_______________

_______________

PIGS FLY As Pat Robertson Supports Church-State Separation From Americans United for Separation of Church and State

TV preacher Pat Robertson, one of President George W. Bush's most reliable political allies, blasted the president's "faith-based" initiative, describing the administration's plan to provide public funding of minority religions as "appalling."

"I really don't know what to do," said Robertson, president of the Christian Coalition. "But this thing could be a real Pandora's box. And what seems to be such a great initiative can rise up to bite the organizations as well as the federal government. And I'm a little concerned about it, frankly."

Robertson was particularly concerned that non-Christian religious minorities he doesn't like will receive public tax dollars under the Bush plan, including Hare Krishnas, the Church of Scientology and followers of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

"You know I hate to find myself on the side of the Anti-Defamation League and others, but this is, this gets to be a real problem," Robertson said. "I mean, the Moonies have been prescribed, if I can use that, for brainwashing techniques, sleep deprivation and all the rest of it that goes along with their unusual proselytizing. The Hare Krishnas much the same thing.

"And it seems appalling to me that we're going to go for somebody like that, or the Church of Scientology, which was involved in an incredible campaign against the IRS," Robertson added. "I mean, they were accused of all sorts of underhanded tactics. And in Germany, because of Scientology, there's been a crackdown, essentially, on many evangelical groups that were triggered by the revulsion against some of their beliefs and practices."

Also See: AU's Top 10 Reasons Bush's "Faith-Based" Plan Is Wrong  http://www.au.org/press/pr22001.htm          [TOC]

WHY 'CHARITABLE CHOICE' IS JUST A BAD IDEA   J. E. Hill
    The concept of 'Charitable Choice is simple: give tax money to religious organizations to run social programs. Churches, claim proponents, have the facilities, experience and wherewithal to do a better job than existing social service agencies and other non-profits that all ready exist to do the same job. They are wrong.

Here is why these programs are a bad idea: Churches are notorious for using unskilled, unqualified volunteers. Most, if not all churches recruit from their own ranks to run church sponsored programs. The churches have no idea of who these people really are. Just because they are an active member doesn't translate to being a trustworthy person. Stories are a dime a dozen about pastors, youth pastors, Sunday school teachers, and volunteers that not only have been less than upright but out and out criminals. A scan of "Black collar Crimes" in any edition of Freethought Today will support this. And, tragically, this just scratches the surface of the amount of abuse that occurs in church circles. Educated and skilled social workers are not cheap and necessary to run social programs. Will churches be required to hire qualified and in some cases licensed caseworkers? Who will oversee this is to assure adherence?

Where does one draw the line on a pastor's pay from preaching and his government provided administration fee for counseling? Are missionaries social workers? How would we know how and where our tax money was being used? Just because they are churches, will they be good stewards of the money? Churches are big business with virtually no external oversight and thanks to the First Amendment, nary a control or regulation. No other properly organized business in this country has this privilege. Except for their non-profit status, IRS 501 (c) (3) reporting, churches are not required to give the government one iota of information on their activities.

The conflict with the Establishment Clause: If a church was to receive tax money, could they then claim that by virtue of the Establishment Clause that the government has no right to audit, inspect, and monitor the programs the church says it's running? Would the government be barred from any reasonable oversight? The good money says yes. Once church receives federal directs you can bet the farm they would use the Establishment Clause to prevent inspections or "government intrusion."

Churches don't spend money ... on anything. They just take it in. Churches present themselves as poor ol' hat-in-hand, tin cup organizations. There is nothing further from the truth. Most of the larger conventions are multi-billion dollar enterprises. For example, in 1998 the Southern Baptist Convention took in $6,878,182,518; United Methodist Church, $3,744,692,223; Evangelical Lutheran Church, $1,821,385,813; the America Presbyterian Church, $2,252,516,066; Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, $ 997,293,579; American Baptist Churches in the USA, $ 407,344,795; United Church of Christ, $684,740,819; Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), $413,087,890; Seventh-day Adventist, $767,293,895; Church of the Nazarene, $514,809,202; Wisconsin Evangelical, $202,294,882; Reformed Church in America, $190,518,514. (Source: 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.)  Although the Catholic Church has not deemed it fit to report their contributions (probably out of dignity) some figures have been passed around to the tune of 45 billion a year which would not be a stretch of the imagination considering the billion members the church claims to have.

Churches are low overhead organizations. Again, using volunteers, churches usually defer maintenance, upkeep and other administrative duties to their parishioners. How many cases has anybody heard of where a church donated any money to a community, public school, or non-profit social service agency?

Except for the occasional food or clothing drive (which is based on donated goods), or perhaps asking for additional donations to give to victims of circumstance, (usually another church member) there are very few if any, churches that have ever donated any of the mother churches money to a community. While very good at raising money, they are very bad at donating their own. In short, Charitable Choice is Ecclesiastical Welfare.

'Charitable Choice' is a duplication of effort and a bureaucratic nightmare: There are non-profit social services organizations that already exist to do exactly what charitable choice is suppose to do. This network of non-profits, created by the 1964 Equal Opportunity Act, is funded by congressional appropriations. (One could make an argument that if religious organizations were actually doing something for social change and the war on poverty, this act would have hardly been necessary.) Yet upon the Republican 'takeover' of Congress in 1994, these programs were the first to face the slash and burn mentality of the 'Contract with America' conservatives. Many of these organizations and the programs they ran were decimated. For example, the Department of Energy Weatherization Program was cut in half. Yet this was one of the most cost-effective programs ever devised; completely quantifiable and successfully keeping people (mainly seniors, the disabled and families with small children) in their homes rather than in subsidized housing or rendered homeless. These non-profit's also run a myriad of other social programs including the enormously successful 'Head Start' preschool program, job training programs, literacy programs, senior meal programs, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters and food banks.

Proselytization would drive away the ones that most need the services. The disenfranchised, developmentally disabled, and economically needy do not need religion but objective driven availability to services with out interference, conditions, or barriers. Many of the needy community would rather not ask for help if they had to go to a church to get it. Charitable Choice means all other avenues to them would be closed off or at least limited in scope.  Only those who are already adherents to that particular denomination will seek out the charitable choice services offered by that denomination. This leaves, in many cases, programs empty of clients with administrators and caseworkers being paid for doing nothing but twiddling their thumbs. Or, at worse, having a client list of only church members!

More destructive here, however, is the specter that someone would have to listen, read, or be instructed in some religious indoctrination either before or after (and possibly during) receiving services. To require someone to engage in a religious prerequisite for an entitled government subsidy or program is coercive and akin to blackmail. To think religious organizations would not engage in proselytization is nonsensical.

If religious organizations want to engage in social services let them do it on their own dime and their own time. If they can show that they can produce effective social programs then we should applaud them; for they have accomplished something without the help of the government. The way it should be.

J. E. Hill is a Freedom From Religion Foundation member from N.E. Washington State. He has worked for a non-profit community action agency in the capacity of Program Manager for Housing and Energy services for more than ten years.           [TOC]

EMINEM: FOLLOW-UP   Gerry D
    Eminem has hit a nerve in many persons, from fans to critics of the rapper.  A quick follow-up is in order.

If one has read the mainstream media, the controversy is discussed, unfortunately, in a manner that would tend to promote the rapper by making him an underdog and anti-hero. What the media, for the most part, cannot put their finger on is the foundation of Eminem's support - the argument his fans use to defend him.

It's postmodernism!

Letter after letter, and column after column, the argument is the pretty much the same: "He's just expressing himself." Couldn't we say the same about Hitler if he had a song calling for hating Jews, as long as it had a good beat?

Is this an exaggeration? Here is what an editor from Rolling Stone wrote in a NY Times Magazine article: "It is intentionally offensive, as many great works of art are, and have always been and - since I like offensive art and basically would like to see popular music provoke the class warfare that the frightened gatekeepers of the 1960's promised me when I was a child, damn it - I personally hope it will continue to be."

Here's a quote from Madonna: 'I like the fact that Eminem is brash and angry and politically incorrect. At least he has an opinion."

Let's hear from Stevie Wonder: "We dance forever around the issues, and songs about unity and love. But until we really confront the truth, we are going to have a Tupac or Eminem... to remind us about it - and thank God."

Even Elton John, who should know better, said: "We live in an age of political correctness where you can't say this or that. I honestly don't think people will go out and start killing people because of this album."

How does Eminem explain himself? In his defense, Eminem claimed that he was just speaking his mind. "I do feel like I'm coming from a standpoint where people don't realize there are a lot of poor white people," he explained in the Source. "Rap music kept my mind off all the bullshit I had to go through."

Isn't Eminem supposed to be promoting something, even vaguely, to be taken seriously as a visionary? What is it that he hates, other than everything?  What would he prefer? Does he have to have values in place of those values he detests? Postmodernists are saying no!

Why? This is the nature of the postmodernist argument, in that all positions are the result of a one's personal viewpoint and prejudices and that in fact reality is what we think it is, independent of what is really out there!  Thus, one point of view is as valid as another's, regardless of whether one viewpoint is supported by verifiable evidence and testable propositions and the other viewpoint is supported by nothing except for the conviction of the person holding the view. So Eminem gains his support not by merit, but simply because people have decided, willy-nilly, to support him. It's their opportunity to express their postmodernism. Is this a fair explanation? As it was demonstrated, his music is marketed to the young and it does glorify hate or at the least, enmity, on the surface, even if most adults probably would be immune to the influence. Musically, it is repetitive and often the best parts of his songs are lifted from other artist's tunes, albeit with their permission (e.g.: "Stan" featuring music by Dido.)

Other critics defend Eminem by pointing out that he is dealing with irony and satire. This proposition can be tested to a point.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has complained about Eminem.  According to Liz Smith's column in the Daily News, one of the leaders of that organization has received dozens of emails from defenders of Eminem, saying something similar to: "If I ever meet you, I'll stab you in the throat."  (The LAPD is investigating.) It seems that the irony is lost on some of the deliberately targeted market audience. What a shock! Not!

Ultimately time will be the best judge of Eminem's talents. Will we be listening to Eminem in 10 years? I don't think so. But is Eminem opening the mainstream door to even more hateful music, including neo-Nazi bands that would make Eminem seem tame. Don't laugh, someone will rationalize it as "reportage."           [TOC]

Those interested or with suggestions please email Gerry D @LISecHum@aol.com!

Life Ring-SOS Meetings on Long Island!

Life Ring (formerly known as SOS) is a program for those who abuse alcohol or other substances. Unlike Alcoholics Anonymous, it does not require that those attending meetings accept the religious claims of the program. Life Ring is not just for the non-religious; it is also suitable for those who prefer to focus on sobriety rather than the religious components of AA.

One meeting is in the North Fork of Long Island, N.Y. The contact person is Matthew R., 631-477-0746. The meetings are each Tuesday from 6 to 7 P.M., at the Unitarian Universalist Church, Main Road, Route 25, Southold, Suffolk County, NY.

The other meeting is on the north shore, mid-Suffolk County. The contact person is Kathy, 631-689-1683. The meetings are each Wednesday, 6:30PM at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, 380 Nicolls Road, StonyBrook, Suffolk County.

LISH will support the efforts of other interested parties to start SOS meetings in other locations on the Island with press releases, mailings to substance abuse centers and other humanist organizations, and meeting materials. Just ask us to help!

The home page of Life Ring is http://www.unhooked.com. This web site has much information for downloading on running LifeRing-SOS groups.          [TOC]

QUICKIES!  Gerry D

Item: The seven Texas prison escapees wanted for murder and described as armed and very dangerous had passed for a traveling Christian group while on the lam in January. One of the seven, known as Brother Jim, was notable for his keen biblical knowledge, while others listened to Christian music and called each other "Brother." The group consisted of child abusers, rapists, drug addicts and murderers.

Comment: I wonder if their traveling Christian group would have been eligible for state funding under President Bush's plan? 

Item: Miami Mayor Joe Carollo was arrested in February 2001, for allegedly hitting his wife in the head with a "cardboard" tea canister. He is known for accusing those who were responsible for the return of the young Cuban boy, the subject of an international custody struggle, of being atheists.

Comment: Must be some kind of ungodly teapot that allegedly leaped out of his hands, no doubt.

Item: NYC Mayor Giuliani says he wants a "decency standard" on art work at city-funded museums after a photo of an attractive but nude African-American woman depicted as Jesus at the Last Supper was being shown at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the location of last year's controversial "Sensations" showing.

The Mayor claimed it was anti-Catholic and unworthy of taxpayer funding. The artist, Renee Cox, pointed out that, "Now that he's been busted with the other woman, I wouldn't be talking about moral issues," referring to Giuliani's apparent sin of adultery last year. She also contended that 40% of slaveholders were Catholic, a charge she did not substantiate.

Comment: Unlike the Eminem controversy, this is about censorship. So let's get this straight, for all those who cannot follow the Mayor's logic: It is immoral and should be illegal to even critique Catholicism, or to even depict it in a manner not pleasing to the Mayor (or the Catholic League) in a museum that receives city dollars. However it is ok for the tax-exempt Catholic Church to preach that non-believers and non-Catholics are hell-bound and deserve it, that the Catholic Church is superior to other churches, that other churches are in error or false, and that all who disagree with Church doctrine are bigots. However it is not bigotry for the Catholic League or the Mayor to attack on a personal level, individual persons, including fellow Catholics, who disagree with their positions. Finally, the last thing is that it doesn't matter if most Catholic persons disagree with the Mayor or the Catholic League - the Catholic League and the Mayor speak for them.  These are the rules folks! Can it be simpler?

The additional brouhaha over Catholics and slavery is irrelevant to the funding issue since this was not an item when the Mayor first attacked the painting. However it is unethical to make a charge that one cannot support.

Now for those other Christians who must be wondering how a perceived insult to Jesus at the Last Supper is an insult to Catholics, I will enlighten you - according to those narrow-minded Catholics in a huff, you don't count! 

Item: The Secret Service investigated the editor of a SUNY @ StonyBrook student newspaper because of a satirical piece in which the writer called for God or "some crazy mortal" to smite President George W. Bush.

Comment: The Secret Service had to intervene after President Bush had heard about the "crazy mortal" prayer and began canceling scheduled meetings with Bob Barr, John Ashcroft and Jesse Helms.

Item: Journalist Helen Thomas to President Bush: "You are a secular official." Bush responded, "I agree, I am a secular official." Thomas shot back, "And not a missionary."

Comment: Bush, unlike Pres. Clinton, sees himself in a missionary position.           [TOC]