Religion
Related: About this forumAtheist Group Sues to Stop State Funding for Religious Halfway Houses
Wednesday, October 21, 2015 | 4 hours ago
By Chris Joseph
On Wednesday afternoon, the Leon County Circuit Court will begin hearing oral arguments in a case filed by atheist group Center for Inquiry against Lamb of God and Prisoners of Christ, two ministries that are also drug and substance abuse rehab centers. CFI, a nonprofit atheist organization headquartered in Amherst, New York, that also has an office in Fort Lauderdale, filed a motion for summary judgment last May, looking to stop the public funding that goes into the two ministries.
The motion filed argues that the funding violates the Florida constitution and asked the court to rule in its favor without the need for trial. CFI says that the two ministries' rehab methods are biblically based and say that they use public funding through the Florida Department of Corrections and are not monitored by any government overseer. Moreover, CFI argues, the ministries' public funding is mixed in with church donations in a common bank account and is used for both general expenses and sectarian ministerial activities.
"The religious liberty interest at stake in this case is the right not to have ones tax dollars support religious institutions and programming," Ronald A. Lindsay, p[resident and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, tells New Times. "This is a fundamental right that has been recognized since the founding of this country. CFI has brought this case to vindicate that religious liberty interest, which is protected under the Florida constitution, which specifically prohibits public funds from being used to aid any church or sectarian institution."
The ministries' representation, the Beckett Fund, says that the Lamb of God and Prisoners of Christ are ministries with programs that work, and refutes the claim that public money goes to any religious actives. The ministries, the Beckett Fund says, provide room, board, and job-training assistance to former convicts. And the system of substance abuse treatment is modeled after Alcoholics Anonymous.
"The program has been successful offenders who complete the program have half the recidivism rate of those who do not," the Beckett Group said via an email statement. "In fact, their recidivism rate is one-third of the national average."
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/atheist-group-sues-to-stop-state-funding-for-religious-halfway-houses-7343379
randys1
(16,286 posts)and discard the nonsense about god as well
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you doubt the success rate in these two places?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Regardless of what effects said programs claims to have?
They can run it another way, or find a different funding source.
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)You asked about something that has nothing to do with the validity of the suit.
rug
(82,333 posts)instead of leaping down a rabbit hole waiting for someone to follow you.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...that the answer to the question you asked is irrelevant to the issue under contention IS simply stating that.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He actually said that?
Wow, just wow.
It would be a full-time job to go back through posts and repost his own words where he did exactly what he said deflection is.
Smh
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)My "My Posts" are filled with questions I've asked that you have answered with questions. Or your beligerant distractions from the fact you refuse to answer anything.
Hey, let's go for one more time here I'm asking you, the cis-het-upper-middle-class-white-catholic man if you can tell us what LGBTQIA means?
rug
(82,333 posts)I'll ask you again.
Which of these do you find offensive?
cis
het
upper middle class
white
Catholic
man
Here's another. Is your way of interacting with people by reading labels?
Let me know. If that's the case, provide your labels for me to read. Otherwise, I'll have to provide them for you, based on rank assumptions, as you've just done.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)So again, can you tell us what LGBTQIA means?
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you ever tire of this? Or is this how you choose to occupy yourself?
In the meantime, state which of the categories you flung offends you.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I asked you a question first, which you then answered with a question, which, as you established is a deflection. So please stop deflecting and answer the simple question, What does LGBTQIA mean?
rug
(82,333 posts)Not about you. Not about your motives. Not about your methods, Every time you press "enter" it is shown again. Despite your repeated squid-like evasions.
Why are you reluctant to explain why you find those categories offensive?
Here, i'll repeat those categories you used in case your own deflection has confused you.
het
upper middle class
white
Catholic
man
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You're literally using parts of a question I asked you to ask me a question, then claiming that I'm the one deflecting in the same thread where you said "Answering a question with a question is a deflection."
Puree. Comedy. Gold.
Now, would you kindly tell us what LGBTQIA means?
rug
(82,333 posts)Now, would you kindly tell me what "us" means?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And you just answered my question with another question.
What does LGBTQIA mean?
rug
(82,333 posts)Surely you'll tell us.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Why do you continue to distract and evade?
rug
(82,333 posts)Surely with your progressive politics and vast knowledge you can enlighten us.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Or never speak about LGBTQIA issues, as you have admitted here that you know nothing about them.
rug
(82,333 posts)And do not even attempt to spew more bullshit about what you think I know. Are you actually trolling?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Then you have no business talking about it.
A good quote from my avatar "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."
This is an anonymous message board, so we only know what you share, and right now you are sharing that you are ignorant on LGBTQIA and thus related issues. If you have a problem with that, you're the only one who can fix it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Instead of your bullshit that the meaning of LGBTQIA is unknown by anyone on this board, why don't your reread your (literal) avatar's The Sirens of Titan and wonder why you admire homophobic writing.
The ignorance you're looking for is in your mirror.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)New question, why do you think no one on this board knows the meaning of LGBTQIA?
And please, leave the literary criticism to the English majors.
rug
(82,333 posts)Assholes, yes, morons no.
If you indeed had any literary, not to mention political, sensitivity, you'd be a lot more cautious about whom you glibly quote.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Next time you quote Francis.
rug
(82,333 posts)New evidence has led me to an ineluctable conclusion.
The second sentence stands, as modified.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Glad to see you admitting it at least.
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This time you took a line out of a fictional book and ham-handedly tried to use it to smear a great American (Humanist, no less) author as being homophobic, but you forgot that your own pope has actually said thing that aredeliberately, not in the realm of fiction at all, homophobic (I won't reiterate, it's all been brought up here many times)
Not to mention your catechism which is deliberately homophobic and, once again, not a work of fiction.
Care to try for a trifecta?
Is the cis het upper middle class white Catholic man going to lecture us on Homophobia again when he can't even give the simple explanation of what LGBTQIA means?
rug
(82,333 posts)You must have a mighty battle waging inside your mind.
Say hi to the "us" in there with you!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The excessive smilies and complete abandonment or all your arguments is telling.
You still haven't answered any questions.
rug
(82,333 posts)The feathers are all over your mouth.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Actually not really, you've stepped in it twice, and still haven't answered the question.
And before you go accusing anyone of trans/homophobia, why don't you confront your own spiritual leader? Something about motes and planks?
rug
(82,333 posts)Go defend Dawkins on his twitter page. You'll get a better reception there.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I see no defense of Dawkins last tweet here.
Meanwhile You've been defending the Pope non-stop, you never stop to say his words on trans folk are wrong and that he's a transphobe, quite the contrary, you defend his homophobia and deflect away from it with Dawkins!
Why do you defend a transphobic person?
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)This was your claim.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Do you condem his homophobia? I have only ever seen yu deflect from it, and excuse it. If that's not the case please say so now.
Same for his transphobia.
rug
(82,333 posts)Now prove it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)What you posted was just part of the whole. If you're really worried about people hinkin you defend his homophobia as well, please denounce it here and now, otherwise I'll let your refusal stand as self evident.
Now, if you're quite done deflecting, the actual question at hand?
rug
(82,333 posts)Prove it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And let's toss in his homophobia while we're at it.
If you don't want to answer that speaks loud enough on it's own.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I did search and found many cases of you attacking people who were calling out the pope's bigotry, but you never called him on it, why is that?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)
... a post from: Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:11 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218134597
See reply #5
"After all, without evidence, you're simply posting fairy tales."
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)verification that these groups are as effective as they claim?
I've heard that many # Step programs effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated, and the same is true for many other "faith based" rehab systems of this type.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)Can a religious institution be reimbursed by the state for running a non-religious rehab program? The churches are claiming that the rehab program itself is non-religious and residents are not forced to participate in any religious program. I would guess, without knowing the actual legal ramifications of this, that it should be legal to do that.
Are these rehab programs really non-religious? I'd be really suspicious of programs named Lamb of God and Prisoners for Christ, that they are really non-religious. If I were suing to stop this funding, I would pursue the path that these programs are actually religious.
It sounds like the questions that are actually being pursued are: can the funding for these programs be kept separate from the Churches general funds? And, are the they being kept separate?
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)The titles turn them into an evangelizing tool.
rug
(82,333 posts)There is a gaping chasm of difference between those two things and you damn well know it.
rug
(82,333 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)A PLACE NAME established by people who lived hundreds of years before anyone around now was born and which never had any purpose beyond giving people something to identify a geographic location is so far removed from naming your organization in the here and now something that directly reflects the theological identity of the people actively running that organization that I would find it extremely difficult to believe that any thinking human being was incapable of grasping the difference... if that was I actually believed you actually didn't understand the difference.
But I'm pretty damn certain you do understand the difference and you're playing your usual games. And that I find entirely believable.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)"Corpus Christi Atheists".
QEND.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I mean that as a serious question. Who is it that you think is reading this that you think is being tricked into either not knowing the difference between a place name and the name of an organization specifically created to serve a purpose and thus thinking you're actually making some kind of legitimate point... or thinking you actually believe the nonsense you're spouting at all?
I'm legitimately curious who you think it is that's that stupid that you are focusing on as your target audience.
rug
(82,333 posts)What I do say is that this
The titles turn them into an evangelizing tool.
is an eminently stupid remark.
...you'd be able to explain how. But you don't.
It is mind bogglingly obvious how the titles render them evangelizing tools. When you set up an organization that is designed to put it into a position to set itself up as the thing someone in vulnerable position has to lean on and then you name it something like "Prisoners For Christ" you are sending the message, every minute of every day with every action that that organization takes, that those people are being given their assistance by people doing it "For Christ".
"Hey poor disadvantaged person, look, our religion is here to save the day!"
THAT'S EVANGELIZING.
rug
(82,333 posts)Imo, the answer to the first question is yes.
I suspect the answer to the second question is no.
Regarding the third question, segregating the finances of a religious institution into religious and secular expenditures is difficult without creating a series of subsidiary or complementary corporations.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)They have a record of state reimbursements, they should be able to keep a record of money spent on the rehab program. Would that be acceptable? Of course, the church may not accept that:
rug
(82,333 posts)The problem is competing values. Public money could be used only for a legitimate secular purpose. Likewise these groups may have moral, religious or doctrinal objections to conditions of a grant of public money. As in the Affordable Care Act.
The solution is difference legal entities, corporations, which have specific corporate purposes, be they religious or secular. This ensures both the public grantor that the money is properly spent, and the religious grantee that its principles are not compromised. I'm preety sure that is the approach the Obama administration has taken in these court challenges to the ACA.
The same analysis should apply here with rehabs and public money.
Provided, of course, that the programs are not explicitly promoting a religion.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)The churches don't appear to deny that they mix the rehab funding with their general funds.
rug
(82,333 posts)If it is not a major component, such as the Twelve Steps or a cross on the wall in a room where meetings are held, then they don't.
It's going to be fact-specific but at this point it looks like the rehab is behind the eight ball.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Studies of both implementations of the therapeutic model have not yielded conclusive evidence of effectiveness when assessed in terms of long-term prevention of problem drinking as compared with other treatments,[8][9] although limitations are widely acknowledged in obtaining acceptable data due to the difficulty in applying experimental controls to clinical analyses of AA, such as adequate placebo control and uniformity of the delivered therapy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
Let the deflection and dissembling commence. Oh, I see it already has, with names of cities with religious connotations being equated with a church run program with a name like lamb of god.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Imagine instead of "Lamb of God" the name "The Serpent of Eden" (Slogan: Open your eyes and recognize yourself). And instead of "Prisoners for Christ" there were "Prisoners for Satan".
Would they still get taxpayer-funding for their non-religious programs?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Peer-reviewed studies peg the success rate of AA somewhere between 5 and 10 percent. That is, about one of every fifteen people who enter these programs is able to become and stay sober. In 2006, one of the most prestigious scientific research organizations in the world, the Cochrane Collaboration, conducted a review of the many studies conducted between 1966 and 2005 and reached a stunning conclusion: No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA in treating alcoholism. This group reached the same conclusion about professional AA-oriented treatment (12-step facilitation therapy, or TSF), which is the core of virtually every alcoholism-rehabilitation program in the country.
http://www.alternet.org/books/pseudoscience-aa-and-rehab
In yet another view:
http://www.thecleanslate.org/self-change/substance-dependence-recovery-rates-with-and-without-treatment/
In the first excerpt, the speaker advocates for a therapy based program, but many people have no way to pay for therapy.
But the real question should be phrased as whether or not the use of public funds for a program that is sponsored by a religious organization is Constitutionally permitted.
To this question:
The Lemon test was formulated by Chief Justice Warren Burger in the majority opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon dealt with Rhode Island and Pennsylvania programs that supplemented the salaries of teachers in religiously based, private schools for teaching secular subjects. The Court struck down both programs as violating the establishment clause.
The purpose of the Lemon test is to determine when a law has the effect of establishing religion. The test has served as the foundation for many of the Court's post-1971 establishment clause rulings. As articulated by Chief Justice Burger, the test has three parts:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Also:
Good sources.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)The principle, I think, applies here.