Americans United Says President Obama's 'Faith-Based' Program Lacks Adequate Constitutional Safeguar

[and-justice-for-all]

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment That Bush-Era Rules Allowing Religion-Based Hiring Discrimination Remain In Place

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today expressed disappointment that President Barack Obama’s “faith-based” initiative is being rolled out without repeal of Bush-era policies that violate civil rights and civil liberties.

Obama issued an executive order today appointing Joshua DuBois as executive director of the White House faith-based office and setting up an advisory council on faith-based and other issues.

President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative allowed religious groups that accept tax funding to engage in discriminatory hiring and celebrated faith-based groups that proselytize. Today’s Obama action leaves the Bush executive orders in place including one that specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs.

“I am very disappointed that President Obama’s faith-based program is being rolled out without barring evangelism and religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It should be obvious that taxpayer-funded religious bias offends our civil rights laws, our Constitution and our shared sense of values.”

More: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10291

[bluestateguy]

1. I'm not a fan of this program

but as long as the Obama Administration is the one running it, I won't be too worried.

[laconicsax]

2. So...who cares if it may be unconstitutional so long as our guy is running the show?

[bluestateguy]

3. When the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, I'll cede the argument to you

But until the Court declares something unconstitutional, it's constitutional.

[laconicsax]

6. Let me get this straight.

If Congress passed legislation making it illegal for women to vote and it was signed into law, then you'd argue until you're blue in the face that it's constitutional until the Supreme Court said otherwise?

[and-justice-for-all]

14. Uh, it is unconstitutonal for the Government to give our money...

to ANY religious institution.

[Terran]

18. Oh for god's sake, no it's not.

Religious institutions have been getting government grants for decades, and no one ever complained about it until Bush set up the OFBI. And all the OFBI did/does is try to increase the number of grants being given to religious organizations.

If the government stopped giving grants to religious institutions, you'd see an immediate and sharp rise in homelessness and poverty, nationwide.

[and-justice-for-all]

24. Bah!! OK

"If the government stopped giving grants to religious institutions, you'd see an immediate and sharp rise in homelessness and poverty, nationwide." I doubt it.

Do religious institutions really need tax payer funds to survive? NO, they do not. Religious institution rob millions of people of a portion of their income every year, all tax free to boot. They do not and should not be getting tax payer dollars when they DO NOT NEED IT.

[Terran]

31. Well you go right ahead and "doubt it"

You are doing so out of sheer ignorance. Very progressive of you. Knee-jerk.

[and-justice-for-all]

32. ignornace......

you seem to be ok with an organization that takes in millions of tax free funds every and still receives tax payer dollars. Bullshit it is and I for one do not see ANY reason for it.

By handing them tax payer funds, they are in fact, recognizing religion. As it reads in the Comstitution, it appears very clearly that the Government is violating that amendment. Also, it is unessacaty for the Government to give ANY religious institution any funding. They do not need it. If they need funding, they need to ask for it from Pat Robertson and the like, not the Government.

[Terran]

34. I'm ignorant?

Your post above is one of most mis-informed I've ever seen on DU--and is very typical of this whole discussion of this issue. Don't talk to me again until you've actually figured out how this stuff works.

[and-justice-for-all]

40. I know how it works...so piss off..nt

[Terran]

41. Right

Tell me all about how federal funding actually works. Oh sorry, you can't because you don't know shit about it.

[prostock69]

15. It is unconstitutional for Congress. The Freedom From Religion Foundation

sued the Executive Office (Bush and Co.) over Faith Based Initiatives. The Case went before the Supreme Court. The SC said they had no standing because you can't sue the Executive Office. However, if it were Congress that enacted the Faith Based Initiatives (FBI), then they would have a case and they would have ruled in FFRF's favor. Pres. Bush asked Congress for FBI and they said no, because they knew it was unconstitutional. So Bush went behind their backs and created the FBI anyways. The laws that allow this to happen needs to be changed--the same laws that allowed the Executive Office to create prisons and do other illegal things with out Congress's approval.

[nichomachus]

17. WOW -- did the freepers sell their cult of personality on eBay or what? n/t

[firedupdem]

4. Ummm...the President is a constitutional law kinda guy...I think he's got

his bases covered.

[debbierlus]

26. This was unconstitutional under Bush - it STILL is...

It doesn't all the sudden become a-okay because Obama is disregarding seperation of church & state...

[PurityOfEssence]

27. No, he doesn't.

Prior perpetration is some kind of precedent, but that doesn't make it legal.

It's WORSE that he's actually a Constitutional Scholar, because that brings the cynical favoritism into a very nasty light.

Besides all that, the tenor of this type of post is submissive and a species of hero worship. We did not elect a king to whom we must defer everything, and his demonstrated expertise in an area doesn't give him carte blanche to do as he pleases.

Just because he can "get away with it" doesn't make it constitutional, and it ISN'T.

He can make all sorts of imperious executive decisions, but Congress has to appropriate the monies to pay for these programs, and "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...".

I'm absolutely sick of the blissful adulation with which so many people abdicate their personal efficacy and sell the rest of us out for whatever flimsy reason.

Religion plays for keeps, and with each successive encroachment, it uses gains to justify further gains. It should be rolled back, but I'm not going to be a total pissy nightmare about it; I just don't want further theocracy like is planned and has been brazenly proposed since the beginning of this campaign.

[terisan]

5. The faith based contracts are worth billions and discrimination can;t be adequately

reviewed on a case by case basis.

Under Bush churches that backed him politically obtained massive funding

We have no adequate accountability here and Americans United is right to be concerned.

[theoldman]

7. Under Bush only Christian groups got money.

I do not think it will be much different under Obama because the Christians are in control of the money.

[Cha]

33. Yeah, Well, Obama acknowledged

non-believers, and other religious groups besides Christians in his Inaugural speech..which has never been done before.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. Well, at least it's a very very young black guy leading the thing, and not some....

corporate, white, Bible-banging male who speaks against gays (then spends his nites hiding in parks waiting to proposition a man for sex).

[QC]

9. He's a Pentecostal preacher.

So presumably he beats his Bible (while making funny noises) and hates homos just like white Pentecostals.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Oh? He's a young homophobe? On the other hand, how many Christians are NOT homophobic whackjobs?

Not too many, I'm afraid.

Most religions are things to fear.

[QC]

19. Mainstream Christians tend not to roll in the floor and make funny noises

and shake their floppy Bibles at people, but for some reason Obama has little to no interest in mainstream Christians. Holy rollers, on the other hand....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

22. If there are any Christians who don't try to legislate their beliefs into our laws.....

let them stand up and ask to be counted instead of the Bible-banging whackjobs. I never hear anything from them. Either they don't exist, or they've been riding the wave of the whackjobs when these made Christianity famous by becoming pushy neonazis.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Gee, should I be happy

that the bigot who is harrassing my family under color of law is a young black man? DuBois is alligned with the Ex-Gay horrors, McClurkin, Caldwell, and the rest. He is a Pentecostal preacher. His group of religious people is more prejudiced against gay people than most, and they are active in their work against us.
DuBois is responible for every insult to gay peole that occured during the entire campaign and trasition and he will continue to do the same. He fought for the right to discriminate against me.]
I do not give a fuck what his age or race is, why do you?

[QC]

10. AMERICANS UNITED IS A RIGHT WING FRONT GROUP!11!!!!

:silly:

[Maven]

21. PUMAS!!!111!!1!

[Zhade]

11. Well, technically it's unconstitutional to give our tax money to ANY religion, period.

So yeah, AU is right, but they don't go far enough in their complaint.

[avaistheone1]

13. I am a believer and I agree religious institutions should not be given taxpayer money.

Nor should a department that promotes religion or faith be enshrined within our government.

I also believe in our Constitution and the separation of church and state.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. You have a faith of decency

Obviously, you're secure enough in your belief that you don't have to force everyone around you to publicly proclaim that you're correct and turn every waking hour into a reminder that "others" just don't belong.

This is all so disturbing on so very many levels. At it's heart, it's a full-frontal agreement with the reactionaries' premise that government just isn't up to snuff, and that all real work should be done in the private sector. Nobody ever mentions that.

The deep cynicism of the whole thing is breathtaking: there's no way that monies can be used by faith-based organizations ONLY for secular services. The money all goes into a general fund in plenty of cases. The leap of logic that we're asked to make that a man with a collar who's serving soup isn't seen as a reinforcement of the value of God to the poor unfortunate person on the breadline is ludicrous. The idea that services provided on the grounds of a church won't be seen as coming from the busom of God is just plain dishonest.

Thank you for posting this; you are a true communal spirit.

[leftstreet]

12. K&R

[Odin2005]

20. Obama is a constitutional lawyer by training, so I'm trusting his judgement.

I'm an Atheist, and in an ideal world charities would not be necessary, but we don't live in an ideal world and a lot of charities are religious.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Funny how no one has filed a lawsuit trying to stop this

I wonder why.

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Religion is inherently anti-democratic

It needs no explanation. It wins any conflict. Others are inferior. Its adherents have more rights than others. It brooks no dissent. It fears change, nuance and uncertainty.

There's a reason why our founders made good and sure that it had NOTHING to do with our government.

They couldn't figure out that women could vote, that blacks shouldn't be slaves, that men without property should vote, that citizens should vote directly for Senators or a whole host of other things, but even then, in the eighteenth century, they were very clear THAT RELIGION SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN THE GOVERNMENT.

Why? Because it's aristocratic by nature. It's xenophobic.

Obama is a Constitutional scholar. He KNOWS this.

This is all terribly, terribly wrong and dangerous.

[Phx_Dem]

29. Never heard of them, don't care what they think.

I have, on the other hand, heard of President Obama and I trust him, until he gives me reason not to.

[liberalsince1968]

30. Religion has no place in government.

And I don't care which president tries to put it there. I think Obama is just as wrong to do it as Bush was. It's not constitutional, it's not democratic, and it is very hypocritical of churches to take government hand outs on the one hand when they are against so many of Obama's policies on the other hand. I hate those anti-woman, anti-gay fuckers.

[MadHound]

35. LOL, so many screamed at this when Bush implemented it

But hey, "our guy" is in control now, so everything is just hunky-dory, screw the Constitution, screw the separation of church and state. Geez, people around here are getting as bad as the twenty percent club with their cult of personality.

I suppose that Obama retaining all those illegal, unconstitutional spying powers, and the power to declare anybody an "enemy combatant" is OK with these folks too, since it is "our guy" in power.

The hypocrisy continues to amaze me.

[QC]

36. I wish I could still be amazed by it. n/t

[sybylla]

39. Yeah, you can almost get high off the fumes the hypocrisy is so thick

I mean, why should I care if my tax dollars fund jobs out there for which a minority, a homosexual, a non-believer, a woman or a disabled person will never be considered no matter how capable or competent?

:shrug: So long as my church is getting some money...

[liberalsince1968]

42. It doesn't just amaze me...it totally STUNS me.

Who knew something is bad if Bush does it, but OK if Obama does it?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Obama's embrace of legal discrimination

really kicked the wind out of my sails. Extended so many benefits of the doubt. Can not do that anymore on this one. It is wrong. DuBois is not to be trusted, he is a speaker of slanders and gossips and his dogma will lead to much trouble for the administration, and cost to the taxpayer.
A person who holds some Americans in contempt holds the purse strings for billions of dollars of tax money, at age 26. I predict DuBois will turn out to be every bit as good for Obama as every other preacher friend of his has been so far. They all deliver him nothing but trouble. And yet he seeks them out. In this particular area, Obama is not very skilled in discerning of character and objectives. When he sees the cross or collar, he abandons his own mind and simply buys into the preacher's game. And it is a game. Obama is gamed by them each and every time. Now he's given one of them billions, and power, and allowed him to legally discriminate against people. Legal discrimination, from the first black President. Ironic is too weak a word for it.