Atheists sue to stop Christian mentoring

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: TuxDave
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.

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.

Well, I don't know what the FBO actually practices but 'according to their website' they will not discriminate on who recieves those services from the FBO. So at least that part is clear.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

It's a simple question really.

Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy or shouldn't we?

What's your answer?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

It's a simple question really.

Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy or shouldn't we?

What's your answer?

And my counter-question is also very easy. Do you believe the ends justifies the means?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It's a simple question really.

Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy or shouldn't we?

What's your answer?

Now if this isn't the perfect example of irony...

 

[TuxDave]

To be fair, here's my answer to your question.

Should ALL programs that effectively help the poor and needy be allowed? Of course not. Otherwise we'd have weird programs that will force corporations to hire poor people, etc.... that is why I ask, does the ends justify the means?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
To be fair, here's my answer to your question.

Should ALL programs that effectively help the poor and needy be allowed? Of course not. Otherwise we'd have weird programs that will force corporations to hire poor people, etc.... that is why I ask, does the ends justify the means?

Let's stay on topic rather than venturing of into the weeds.

We're clearly talking about FBOs.

Are you going to continue to avoid answering the question?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TuxDave
To be fair, here's my answer to your question.

Should ALL programs that effectively help the poor and needy be allowed? Of course not. Otherwise we'd have weird programs that will force corporations to hire poor people, etc.... that is why I ask, does the ends justify the means?

Let's stay on topic rather than venturing of into the weeds.

We're clearly talking about FBOs.

Are you going to continue to avoid answering the question?

What what what? You're the one who asked
'Should we withold effective programs from the poor and needy?
I don't think that we should. Do you? '

I humored you and answered your side question and you're refusing to answer my side question. Why are you avoiding my question? Answer mine as I answered yours. "DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?" It's soooo simple to answer.

Here, I'll answer another so you better stop chickening out.

'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?

It sounds fair that if a organization is forced to hire non-Christian volunteers in general, then it could be a problem. However, if that is the case, then I believe that if that FBO is unable to function with the rules given to federally funded programs, then they shouldn't get the funding.

 

[Riprorin]

MentorKids USA is operating within Federal guidelines, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving Federal Funds.

Since you refuse to answer my question directly, I'll have to read between the lines.

You are against FBOs even though they provide effective services to the poor and needy.

So you don't really care about the poor and needy, do you?

If you were, you wouldn't be opposed to services that are clearly helping them.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
MentorKids USA is operating within Federal guidelines, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving Federal Funds.

Since you refuse to answer my question directly, I'll have to read between the lines.

You are against FBOs even though they provide effective services to the poor and needy.

So you don't really care about the poor and needy, do you?

If you were, you wouldn't be opposed to services that are clearly helping them.

omg... apparantly you need some reading comprehension skills. Let me say it a little more bluntly.

1) I AM NOT against FBOs who receive federal funding and CAN function with the rules prior the the Charitable Choice Act.
2) I AM against FBOs who receive federal funding and cannot function with rules prior to the Charitable Choice Act
3) I AM NOT for passing ALL laws the benefit the poor and needy
4) I AM NOT for ALL services that benefit the poor and needy

Reason for #3 and #4, I am not an ends justifies the means person. If the means is 'not right', then I don't care what ends it has.

Now where is my freaking answer?
1) Does the end justify the means?
2) Should we pass any provision that benefits the poor and needy?
3) If you answer no to 2, do you not care about the poor and needy?

If you avoid my questions, I shall be forced to Syringer you and post 'ANSWER THE QUESTION' in all your threads.

 

[Riprorin]

1) I AM NOT against FBOs who receive federal funding and CAN function with the rules prior the the Charitable Choice Act.
2) I AM against FBOs who receive federal funding and cannot function with rules prior to the Charitable Choice Act

So, you are opposed to the effective services provided to the poor and needy by FBOs who are lawfully operating within current Federal Guidelines and you advocate cutting off those services.

Do I have it right this time?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

1) I AM NOT against FBOs who receive federal funding and CAN function with the rules prior the the Charitable Choice Act.
2) I AM against FBOs who receive federal funding and cannot function with rules prior to the Charitable Choice Act

So, you are opposed to the effective services provided to the poor and needy by FBOs who are lawfully operating within current Federal Guidelines and you advocate cutting off those services.

Do I have it right this time?

ANSWER MY QUESTION

 

[SuperTool]

It's a discriminatory program, since it only hires Christians as mentors. Open and shut case to me.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
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.

If you're a Christian and you want to mentor kids, I'm sure that you can figure out a way to do it.
WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZING IT!!!

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's a discriminatory program, since it only hires Christians as mentors. Open and shut case to me.

That's covered here:

Isn't Charitable Choice Government-Funded Discrimination?

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's a discriminatory program, since it only hires Christians as mentors. Open and shut case to me.

That's covered here:

Isn't Charitable Choice Government-Funded Discrimination?

ANSWER MY QUESTION

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's a discriminatory program, since it only hires Christians as mentors. Open and shut case to me.

That's covered here:

Isn't Charitable Choice Government-Funded Discrimination?

That's the Christian Lawyer's case. The atheist lawyer will have a different case with other caselaw.

 

[SuperTool]

Also, in case you aren't familiar with our legal system, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution takes precedence over section 604a of Welfare Reform Act.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

Can you explain how this question relates to the topic?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Also, in case you aren't familiar with our legal system, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution takes precedence over section 604a of Welfare Reform Act.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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.

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164

There's nothing here that's inconsistent with the First Amendment.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

Can you explain how this question relates to the topic?

Because you're attempting to justify the program because of its end results.

ANSWER MY QUESTION

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Also, in case you aren't familiar with our legal system, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution takes precedence over section 604a of Welfare Reform Act.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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.

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164

There's nothing here that's inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Yep, except only hiring Christian Mentors paid for by Federal Government. Aside from violating the first ammendment establishment clause, nothing inconsistent at all :roll:

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"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?

Are you the 'ends justifies the means' type of person? Because that's the way you're phrasing the question.

Can you explain how this question relates to the topic?

Because you're attempting to justify the program because of its end results.

ANSWER MY QUESTION

Why do I have to justify a program that's operating within Federal law and is providing a valuable service to troubled teens?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Also, in case you aren't familiar with our legal system, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution takes precedence over section 604a of Welfare Reform Act.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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.

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164

There's nothing here that's inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Yep, except only hiring Christian Mentors paid for by Federal Government. Aside from violating the first ammendment establishment clause, nothing inconsistent at all :roll:

The Charitable Choice provision is designed to protect the religious character of faith-based organizations that choose to accept federal funds to help the poor. The provision is designed also to protect the religious liberty of beneficiaries of welfare services.

How does this aid "one religion" or "prefer one religion over another"?

With regard to your other point:

In a variety of ways, the charitable choice provisions in the 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §604a, safeguard the "religious character" of faith-based organizations [FBOs]. 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. One of the most important of these statutory guarantees is the ability to select staff on a religious basis. FBOs can hardly be expected to sustain their religious vision without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets of the faith. Thus, rather than an act of intolerance, the guarantee is central to each organization?s freedom to be its own self according to the dictates of conscience. Section 604a safeguards the continued independence of FBOs from government, specifically that they need not alter their policies of "internal governance" formed as a matter of religious faith.

While it is essential that FBOs be permitted to make employment decisions based on religious considerations, like other social-service providers FBOs must obey federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, age, and disability.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Also, in case you aren't familiar with our legal system, the First Ammendment of the US Constitution takes precedence over section 604a of Welfare Reform Act.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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.

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164

There's nothing here that's inconsistent with the First Amendment.

Yep, except only hiring Christian Mentors paid for by Federal Government. Aside from violating the first ammendment establishment clause, nothing inconsistent at all :roll:

The Charitable Choice provision is designed to protect the religious character of faith-based organizations that choose to accept federal funds to help the poor. The provision is designed also to protect the religious liberty of beneficiaries of welfare services.

How does this aid "one religion" or "prefer one religion over another"?

With regard to your other point:

In a variety of ways, the charitable choice provisions in the 1996 Federal Welfare Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §604a, safeguard the "religious character" of faith-based organizations [FBOs]. 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. One of the most important of these statutory guarantees is the ability to select staff on a religious basis. FBOs can hardly be expected to sustain their religious vision without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets of the faith. Thus, rather than an act of intolerance, the guarantee is central to each organization?s freedom to be its own self according to the dictates of conscience. Section 604a safeguards the continued independence of FBOs from government, specifically that they need not alter their policies of "internal governance" formed as a matter of religious faith.

While it is essential that FBOs be permitted to make employment decisions based on religious considerations, like other social-service providers FBOs must obey federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, age, and disability.

Which part of only hiring Christian mentors don't you understand?
And which part of the US Constitution taking precedence over the 1996 Welfare Reform Act don't you understand?
Do you understand anything at all?