| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
Community Solutions Act By: Dorothy Marie on 4/11/2010; 11:55 PM *I actually wrote this on the 10th... right before the WTC "bombing." I didn't think it was appropriate to post it at that time, as I was going to do so on the 11th, so I am posting it now because I believe the issue is still being debated over. The Community Solutions Act of 2001 provides federal funding to faith-based, or sectarian charity organizations. It allows charitable contributions from individual retirement accounts and religious organizations to be tax deductible. This act also prohibits any Federal, State, or local government from denying federal funds to a charitable organization based on religious discrimination. All religious organizations will still be allowed to maintain their autonomy, or self-determination, though they will not be allowed to use federal funds for proselytization (Amendments). The Community Solutions Act will ideally allow sectarian organizations to increase their charitable contributions across the United States. However, not all religious organizations, i.e. cults, will be allowed to receive federal funding under this act. The programs will be based off of the existing experience faith-based organizations have had involving their charitable contributions to society, thus providing a foundation for those programs (Gekas). Through this act, faith-based organizations will be put on an equal level of federal support as other nonsectarian organizations, and allow them to increase their charitable aid via tax deductions (Pence). Since these organizations are performing such deeds that the government would otherwise be funding, each charitable donation results in a tax decrease. Also, with increased funding and support, religious organizations will be able to increase their efficient and compassionate aid to society (Thune). The provisions from the House of Representatives also bar the use of public aid for sectarian worship, instruction and proselytization, (Souder), meaning that the funds provided by the federal government may only be used for secular purposes and not for the promotion of any religion. These effects will improve charity aid across the United States without the threat of individual religious proselytization. However, the Community Solutions Act does violate the Constitution in its breach of separation between church and state. It also allows for the possibility that these religious organizations will become dependant on federal funds, thereby losing their independence from the government (Moore). There is also no protection for these faith-based organizations against liability (Manzullo). If someone is harmed directly or indirectly by the charitable measures taken by one of these organizations, that organization may be held responsible. This act would also lead to religious strife, as thousands of different faith-based groups would be coming to Washington, D.C. competing for tens of billions of Federal tax dollars, (Edwards). It also impinges upon communities abilities to form their own anti-discrimination laws (Watson). If the government is exhibiting job discrimination against certain individuals or groups based on religious beliefs, separate communities will be unable to form their own laws preventing that. This act does violate the Constitution, and the right to religious independence. I do not believe that this act should be passed by the Senate, not should it have been passed by the House. The Community Solutions Act violates the First Amendment to our Constitution, which states Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Also, as the Honorable Mr. Edwards has said, giving billions of Federal dollars directly to faith-based organizations would inevitably and absolutely lead to government regulation of religion and our churches. This act would also give the Supreme Court the means to determine and set a precedent of what is and is not a viable religion with respect to the government, thereby removing the independence of religious organizations. The fact that the government will be hiring people based on religious background is also unconstitutional. It violates Article VI of the Constitution, which states that there will be no religious requirements for any federal job. Based on this reason of religious discrimination, over 1,000 religious leaders have signed a petition opposing the Community Solutions Act (Edwards). Also, if federal funds are provided to faith-based organizations as long as they refrain from the proselytization of their religions, it would actually take the faith out of faith-based organizations, (Edwards), which defeats the initial purpose of the act. In general, the Community Solutions Act is unnecessary, as faith-based organizations already have been receiving government aid. During last year, Lutheran Services, the largest faith-based organization to receive government aid, received about $2.7 billion, Jewish organizations received about $2 billion in government aid, Catholic Charities received $1.4 billion, and the Salvation Army received $400 million, (Waters). Therefore, not only is the act unconstitutional, but it is unnecessary, as well. Though the initial intention of the Community Solutions Act was to serve society by increasing federal funding of community service through the governments support of faith-based organizations, the outcome of the act was that it actually would defy the Constitution. It would lead to government regulation of religion, and religious discrimination involving federally funded jobs, which are both specifically prohibited by Article VI of the Constitution and the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The faith-based organizations would also lose their efficiency, which was so praised by supporters of this act, and become dependant on federal funds. By thus reducing the independence and effectiveness of these religious organizations, the Community Solutions Act would be accomplishing more harm than aid. Works Cited 1. "Amendments." Congressional RecordHouse. 147.98. Database on-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (9 September 2001). 2. Edwards, Chet, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.100. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (6 September 2001). 3. Edwards, Chet, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.95. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (8 September 2001). 4. Gekas, George, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.101. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (6 September 2001). 5. Manzullo, Donald A., House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.104. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (9 September 2001). 6. Moore, Dennis, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.105. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (31 August 2001). 7. Pence, Mike, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.100. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (8 September 2001). 8. Souder, Mark, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.87. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (9 September 2001). 9. Thune, John R., House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.104. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (5 September 2001). 10. Waters, Maxene, House of Representatives. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.101. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (9 September 2001). 11. Watson. Community Solutions Act of 2001. Congressional RecordExtensions. 147.103. Database On-line. Available from Lexis-Nexis Scholastic Universe http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic (6 September 2001).
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Dorothy Marie on 9/23/2001; 9:19 PM Oh, and I will cry if this legislature passes the Senate.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Matthew Patterson, the Paranoid Minister on 9/23/2001; 11:53 PM I think we can safely say that the Senate has some more important things to worry about right now. Imagine, on September 10, this was the thing we were most worried about in the world.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Dorothy Marie on 9/29/2001; 4:04 PM Odd, isn't it? How much things can change within the course of a few hours... but, yeah, I'm aware that many other questions are more pressing on the minds of the people. Like the draft.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Seth Dillingham on 9/29/2001; 7:11 PM I haven't seen any official mention of a draft yet. In fact, I've seen some official and unofficial commentary that a draft is not going to be necessary for this 'war'. Has anyone seen anything suggesting that Congress is considering a draft? If so, please post a URL.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Evan on 9/29/2001; 7:38 PM Well the draft probably won't come up unless things go very badly. I believe that by simply activating the reserves, which is about 1.3 million people (according to a fellow LSU student who is in the Army Reserve)we should have enough people. However they may need to draft for certain positions as they have a shortage of medics. Also a lot of people have enlisted because of the events of September 11 so we probably have enough military overall. Also, hopefully we would have additional support from other members of NATO. Admittedly however, my happy little bubble of ignorance precludes having too much awareness about the situation.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: ScottN on 9/30/2001; 5:37 PM Also, hopefully we would have additional support from other members of NATO I believe that "hopefully" doesn't apply here. NATO has invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states that an attack on any member on either European or North American soil is an attack on all members. Note, if Russia joins NATO, as has been proposed in the wake of the WTC attacks, Article 5 would need to be amended to include Asian soil (since Russia is on both continents - Europe and Asia).
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Simon on 10/12/2001; 9:43 PM The first ammendment doesn't say the government can't give money to faith-based charities. It says we shouldn't have a national religion. We don't have a national religion and I don't think giving money to faith-based religions is going to lead to one. If those organizations meet acceptable criteria as defined by the law as to where the money goes and so forth, pleading the first is taking the ammendment out of context. The first ammendment doesn't say the government should disavow the existance of churches or religions and it doesn't say it has to completely ignore them. It says there shouldn't be an official state religion. If a person feels that they are being forced to follow a religion because a few hundreths of a cent of each of their tax dollars supports a faith-based charity, they should probably think really hard about the reality of living in a pluralistic society. Pacifist tax dollars finance the military, environmentalist tax dollars subsidize the oil industry, and people who live in the city give tax dollars to subsize farmers in the country. That doesn't mean you're being forced to worship tanks, trees, or the great god petrol. I hardly think it's realistic to argue that giving money to faith-based charities constitutes adoption of a state religion. That said, there are some real benefits to these organizations versus government agencies and private organizations that do the same thing, most notably their efficiency and lack of overhead. Faith-based organizations achieve the same impact as secular organzations with the same goals for a fraction of the cost. They make greater use of volunteers, are internally audited (self-policing requiring less paid government bureacracy and accounting), and their workers will put in extra hours without asking for overtime. The government gets a lot more for its money. And internationally, faith-based groups enjoy more international support because they are recognized as mercy organizations and not political tools. I'm not a member of an organized religious institution, but I also don't see them as a threat, nor this legislation. Legislative regulation of religion? I just don't see how it could lead down that road. The money isn't going to church general coffers, it's going to specific organzations with specific mercy missions. We gave money to Afghanistan, but we didn't become an Fundamental Islamic Theocracy. I think it would be a gross overstatement to presume the government had any desire to impose a state religion, or to regulate religion, and a very radical overstatement to say that this legislation will, or even could, lead down that road. All it will do is buy more food for starving people and less pork for bloated bureacrats.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: ScottN on 10/13/2001; 12:56 AM Not quite. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Seems to me that giving them money is respecting them. In addition, I'm Jewish. Why would I want MY tax dollars going to support Southern Baptists (just to give an example -- no offense meant)? If I want to support a religious organization, I'll d*mn well give them the money myself!
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Simon on 10/13/2001; 2:39 AM Well, again, the fact that you don't support something doesn't mean the government can't spend your money on it. Again, if you're a pacifist, your tax dollars still support the military; there are a million examples of this. I'm not a member of any particular church or religious organization and can't even really subscribe to any particular set of theological beliefs, and I read the first ammendment pretty literally - and in my reading, it says that we won't have an established religion. We don't and we won't. It doesn't say we won't pass any law that gives any money or support to any religion. It says we won't pass any law respecting the establishment of religion. The word respecting doesn't mean "paying honor", which seems to be the use you implied. I refer you to Webster's Dictionary: respecting: (prep): in reference to; concerning. Usage: respecting is used in the same sense of "with reference to". So the amendment means the Congress will pass no law respecting (concerning) an establishment of religion. Again, I fail to see how money for charitable organizations has anything to do with establishing a state religion. I wouldn't care if the most efficient, lowest-overhead charity worshipped Mork from Ork; if they can get the most benefit from my hard-earned tax dollars, I'll let them do the job and might even buy them some snazzy rainbow suspenders. It doesn't say the government can't help religious groups; that's putting words into the ammendment that just aren't there. It just says we won't establish a religion, very simply. It's just plain wasteful to throw lots of money into establishing infrastructures and bureacracies when fully functional organizations already exist; that they happen to fall under the auspices of religious organizations is immaterial, does not violate the letter of the first ammendment unless you insert new letters. Hey, someone's always going to be upset about who gets their tax dollars in the end. If you give money to the army, the pacifists have a fit; if you give money to the enviromentalists, the polluters have a fit. I guess the answer is to make paying taxes optional. That's my perspective, but then I'm a pretty liberal interpreter of the Constitution, and there are different schools of thought on how to read it.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Simon on 10/13/2001; 3:20 AM Oops, okay I'm cracked - I'm a LITERAL interpreter of the Constitution. Heh heh - semantics, right? Cut me a little slack, been at work for a few days straight now and higher brain functions are being used to keep me awake. . .
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Evan on 10/13/2001; 8:50 PM The way I understand it, the government could support charitable religious institutions as long as it gives equally to all of the organizations. I think it would be impractical though because the amount of money would have to either be a ridiculously large total amount to have an impact on the institutions (which might neccessitate raising taxes) or else individual institutions would have insignificant contributions.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Brian Carnell on 10/13/2001; 9:31 PM At 09:06 PM 10/13/01 -0400, Evan wrote: >The way I understand it, the government could support charitable religious >institutions as long as it gives equally to all of the organizations. In a word, no. Whether or not the government can support charitable religious institutions is still an open question, but it will have nothing to do at all with supporting all organizations equally.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Evan on 10/13/2001; 11:08 PM I just had an idea on what would be the best way to solve this issue. Simply designate a portion of each person's taxes that must go to a charity. The person can pick the charity (although perhaps there should be a list of government approved charities to avoid scams)and therefore the government would not techinically be supporting a religious group if the person so chose to donate to a religious charity.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Simon on 10/14/2001; 1:07 AM That's not a bad idea, and in fact the infrastructure already exists to implement that type of plan. For years federal employees and military personnel have been able to contribute to a program called the Combined Federal Campaign. It allows them to donate to charities (if they want to) automatically from their salary. The money is deducted and the government gives it to the charity the individual selected when they signed up; a large catalogue of approved institutions is provided so the individual can select where the money goes.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: ScottN on 10/15/2001; 11:12 AM Evan: The way I understand it, the government could support charitable religious institutions as long as it gives equally to all of the organizations. So if a Satanist organization wanted federal funds, would that be OK? If not, then the program is in violation of the First Amendment, because the government is determining which religions are "good" and "bad".
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Matthew Patterson on 10/15/2001; 12:42 PM >So if a Satanist organization wanted federal funds, would that be >OK? If not, then the program is in violation of the First >Amendment, because the government is determining which religions are >"good" and "bad". I'm not sure the government would have to give equally to all institutions. As I understand it, they could justify funding some programs and not others as long as the programs they don't choose to fund weren't rejected on the basis of religion. So if they won't fund a soup kitchen run by a mosque because they find out that a large portion of the congregation smuggles cocaine, that would be okay, I think. On the other hand, if they rejected the mosque for no reason other than it being an Islamic organization, that would not be okay. I don't really think we'll have to worry about this for a while. If it passes the Senate (which it may not), I suspect a lot of organizations won't want to take part in it. If they do, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before someone sues and the case makes it up to the Supreme Court. I doubt the CSA would hold up in court. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Dorothy Marie on 10/21/2001; 9:37 PM A long time ago, Simon wrote: "The first ammendment doesn't say the government can't give money to faith-based charities. It says we shouldn't have a national religion." In response, ScottN wrote: "Not quite. The First Amendment states "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion" Seems to me that giving them money is respecting them." Now, I'm going to restate the obvious here by affirming that this is a semantic argument over the use of the word "establishment" which I have actually had with a Conservative acquaintance of mine. We came to the conclusion that it was used as a verb, not a noun, thereby indicating that the first amendment does not allow the federal government to ESTABLISH a national religion (as opposed to: the first amendment does not allow the federak government to pass a law ABOUT a religious establishment). I don't know if that does any good, but that's our conclusion, anyway. On a different matter, ScottN wrote: "So if a Satanist organization wanted federal funds, would that be OK? If not, then the program is in violation of the First Amendment, because the government is determining which religions are "good" and "bad"." Exactly. That is why this legislation is potentially harmful, in my opinion. Once the government has the right to determine which religious organization recieves federal dollars, they have the right to thereby determine what actually IS a religious organization, and from there it all goes down the tube. This gives Congress the power to, eventually, fully control religious practices in the United States, unless the Supreme Court can find a loophole somewhere and announce this legislation unconstitutional (providing that it IS passed).
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Brian Carnell on 10/21/2001; 10:09 PM At 09:53 PM 10/21/01 -0400, Dorothy wrote: >Exactly. That is why this legislation is potentially harmful, in my >opinion. Once the government has the right to determine which religious >organization recieves federal dollars, they have the right to thereby >determine what actually IS a religious organization, and from there it all >goes down the tube. Huh? This really ignores what the debate is actually about with Bush's faith based initiative programs. (By the interpretation above, when a school refuses to allow a teacher to lead her class in prayer, it is establishing a religion). The federal government already decides what is and is not a religious organization. Specifically, it generally does not give money to groups that it decides are religious organizations. The program proposed by the Bush administration would change this and allow such groups to apply for and receive federal monies, though such monies would still have to be disbursed based on an objective analysis of the program seeking funding. The main ideas it that if your program is successful, what should it matter that your group happens to be a Roman Catholic Church, a Satanist coven, or a Scientiologist group. Will it be constitutional? Almost certainly under the current Supreme Court. In fact the way the Supreme Court is currently headed, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for the Court to rule that the current de facto discrimination against religious groups is unconstitutional.
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Rachelle King on 10/22/2001; 2:37 PM I find it difficult to "choose sides" in this political debate over the federal financing of religious institutions in the US. On one hand, I believe that the US, has not necessarily established, but more so conveyed that the majority of US citizens are of a Christian-based ideology. This is even reflected on our currancy: "One Nation Under God." George Bush, freshly into office, declared his opposition to abortions rights. Does this not reflect his Christian conservative Republican views? To suppose that it does not, is to admit that one walks around with blinders on one's eyes. A seperation between state and religion has never really existed. Bush calls this terrorist act "evil," which implies his Christian socializatin and conditioning. The US first embraced and provoked this "evil" with financial suppot and military training. Does this not make the US evil? Historically, the Christians were never "evil" in their attempts to obliterate particular cultures and civilazations that stood in their way. They justified it by calling it "God's work!" Isn't that what the Taliban are calling the terrorist attacks on the US? Now, the US is justifing the bombings on Afganistan by calling it a battle against evil. The word "evil" implies a Christian view point, in my opinion. I am a member of the Wiccan faith, and can not justify the use of the word "evil." Insanity that is the reflection of insanity inflicted on a society by a seperate society, maybe; "Evil" just strikes a bad cord with me. I understand that this is not really a response that is reflective of the currant debate, and a response that may be more so incoherant. I feel that it needed to be said in relation to the subject. Furthermore, I conclude that such a bill will probably favor more established orthodox religious groups that already have a great deal of financial assistance by the federal government. I really don't feel that I got my point across, but now I can't even remember the point in which I originally intended to state. Now it your turn to tear my comments to shreds!
RE: Community Solutions Act By: Brian Carnell on 10/22/2001; 3:46 PM At 02:53 PM 10/22/2001 -0400, Rachelle wrote: >Bush calls this terrorist act "evil," which implies his Christian >socializatin and conditioning. It is hard for me to fathom a view in which evil does not exist outside of religion. In fact this is conceding a point made by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other thinkers that without God the concept of evil is meaningless. As an atheist, I know precisely what Bush means when he describes the 9/11 attack as evil and agree with him wholeheartedly (though I do think he overuses the word in his speeches). > The US first embraced and provoked this "evil" with financial suppot > and military training. Huh? The U.S. provided almost no support to bin Laden even when he was Saudi Arabia's main conduit for financing the anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan. And certainly there is no evidence that the U.S. gave him any aid at all after he became radicalized sometime around 1990. > Does this not make the US evil? Historically, the Christians were never > "evil" in their attempts to obliterate particular cultures and > civilazations that stood in their way. They justified it by calling it > "God's work!" Just to be picky, the term was Deus volt which roughly translates as "God wills it." It is difficult to tell what you mean by "historically, the Christians were never 'evil' in their attempts to obliterate particular cultures and civilazations that stood in their way." Is there any proper word for the pogroms that accompanied the Crusades except: evil. > Isn't that what the Taliban are calling the terrorist attacks on the > US? Now, the US is justifing the bombings on Afganistan by calling it a > battle against evil. The word "evil" implies a Christian view point, in > my opinion. I am a member of the Wiccan faith, and can not justify the > use of the word "evil." Insanity that is the reflection of insanity > inflicted on a society by a seperate society, maybe; "Evil" just strikes > a bad cord with me. Insanity is far worse than evil because it implies a lack of volition. Last summer a schizophrenic man who had stopped taking his medications stabbed and killed a graduate student at a bus stop near where I live. As heinous as that act was, that man was clearly not totally responsible for the act of killing because he lack volition -- he was not completely in control of his actions. The people who planned and carried out a plot to crash planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon were not crazy. They were actually very patient, rational and calculating. And yes, evil.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|