Bush Establishes Religion At Dhs By Executive Order

[Reality Amplifier]

This is total load of hooey! How can Bush claim he has vested authority by the Constitution when the First Amendment clearly prohibits this? This has got to be illegal. Why isn't anybody talking about this?

 

Executive Order: Responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security with Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

 

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

 

( a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall establish within the Department of Homeland Security (Department) a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center).

 

( The Center shall be supervised by a Director appointed by Secretary. The Secretary shall consult with the Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (WHOFBCI Director) prior to making such appointment.

 

© The Department shall provide the Center with appropriate staff, administrative support, and other resources to meet its responsibilities under this order.

 

(d) The Center shall begin operations no later than 45 days from the date of this order.

 

Sec. 2. Purpose of Center. The purpose of the Center shall be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services.

...

 

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

 

March 7, 2006.

 

Bill of Rights - Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

CONGRESS shall make no law, this isn't a law, this is an executive order, not a law, and it is not establishing any one religion but removing some of the red tape. How many atheist charity organizations are there? How many atheist hospitals are there? And the charitable atheist organizations are usually about promoting their agenda and not helping the poor or those in need.

 

I've been an atheist for 17 years and have no problem with it.

[Lycorth]

I have no problem with it, either. To me, it seems more like Dubya is merely encouraging the government to allow religious people to provide social services. Religious people have provided many crucial social services that have had nothing to do with spreading their religions. Even if they do sometimes talk about their beliefs to those they help, they're still helping, and we need all the help and charity we can get in this world.

 

I think of people like Mother Theresa. Her take on her religion inspired her to go do good things and set a precedent for others to follow. She provided an invaluable service to those who certainly needed it. While those people would be better served by their government and their society waking up and cleaning up their own mess, someone has to provide damage control in the meantime, and until poverty and need can be erased from the world (if it ever can be), someone has to help out those who need and deserve it. If those who do the helping are inspired by their religions, so be it. Better they go off to feed the hungry than thump a holy book on a street corner. That's a much better use of religion.

 

Certainly the nonreligious can and do provide help to the needy, but so do the religious. So long as they actually help and don't spend their time trying to shove their religion down the throats of the needy, it's all good, and I'm just fine with it. I'm against the abuse of religion, not religion in general.

[Ro-bear]

"...of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services."

 

The language makes clear that promotion of religion is not the sole objective of the order. I have no doubt that Dubya does indeed hope to raise the profile of religion, particularly Christianity, by greasing the skids for faith-based organizations. What I find chilling is that these groups can discriminate in both hiring and provision of services to their hearts' content.

 

I think his main goal is pretty much just getting the government out of the charity business so rich folks can pay less tax.

[SBeeland]

So what does this order do?

[jrmarlin]

I kept warning people that ridiculous bans would lead to more bans and more infringment on the rights of the people. With all the things in this world today that need serious attention and yet another infringment is being proposed. When will people learn that the agendas they agree with only lead to the ones they do not...

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

How many atheist charity organizations are there? How many atheist hospitals are there?

Since "atheist" simply means without a belief in gods, there are many "atheist' (secular) hospitals and charities in America. Any charity or hospital that operates without requiring its employees to agree to follow religious rules, or without attempting to convert its patients or clients to a certain belief are non-theist. They operate in a way that's neutral to faith. You don't see many "Atheist" (with a captial "A") hospitals and charities for one main reason - atheists don't tend to organize based on their non-beliefs and they are quite happy to work within secular organizations that welcome everyone.

 

Some of the largest non-profit hospital organizations and charities within America are secular. These include the Veterans hospitals and the American Red Cross. Why should atheists form separate institutions when they can work within the existing secular ones?

 

To ask how many atheist charity organizations and hospitals exist is to imply that atheists don't support such work - it makes it sound like atheists aren't concerned with charity. That is false and a slap in the face to the millions of charitable non-believers in this country. Many of the most charitable people I know are non-believers who work thru secular government agencies or secular charities. They (and I) don't want to start "Atheist" organizations since that makes it sound like the aid is limited to atheists or is an attempt to convert people to atheism. We're happy to give support to all who need it.

 

I think there should be tests to determine which organizations can receive government money. These would include:

 

1. No patient / client selection could be based on religious beliefs.

2. No attempt to proselytize is allowed.

3. No employment decisions are allowed based on relgious beliefs.

4. No determination of services offered can be based on religious beliefs.

 

Any organization that passes these tests should be eligible for receiving government funds. All others have religious agendas and should find their funds elsewhere.

[Thackerie]

I think of people like Mother Theresa. Her take on her religion inspired her to go do good things and set a precedent for others to follow. She provided an invaluable service to those who certainly needed it.

 

Don't get me started on Mother Theresa. She was probably well-intentioned but her blind obediance to catholicism and her resulting failure to provide or even advocate birth control (i.e, condoms) may have done more harm than good in a country suffering not only from over-population but also from the spread of sexually transmitted disease. No saint as far as I'm concerned.

[cathuria]

I have no problem with it, either. To me, it seems more like Dubya is merely encouraging the government to allow religious people to provide social services.

 

Well, maybe... and maybe not. Yesterday I posted a piece of an article from the UK's Guardian news site about the more than 2 billion$ given by the government to faith-based groups. Here is perhaps the more pointed part of the article, at least concerning this discussion--

 

From Suzanne Goldenberg, Guardian's Washingot correspondent

Mr Bush's belief in faith-based charities has long provoked controversy overseas, where pressure from the US Christian right has diverted a quarter of the £15bn the White House pledged to fight Aids to abstinence programmes.

 

At home, civil liberty groups accuse the Bush administration of using the faith-based charities to cover up for spending cuts. They also say there is not enough monitoring to ensure that funds are not used to spread religion. "Some of these organisations do good work, but for some of them their first goal is winning a new soul to convert, and that type of activity should always be funded with private dollars," said Rob Boston of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "There is virtually no attempt to monitor these religious institutions unless someone forces the issue."

 

Last month, the Bush administration cut off funds to the Silver Ring Thing, an organisation preaching teenage abstinence that has a branch in Britain. The decision followed a law suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, which found the group had been urging young people to embrace Christianity.

 

And more than any possible mis-use of funds, this is simply one more small brick in the dominionist plan to Christianize America. According to Pat Robertson and Dobson, etc., all charity work should be handled by churches and not any state agency. They and certain leaders in the Republican party have been working to get staunch Christians (including many graduates of Patrick Henry U., a college for home-schooled christians) into positions in the civic bureaucracy.

Check these out if you'd like a little scare...

 

Reporting from the National Religious Broadcasters convention in '05

 

Exposing Reconstructionism (2004)

[jrmarlin]

It seems like the only people this whole thing is fooling is Americans. Obviously, Britian is onto it.

 

Interesting articles.

 

 

Here is another article:

 

 

 

Americans United Criticizes Bush Push For 'Faith-Based' Funding

Thursday, March 9, 2006

 

Church-State Watchdog Group Charges That President Is Undercutting Civil Rights And Civil Liberties

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today blasted the Bush administration for its relentless effort to steer federal funds to religious organizations, charging that the "faith-based" initiative undermines civil rights and civil liberties.

 

President George W. Bush renewed his push for the initiative today in a speech in Washington, D.C. A new administration report claims that $2.15 billion in tax aid was directed to faith-based groups for social services during the last fiscal year.

 

James Towey, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, asserts that Bush is breaking down barriers that prevented religious groups from accessing government funds.

 

"The president seems to have little or no regard for the separation of church and state," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "This initiative clearly rolls back constitutional safeguards and civil rights protections that people count on.

 

"Bush is slashing social service spending across the board and using the faith-based initiative to divert attention from the cuts," said Lynn. "This initiative is a scam, and I hope America's religious leaders and the American people don't fall for it."

 

Lynn added, "Bush persists in claiming that religious charities have a better success rate than governmental and private secular programs. However, there is no proof that this assertion is true.

 

"It is particularly deplorable that Bush boasts about rolling back civil rights protections for government employment," Lynn continued. "This initiative lets religious groups run publicly funded programs that openly discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. That's an outrage."

 

Under executive orders issued by the president, tax dollars can go to religious groups to operate social services even if they discriminate in hiring on religious grounds. Thus, taxpayers are being required to pay for programs where they would not be allowed to work or even volunteer.

 

Lynn charged that far from trying to create a level playing field for faith-based groups, Bush wants to tilt the process toward favored religious groups and leaders.

 

"I don't think it's coincidental that TV preacher Pat Robertson, a prominent Bush backer, received $1.5 million in faith-based funding," said Lynn.

 

The initiative, Lynn said, has clearly been used for partisan purposes. He noted that in February, Towey spoke at a conference on the initiative for religious leaders in Pennsylvania, where U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, who is locked in a tight re-election bid, appeared via video.

 

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

 

[Lycorth]

Don't get me started on Mother Theresa. She was probably well-intentioned but her blind obediance to catholicism and her resulting failure to provide or even advocate birth control (i.e, condoms) may have done more harm than good in a country suffering not only from over-population but also from the spread of sexually transmitted disease. No saint as far as I'm concerned.

 

A good point, and indicative that Mother Theresa was just a human. After all, her religion was Catholicism, a overgrown cult with more than one flaw, as we all know. Still, if she really wanted to be a true hardcore Xian, she'd only evangelize the non-Xians in India and place her missionary work second to it. The need for birth control is always overlooked by the stubborn goat known as the Catholic Church™, but that's a whole other issue.

 

 

Well, maybe... and maybe not. Yesterday I posted a piece of an article from the UK's Guardian news site about the more than 2 billion$ given by the government to faith-based groups...

 

And more than any possible mis-use of funds, this is simply one more small brick in the dominionist plan to Christianize America. According to Pat Robertson and Dobson, etc., all charity work should be handled by churches and not any state agency. They and certain leaders in the Republican party have been working to get staunch Christians (including many graduates of Patrick Henry U., a college for home-schooled christians) into positions in the civic bureaucracy.

 

Yeah, I'm worried about that, too. The proposition by Dubya isn't about pushing religion, but as we all know, it can easily hold the door wide open for it. And those links were a good scare indeed; the fundy Xian mindset is clear - spread Jesus™ at all costs. They are trained from their youth to do this, even at risk of their lives. We can be sure the religious wingnuts are going to use Dubya's executive order as a Trojan horse to slip evangelizing into whatever charity work they are also doing. Like the article said, monitoring needs to be stepped up before the Xian zombies back down from evangelizing, and I hope that is what happens. Otherwise, yes, this executive order by Dubya will indeed leave the gates wide open for the barbarians to pour in.

[lothartx]

I have a problem with fact I suspect it is but another cog in wheel. It looks relatively benign, but the little voice in my head is sounding an alarm. I would like to see it challenged and struck down.

[Amethyst]

I think there should be tests to determine which organizations can receive government money. These would include:

 

1. No patient / client selection could be based on religious beliefs.

2. No attempt to proselytize is allowed.

3. No employment decisions are allowed based on relgious beliefs.

4. No determination of services offered can be based on religious beliefs.

 

Any organization that passes these tests should be eligible for receiving government funds. All others have religious agendas and should find their funds elsewhere.

 

That would be nice, but I have a feeling that would include all religious charities, because they all do that to some extent. Even if the charity itself has rules against those things, there will always be at least one in-duh-vidual within the group who does them anyway. That's just the way people are.

[Reality Amplifier]

Here’s the problem I see with this.

 

1. The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits congress from making a law respecting the establishment of religion.

3. A law is formal piece of legislation

4. An Executive Order is a regulation by the President of the United States or the chief executive of a state which has the effect of law.

5. The President swears the following oath upon taking office: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

While an Executive Order is obviously not a law from congress, it is a directive from the President which has the effect of law.

 

The President is supposed to uphold the Constitution, so Executive Orders should be consistent with the job of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. This Executive Order is not harmony or consistent with the First Amendment, as it is essentially a law respecting “faith-based” groups (which is just political weasel wording for religion). The Faith Based Initiative itself is also unconstitutional. Sorry, but bundling "religious initiatives" along with "community initiatives" does not make it the Faith Based portion of the initiative Constitutional.

 

If Congress cannot pass laws respecting religion, the Protector of the Constitution (The President) has no Constitutional basis for enacting Executive Orders that do so either.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

That would be nice, but I have a feeling that would include all religious charities, because they all do that to some extent.

It seems to me that that's the point. Government funds should not go to an organization that attempts to win clients to Christ, or who discriminates based on religious beliefs in employment. Organizations have a right to do these things, but they must use private donations to do so.

[Amethyst]

My point, though, is that even if a charity makes rules not to do that officially and it gets approved, there's almost always going to be someone within the charity who discriminates anyway. It's not right, but it is human nature. You can try to outlaw it through rules and regulations, but it'll still be there no matter what you do.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

My point, though, is that even if a charity makes rules not to do that officially and it gets approved, there's almost always going to be someone within the charity who discriminates anyway. It's not right, but it is human nature. You can try to outlaw it through rules and regulations, but it'll still be there no matter what you do.

No doubt - no organization can control every member.

 

However, I think there's a significant difference between an organization that makes every effort to be religion-neutral (even if it fails once in a while due to rogue members) and one that proudly waves its religious bigotry flag. The first should be considered for public funds, the second shouldn't.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

"While an Executive Order is obviously not a law from congress, it is a directive from the President which has the effect of law."

 

1. Still isn't a law, it is a problem with Presidential Powers which is Article II Section 2 as well as USC Title 3, Ch 4, 301.2

 

2. It is not "establishing" any particular religion but rather removing roadblocks from charitable institutions. Just because it is a "faith-based" action doesn't necessarily mean that it is promoting any particular faith, these are "faith based and community" types of initiatives so I suppose you shouldn't allow a community initiative either.

 

3. 2.15 Billion was awarded in 2005 to these initiatives and the money went to places like The Department of Justice, Department of Labor, USAid, Housing and Urban Development, Department of Labor, Education and HHS. These departments used the money for WIA Youth Program, Community Learning Centers, Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs for Women, Infants and Children, Community Development (such as parks and recreation), Child Care Assistance, Abandoned Infants, Runaway and Homeless Centers, etc. So I fail to see how anyone could think that these "faith based" initiatives is establishing a religion unless you believe that all the people receiving benefits from these programs are being brainwashed into mindless Christian robots bent on the domination of the US.

 

Crap like this just makes us atheists seem paranoid and defensive ready to scream "1st Amendment violation!" Chill.

 

By the way, if you want to read about it go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/...ction-2005.html and scroll down to the last page. You will see that the control doesn't quite lay where you think it might.