"Sucessful" Faith-Based Initiative

[Hellbender]

Here is an account of one of Bush's faith based initiatives.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086617/

 

To sum up, it is a program to evangelize prison inmates in the hopes that it will lead to them "straighten out", but it seems the decision is ultimately the prisoner's.

 

A couple questions:

 

What if the prisoners refuse to be indoctrinated? Are their rights on hold becasue they are prisoners?

 

Is this constitutional?

 

If it was found to be inneffective, why were the statistics lied about to seem positive? Isn't the goal to find a program to help prisoners?

[Coral Rhedd]

I would think it's constitutional if it's entirely voluntary. That is, if there are no reprisals for not joining the group. The link you post does not provide that information.

 

What amuses me is the continuing naivety of people who want to reduce recidivism. Sociopaths just love programs where they can pretend to be good, pretend to come to Jesus, pretend to turn their lives around. Fooling others is their chocolate, their high, their one favorite thing. The only trouble is, few of them can keep up the act for long.

 

Too bad the study wasn't designed to have more rigor in the first place.

[budullewraagh]

"A couple questions:

What if the prisoners refuse to be indoctrinated? Are their rights on hold becasue they are prisoners?

Is this constitutional?

If it was found to be inneffective, why were the statistics lied about to seem positive? Isn't the goal to find a program to help prisoners?"

 

then they refuse to be indoctrinated. you can't force someone to believe something.

it is constitutional. if you wanted, you could represent the church of satan or something and talk to them.

they lied because they wanted to continue their program

[Aardvark]

Who's funding this programme?

 

If its funded privately then it doesn't really matter if it's great or not, just as long as no one is getting worse treatment for not taking part.

 

If its funded by taxpayers then how effective it is is very important. Spending taxpayers money needs to be carefully justified by results.

[budullewraagh]

i dont think we're paying for it...

[Aardvark]

i dont think we're paying for it...

 

I wonder about some of the links that seem to be developing between religious groups and government. Knowing how government ties to big business and unions tends to lead to cronyism and special favours i wonder how many strings have been pulled in the background, whether things are made 'easier' for certain favoured groups.

 

Maybe it is all clean and in the open, but knowing how power structures interact, its worth careful observation.

[Hellbender]

i dont think we're paying for it...

 

we better not be. I am just wondering why they felt that had to cook the books when statistics show the program really didn't work.

[Hellbender]

then they refuse to be indoctrinated. you can't force someone to believe something.

it is constitutional. if you wanted' date=' you could represent the church of satan or something and talk to them.

they lied because they wanted to continue their program[/quote']

 

true, but I know from experience how agressive evangelical christians can be while attemping to convert someone. I know they lied to continue their program, but why do they want to continue it? My point is that I don't feel that the program true goal is to help the prisoners in question. The fact that they felt the need to misrepresent statistics shows that. I think its just an program to try and convert some people. Of course, I have no evidence to support this, its wholly speculation, but it just seems sketchy to me.

[Hellbender]

I wonder about some of the links that seem to be developing between religious groups and government.

 

Me too. And it seems that Bush is doing a fine job attemping to "bridge the gap between church and state" (his own words)

[Pangloss]

Would you feel that way if it were a Clinton program? He favored faith-based initiatives too, you know. So does his wife, the current senator from New York.

 

By the way, why do people feel that taxpayer-funded programs that are based around secular organizations are automatically not violations of the separation of church and state?

 

What is the difference between pushing a secular agenda and pushing a religious one? Isn't politically-correct secularism just another form of religion? And if that's the case, then why should taxpayer money go to a program that pushes a secularist agenda?

 

Do you want your kids in a taxpayer-funded program that tells them its okay to have casual sex so long as they use a condom, or do you want your kids in a program that tells them abstinence is a good idea?

[Hellbender]

Would you feel that way if it were a Clinton program? He favored faith-based initiatives too, you know. So does his wife, the current senator from New York.

 

I never said I was happy about that, either.

 

By the way, why do people feel that taxpayer-funded programs that are based around secular organizations are automatically not violations of the separation of church and state?

 

Because the united states is a secular nation, that means the government is (ideally) neutral on the subject of religion. Secularism is not a religion. There is nothing wrong with seperating the church from the government, and that is the very definition of secularism.

 

What is the difference between pushing a secular agenda and pushing a religious one? Isn't politically-correct secularism just another form of religion? And if that's the case, then why should taxpayer money go to a program that pushes a secularist agenda??

 

The difference is that secularism is not a religion. The American government is supposed to be tolerant of religions, but to not actively endorse them

 

Do you want your kids in a taxpayer-funded program that tells them its okay to have casual sex so long as they use a condom, or do you want your kids in a program that tells them abstinence is a good idea?

 

I don't have kids, but if I did, i would want them to learn safe sex, instead of someone saying "just don't have sex, we won't cover what happens if you do". Thats potentially dangerous. Abstinence is a good idea, but not every teenager will listen. Thats why its a good idea to teach both. I don't see what this has to do with the above subjects, by the way.

 

Do you think seperation of church and state is a bad thing?

[Pangloss]

I never said I was happy about that, either.

 

No, but you did say:

 

it seems that Bush is doing a fine job attemping to "bridge the gap between church and state"

 

So I think it's a reasonable question on my part. Are you interested in examining the pros and cons of faith-based initiatives, or are you interested in finding more reasons to hate Bush?

 

I don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out that this happens a lot in these discussions, and I think it's a bunch of politically-correct garbage that has to be waded through in order to get at the truth. Whether or not you feel that way is another matter (for all I know you were just being sardonic -- I appreciate a good sense of humor!), and so I don't mean that as an attack.

 

 

Because the united states is a secular nation, that means the government is (ideally) neutral on the subject of religion. Secularism is not a religion. There is nothing wrong with seperating the church from the government, and that is the very definition of secularism.

 

I disagree that the United States is a secular nation, and in fact statistics show that most of this country would disagree with you as well. I agree with you about government neutrality, and the separation of church and state.

 

But whether you call it "secularism" or something else, pushing an agenda over another one is still pushing an agenda over another one. Promoting a specific point of view as being better than another specific point of view is still promoting a specific point of view. Was not the point of the Constitution to guarantee the rights of individuals to be protected from having to follow a specific point of view?

 

What is the difference between little Johnny being told that Jesus died for our sins, and little Johnny being told that God is dead? Are not both concepts equally dangerous? Are they not equally frightening in their potential for abuse?

 

 

The difference is that secularism is not a religion. The American government is supposed to be tolerant of religions, but to not actively endorse them

 

Yes. And why is that the case? I'm curious what you believe is the reason why that clause exists in the Constitution, if it is not for the reasons I've described above.

 

 

Abstinence is a good idea, but not every teenager will listen. Thats why its a good idea to teach both. I don't see what this has to do with the above subjects, by the way.

 

When they teach both it's a good thing, yes. But just because a program is secular does not guarantee that abstinence will be taught as a good idea. It often is not, and sometimes the reason why it is not is because the people who run the program don't believe in abstinence, they don't think it's a good idea, and it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

Isn't that proselytizing?

 

 

Do you think seperation of church and state is a bad thing?

 

Nope, I think it's a very GOOD thing. I'm a secular humanist myself. What I dislike is deception and political correctness substituting for wisdom and intelligence.

 

My motto: Challenge everything. Leave no stone unturned. If something is a good idea, it will withstand a little inspection.

[Sayonara]

Here is an account of one of Bush's faith based initiatives.

 

http://slate.msn.com/id/2086617/

 

To sum up' date=' it is a program to evangelize prison inmates in the hopes that it will lead to them "straighten out", but it seems the decision is ultimately the prisoner's. [/quote']

How is that meant to work? George Bush is devoutly religious himself, and he's a crackpot. Being religious doesn't seem to be a barrier for rationalising "sinful" actions for anyone.

[Pangloss]

But programs using public funds can be corrupt whether they're faith-based or not.

[Hellbender]

So I think it's a reasonable question on my part. Are you interested in examining the pros and cons of faith-based initiatives, or are you interested in finding more reasons to hate Bush?

 

Yes, I am interested in examining this. And I don't need any more reasons to dislike bush.

 

I don't mean to single you out, I'm just pointing out that this happens a lot in these discussions, and I think it's a bunch of politically-correct garbage that has to be waded through in order to get at the truth. Whether or not you feel that way is another matter (for all I know you were just being sardonic -- I appreciate a good sense of humor!), and so I don't mean that as an attack.

 

political correctness is not garbage. What truth are you talking about here?

 

 

I disagree that the United States is a secular nation, and in fact statistics show that most of this country would disagree with you as well. I agree with you about government neutrality, and the separation of church and state.

 

Ideally, yes it is a nation neutral on religion. So what is most of us Americans are Christian. That won't change our government into a thoecracy. You are confusing "secular" with "atheistic". Secularism is neutrality on religion, exempliefied by the US seperation of church and state. Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

 

But whether you call it "secularism" or something else, pushing an agenda over another one is still pushing an agenda over another one. Promoting a specific point of view as being better than another specific point of view is still promoting a specific point of view. Was not the point of the Constitution to guarantee the rights of individuals to be protected from having to follow a specific point of view?

 

Promoting a specific point of view is pretty much what politics is all about. Yes, thats what the consititution is for, among other things, but it also says the church and state business.

 

What is the difference between little Johnny being told that Jesus died for our sins, and little Johnny being told that God is dead? Are not both concepts equally dangerous? Are they not equally frightening in their potential for abuse?

 

It is the family's business to tell their children what they want about religion. The government should have nothing to do with that.

 

Yes. And why is that the case? I'm curious what you believe is the reason why that clause exists in the Constitution, if it is not for the reasons I've described above.

 

To not promote one religion over another. Secularism is not a religion.

 

 

When they teach both it's a good thing, yes. But just because a program is secular does not guarantee that abstinence will be taught as a good idea. It often is not, and sometimes the reason why it is not is because the people who run the program don't believe in abstinence, they don't think it's a good idea, and it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

Examples?? So you think only religion agendas will teach safe sex?

 

Isn't that proselytizing?

 

Prostelytizing is going door to door, or simply being in your face relentlessly preaching and trying to get you to convert. Religions can do this all they want, but I personally find it obnoxious.

 

Nope, I think it's a very GOOD thing. I'm a secular humanist myself. What I dislike is deception and political correctness substituting for wisdom and intelligence.

 

Where is this deception? There is nothing wrong with political correctness, it can be a little annoying when it gets out of hand, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

My motto: Challenge everything. Leave no stone unturned. If something is a good idea, it will withstand a little inspection.

 

I won't argue with you here.

[Hellbender]

How is that meant to work? George Bush is devoutly religious himself, and he's a crackpot. Being religious doesn't seem to be a barrier for rationalising "sinful" actions for anyone[/u'].

 

Thats my whole point. It seems the programs are more concerned with converting people than helping them.

 

But programs using public funds can be corrupt whether they're faith-based or not.

 

True.

[Hellbender]

Just to clear something up: I am not just attacking republicans and republican programs here. I happen to be a democrat, but they are capable of being absolute jerks too. I just pick what is often the lesser of two evils. Heck it was Al Gore and his Vice president that said stuff about there being "no freedom from religion in America". Whether that was simply lip-service in order to get more votes, or he really meant it, it is scary.

[Sayonara]

political correctness is not[/i'] garbage. What truth are you talking about here?

It doesn't look to me like he was talking about all political correctness - just that particular implementation.

[swansont]

... it was Al Gore and his Vice president that said stuff about

 

Al has never been sworn in as president, so he could not have had a vice-president. Perhaps you meant running mate?

[swansont]

Do you want your kids in a taxpayer-funded program that tells them its okay to have casual sex so long as they use a condom, or do you want your kids in a program that tells them abstinence is a good idea?

 

False dilemma.

 

And many studies have shown that abstinence-only programs only serve to ensure that when the kids do have sex, they do not use birth control and are at higher risk for pregnancy. Overall, they don't keep the kids from having sex.

[Pangloss]

political correctness is not garbage

 

You're a proponent of political correctness? That's interesting, I haven't seen one of those in a while. We might be getting a little off track here, but I'm curious on what basis you defend it. I'm familiar with the "making everyone think the same way exposes prejudice and malice" argument (which I disagree with), but if you have a different position I'm all ears.

 

There is nothing wrong with political correctness, it can be a little annoying when it gets out of hand, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

I believe there is. Political correctness is an attempt to promote "right thinking" and denounce and remove what politically correct people believe is "wrong thinking". It stiffles creativity, ostracizes independent thinking, and attemps to create a race of robotic followers just as surely as anything your nemesis Bush and his evil evangelicals could ever do.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe that political correctness is the dominent force in our society, any more than I believe that Christianity is. It's simply another ill that has to be fought on a regular basis. The price of freedom, etc.

 

That is, of course, just my opinion. But the fact that I'm allowed to have that opinion stands in stark contrast to political correctness, and I'm able to state it only because society has stood up and said that political correctness is wrong. Just exactly as with dominent religions, our society has decided that forcing people to a specific non-religious point of view isn't acceptable either. Free speech means FREE speech, not politically acceptable speech.

 

The ACLU knows this, by the way. There was a case I saw on 20/20 not long ago about how the ACLU defended a christian evangelical who was basically a sidewalk preacher on the Las Vegas strip. He wanted to pass out his materials in a public place, and the city kept packing him off to jail as a loiterer. The ALCU sued on his behalf and won him the right to do what he should have been allowed to do in the first place. (Actions like this are one of the reasons I still support that organization, even though I frequently disagree with it.)

 

 

Ideally, yes it is a nation neutral on religion. So what is most of us Americans are Christian. That won't change our government into a thoecracy. You are confusing "secular" with "atheistic". Secularism is neutrality on religion, exempliefied by the US seperation of church and state. Atheism is simply the absence of religion.

 

Semantics. Exchange my point above about "secularism" for "atheism", then if you prefer.

 

The absence of religion does not automatically breed tolerance of other points of view.

The absence of religion does not guarantee freedom of belief.

The absence of religion does not maintain a right to choose.

The absence of religion is a point of view. If it is pushed and promoted as "better" than a religious point of view, then that is no different from pushing a specific religion.

 

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the PRESENCE of religion does any of those things either. I'm simply pointing out that the ABSENCE of religion doesn't make those things happen, it doesn't produce an environment that encourages independent thinking, or anything else along those lines.

 

What produces tolerance, freedom, right of choice, etc, is dedicated, vigilant, socratic, critical analysis. On a regular basis.

 

If Timmy learns that the universe is billions of years old because the science tells us so, and here is why (example example example), then that's great -- I'm all for that.

 

If, on the other hand, Timmy is instructed that he must believe that the universe is billions of years old because his teacher says so, that's not good at all. That's no different from Timmy being told that the universe is 6,000 years old because his priest says so.

 

 

Prostelytizing is going door to door, or simply being in your face relentlessly preaching and trying to get you to convert. Religions can do this all they want, but I personally find it obnoxious.

 

Good. And I would hope you'd find it obnoxious in the classroom as well.

 

 

I won't argue with you here.

 

I think we probably agree on a great deal, really. I imagine that much of our disagreement is really just a question of semantics and definitions. (shrug)

[Hellbender]

Al has never been sworn in as president, so he could not have had a vice-president. Perhaps you meant running mate?

 

oops yeah, running mate.

[Hellbender]

You're a proponent of political correctness? That's interesting, I haven't seen one of those in a while. We might be getting a little off track here, but I'm curious on what basis you defend it. I'm familiar with the "making everyone think the same way exposes prejudice and malice" argument (which I disagree with), but if you have a different position I'm all ears.

 

My postition is of tolerance and respect of all sorts of ideas and people. I guess my definition of political correctness differs from yours, but I am sure you stand fo the same. I agree that for the most part we are differing on semantics, and I apologize in that I was not aware.

 

I believe there is. Political correctness is an attempt to promote "right thinking" and denounce and remove what politically correct people believe is "wrong thinking". It stiffles creativity, ostracizes independent thinking, and attemps to create a race of robotic followers just as surely as anything your nemesis Bush and his evil evangelicals could ever do.

 

This is true. Thats what I meant about political correctness getting out of hand. I wouldn't say Bush is my nemesis, and I wouldn't say political correctness could do all those things better than evangelicals if they were so empowered.

 

Don't get me wrong -- I don't believe that political correctness is the dominent force in our society, any more than I believe that Christianity is. It's simply another ill that has to be fought on a regular basis. The price of freedom, etc.

 

No argument there, except that now instead of political correctness I will say 'tolerance".

 

That is, of course, just my opinion. But the fact that I'm allowed to have that opinion stands in stark contrast to political correctness, and I'm able to state it only because society has stood up and said that political correctness is wrong. Just exactly as with dominent religions, our society has decided that forcing people to a specific non-religious point of view isn't acceptable either. Free speech means FREE speech, not politically acceptable speech.

 

I agree, people should be able to say whatever they want. But the fact remains that the governement if forbidden from endorsing religion. The non-religious view is actually a neutral one.

 

The ACLU knows this, by the way. There was a case I saw on 20/20 not long ago about how the ACLU defended a christian evangelical who was basically a sidewalk preacher on the Las Vegas strip. He wanted to pass out his materials in a public place, and the city kept packing him off to jail as a loiterer. The ALCU sued on his behalf and won him the right to do what he should have been allowed to do in the first place. (Actions like this are one of the reasons I still support that organization, even though I frequently disagree with it.)

 

I disagree with the ACLU a lot too. If by public space, however, you mean government owned space, then I would say this is wrong.

 

Semantics. Exchange my point above about "secularism" for "atheism", then if you prefer.

 

OK sorry about the confusion.

 

The absence of religion does not automatically breed tolerance of other points of view.

The absence of religion does not guarantee freedom of belief.

The absence of religion does not maintain a right to choose.

The absence of religion is a point of view. If it is pushed and promoted as "better" than a religious point of view, then that is no different from pushing a specific religion.

 

You are right of course. But neutrality isn't exactly absence.

 

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the PRESENCE of religion does any of those things either. I'm simply pointing out that the ABSENCE of religion doesn't make those things happen, it doesn't produce an environment that encourages independent thinking, or anything else along those lines.

 

True, it doesn't.

 

What produces tolerance, freedom, right of choice, etc, is dedicated, vigilant, socratic, critical analysis. On a regular basis.

 

I could not agree any more. Well said.

 

If Timmy learns that the universe is billions of years old because the science tells us so, and here is why (example example example), then that's great -- I'm all for that.

 

If, on the other hand, Timmy is instructed that he must believe that the universe is billions of years old because his teacher says so, that's not good at all. That's no different from Timmy being told that the universe is 6,000 years old because his priest says so.

 

You are right. I think what you meant is that Timmy should think about the answer for himself.

 

Good. And I would hope you'd find it obnoxious in the classroom as well.

 

you're darn right I would.

 

I think we probably agree on a great deal, really. I imagine that much of our disagreement is really just a question of semantics and definitions. (shrug)

 

yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes that is a problem with debating.

[Pangloss]

My postition is of tolerance and respect of all sorts of ideas and people. I guess my definition of political correctness differs from yours, but I am sure you stand fo the same. I agree that for the most part we are differing on semantics, and I apologize in that I was not aware.

 

Oh, nothing to apologize for. We hashed it out and figured out we were more or less on the same page. Not as exciting as a flame war, perhaps, but I'm sure we'll find other things to debate. (g)

[Hellbender]

Oh, nothing to apologize for. We hashed it out and figured out we were more or less on the same page. Not as exciting as a flame war, perhaps, but I'm sure we'll find other things to debate. (g)

 

Understood.