor religious liberty. Charitable Choice is intended to expand religious liberty?both for faith-based organizations and for recipients of services?while respecting the establishment clause.
In the past, the idea was that government could properly fund only secular services delivered by secular organizations or by "religiously affiliated" organizations?nonprofits that had some link to religion but that were not "pervasively sectarian." This rule was said to be required because government is not allowed to "aid" religion. In fact, actual practice has been much more flexible than the "no aid" concept suggests, as documented carefully by Stephen Monsma in When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money (1996). The restrictive framework for interaction was rooted, in any case, in constitutional decisions involving schooling, not social services.
Furthermore, the U. S. Supreme Court has been for many years on a trajectory away from the "no aid" standard and the "pervasively sectarian" concept. The emerging new view is the "neutrality" or "equal treatment" standard. When government funds or supports nongovernmental organizations, it should be evenhanded, neither discriminating for nor against religion or secularism. Its proper concern is the services provided, not the nature of the organization that will provide the services. The government may not label some organizations as "pervasively sectarian" and thereby prejudge that they are unable to follow government guidelines about what kinds of activities may be funded with government money.
Charitable Choice requires evenhandedness. No religious organization can be excluded from consideration for government funding merely because it is religious, too religious, or "pervasively sectarian." Neither can religious organizations be favored because they are religious. The organizations may retain their religious character, despite accepting government funds. But those government funds may not be diverted from providing specified social services to funding inherently religious activities. And the religious liberty of clients must be respected?by the organization, which may not discriminate against them on the basis of religion nor require them to engage in inherently religious practice, and by the government?which must ensure an alternative to any client who objects to receiving services from a religious organization.
Here's a good resource:
A GUIDE TO CHARITABLE CHOICE
Constitutional Issues
The Charitable Choice provision is designed to fit the constitutional guidelines for government interaction with religious organizations, not in defiance of those guidelines. Of course, the provision represents an innovation in collaboration between government and the religious social sector, a change that requires care and evokes some disquiet. The U. S. Constitution forbids government to establish religion. But it also requires government to honor religious liberty. Charitable Choice is intended to expand religious liberty?both for faith-based organizations and for recipients of services?while respecting the establishment clause.
In the past, the idea was that government could properly fund only secular services delivered by secular organizations or by "religiously affiliated" organizations?nonprofits that had some link to religion but that were not "pervasively sectarian." This rule was said to be required because government is not allowed to "aid" religion. In fact, actual practice has been much more flexible than the "no aid" concept suggests, as documented carefully by Stephen Monsma in When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Public Money (1996). The restrictive framework for interaction was rooted, in any case, in constitutional decisions involving schooling, not social services.
Furthermore, the U. S. Supreme Court has been for many years on a trajectory away from the "no aid" standard and the "pervasively sectarian" concept. The emerging new view is the "neutrality" or "equal treatment" standard. When government funds or supports nongovernmental organizations, it should be evenhanded, neither discriminating for nor against religion or secularism. Its proper concern is the services provided, not the nature of the organization that will provide the services. The government may not label some organizations as "pervasively sectarian" and thereby prejudge that they are unable to follow government guidelines about what kinds of activities may be funded with government money.
Charitable Choice requires evenhandedness. No religious organization can be excluded from consideration for government funding merely because it is religious, too religious, or "pervasively sectarian." Neither can religious organizations be favored because they are religious. The organizations may retain their religious character, despite accepting government funds. But those government funds may not be diverted from providing specified social services to funding inherently religious activities. And the religious liberty of clients must be respected?by the organization, which may not discriminate against them on the basis of religion nor require them to engage in inherently religious practice, and by the government?which must ensure an alternative to any client who objects to receiving services from a religious organization.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
Ok, my honest judgement after reading all of those articles. If the Christian mentors are paid employees, I believe that the mentorforkids (according to the website) has been following the rules properly:
The institution is allowed to fire/employ people based on religious criteria as long as no other discriminiatory law is being violated.
The Charitable Choice provision (Section 104) does not force the religious institution to censor their beliefs as long as they do not require the recipient to engage in religious activities (the website says they're not forced to)
The institution is allowed to fire/employ people based on religious criteria as long as no other discriminiatory law is being violated.
The Charitable Choice provision (Section 104) does not force the religious institution to censor their beliefs as long as they do not require the recipient to engage in religious activities (the website says they're not forced to)
Not yet.
Refer to the "Charitable Choice" Legislation. It will answer all your questions regarding faith-based organizations and federal funding.
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
What about the: 'The 1972 expansion to the civil right bill, only allowed for religous groups receiving federal funding to discriminate based on religon only for paid employees not volunteers.which is clearly what they are doing. ' that was stated earlier. The Charitible Choice allows to fire on the basis of religious ONLY if it does not violate any other discriminatory law. If the mentors are indeed volunteers and they are discriminating on them, then they are violating a civil rights law.
a. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.--The purpose of this section is to allow States to contract with religious organizations, or to allow religious organizations to accept certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement under any program described in subsection (a)(2), on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider without impairing the religious character of such organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries of assistance funded under such program.
Link
Don't you think that requiring a Christian organization to hire non-Christian volunteers would impair the religious character of the organization and diminish the religious freedom of the organization?
If they hired atheist mentors, it would cease to be a Christian organization.
If you're an atheist and you want to mentor kids, I'm sure that you can figure out a way to do it.
Link
Don't you think that requiring a Christian organization to hire non-Christian volunteers would impair the religious character of the organization and diminish the religious freedom of the organization?
If they hired atheist mentors, it would cease to be a Christian organization.
If you're an atheist and you want to mentor kids, I'm sure that you can figure out a way to do it.
That's about as close to a straight answer as you'll get out of this one. Of course he's for anything that tows the line for the Radical Christian Right Wing.
I explained it in the second sentance. Why would an organization that is faith-based engage a mentor who lacked faith?
This organization's mission is clear: "MentorKids USA is a one-on-one mentoring program that matches caring, Christian adults with youth."
This organization's mission is clear: "MentorKids USA is a one-on-one mentoring program that matches caring, Christian adults with youth."
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
Hmm... this is all very interesting. I wonder how the hell did that provision got passed. Here are the main points that I see.
1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI specifies that:
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.(8)
Religious institutions are exempt from general civil rights laws and can discriminate based on religious affiliation and specifics within a religion. The "Charitable Choice" provisions extends those exemptions to programs receiving public funds.
I think this is an example of a law that slipped pass the public's eye. Perhaps the bigger issue is whether or not thie 'Charitable Choice' provision needs revision to remove a religious institution's exemption from the civil rights law if it is running a federally funded program.
Don?t we all, as federal taxpayers, have a personal and individual right to not have our taxes paid to a religious organization via programs such as charitable choice?
No. Federal taxpayers have no personal right to prevent monies from being disbursed to a religious organization that is providing a social service pursuant to a general program of public aid. The reputed legal claim by such a taxpayer would be that he or she has a right not to be coerced against conscience or otherwise "religiously offended" when tax monies end up going to a religious organization. The idea has a certain superficial appeal, but the law is to the contrary and for good reason.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to recognize a federal taxpayer claim of religious coercion or other personal religious harm.3 As federal citizens our taxes support all manner of policies and programs with which we deeply disagree. Taxes pay the salaries of public officials whose policies we despise and oppose at every opportunity. None of these complaints give rise to constitutionally cognizable "injuries" to us as federal taxpayers. There is no reason that a federal taxpayer alleging "religious coercion" or being "religiously offended" should, on the merits of the claim, be treated any differently.
Isn't Charitable Choice Government-Funded Discrimination?
TuxDave
Lifer
- Oct 8, 2002
- 10,571
- 3
- 71
I agree, we can't pick and choose where our money goes but that's not the issue. But the issue is whether or not a religious institution should retain its exemption from civil rights laws once it starts running a federally funded program. With the charitable provision acts, it does. Before that, the civil rights act would have prohibited it.
One note: I'm asking whether or not the exemption SHOULD be repealed. Not whether or not it will be based on the law since I know what the law says. But SHOULD it.
Interesting. Charitable choice didn't really slip past the public's eye. For whatever reason it didn't seem to be a big fight. Perhaps because Al Gore also supported this.
Does participate include employment? It seems reasonable to make sure that programs carried out by religious organisations that are federally funded don't exlude people from taking part. But they must be able to discriminate in employment, or else the religious organisation will find it hard to maintain its nature.
"Protecting the autonomy of FBOs was done to enable them to succeed at what they do so well, namely help the poor and needy, and to get FBOs to participate in government programs, something FBOs are far less likely to do if they face compromising regulation."
Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy?
I don't think that we should. Do you?
Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy?
I don't think that we should. Do you?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter