August 22, 2008 Fundamentalist Group Drops Public Funding Windfall After Americans United Protest Kentucky Arm Of ‘Teen Challenge’ Gives Up $50,000 Federal Grant A fundamentalist Christian group that claims to help young people overcome drug and alcohol addiction through Bible study and prayer has given up a federal grant after Americans United for Separation of Church and State protested the funding.Attorneys with Americans United wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in June, noting that a $50,000 grant to Teen Challenge of Kentucky raised serious constitutional issues. The money was allocated through the Compassion Capital Fund, a special program created as part of President George W. Bush?s ?faith-based? initiative.Teen Challenge, Americans United pointed out, requires participants to take part in prayer, worship, Bible study and other religious activities. Program participants must sign a ?Civil Rights Waiver? in which each surrenders the right to ?exercis[e] the religion of my choice.?Applicants for the program are required to describe their Christian faith and agree to conduct themselves in a ?Christ-like manner.? The organization vows to offer ?deliverance from addiction through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and practical application of Biblical principles.?Public funding of such sectarian activities, Americans United asserted, would clearly violate the First Amendment.In response to Americans United?s letter, an official with HHS wrote to say that Teen Challenge ?voluntarily terminated? its participation in the program.The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said he was pleased with the outcome but noted that Teen Challenge should never have received public funds in the first place.?Teen Challenge boasts about its program being saturated with fundamentalist Christianity and makes it clear that required participation in religious activities is key to its approach,? Lynn said. ?I cannot imagine a worse candidate for tax funding. ?Bush administration officials have claimed that they do not fund religious activities, but this grant suggests otherwise,? he continued. ?Apparently their policy is to do it until they get caught.?Lynn noted that while Teen Challenge and other fundamentalist ?faith-based? groups often claim high rates of success, no empirical data backs up the claim.?Tax funds were being funneled to this organization even though it openly boasts about its religious content, and there?s no evidence its approach even works,? Lynn said. ?This incident is a perfect example of what?s so wrong with faith-based initiatives.?AU Senior Litigation Counsel Alex Luchenitser, who handled the AU complaint about the funding, said, ?This was a clear example of unconstitutional support of religious coercion and discrimination. I?m glad we were able to bring the matter to an appropriate conclusion.?
American Atheists extends our congratulations and compliments to Americans United for your outstanding activism and bloodless victory in exposing and blocking an unconstitutional expenditure of federal funds unlawfully going to a religious organization in Kentucky.
shame on those bums who went to china and acted up the gov’t should have punish them hard.free tibet why so it can return to being a feudal toilet run by pervert monks.
My dear neowolfe,
You have not been cured of footinmouth disease.
You have the wrong person again.
You are not reading the larger name.
neowolfe:
As karen pointed out, it wasn?t me who was hooked on meth, but more importantly, why would you assert my ?fundamentalist friends? would ?crucify? me if I was? Do you honestly believe that, or are you making an extrapolation based on how you suppose Christians would treat a fellow believer with such a problem?
Um, Why is my post in twice? 20:16 and 21:39
I’m going to look up the possible gospel references.
JCC
I think NeoWolfe was referring to Tai Chi as the Pagan religion. Yeh, I know.
Okay, let’s lighten up on NeoWolfe. There probably isn’t anybody on this blog who hasn’t slipped up once in a while, and most of us have been stomped on a time or two. I say we move on.
And once again, I’m calling for a ban on reading phreedm’s posts or replying to them. (I know, I know. I say this and then once in a while I answer him myself. But I heard about PA, a 12-step program, and I’ve been attending faithfully and getting better and stronger.)
Crap!!! I can’t win. Maybe I should address my comments To Whom it May Concern, and then say something totally unrelated to the thread. Then maybe I can stay out of trouble. But, probably not.
NeoWolfe
GodFree
I didn’t think I was being hard on Neowolfe. I tried to gently point out his error, then I went on to discuss with him the rest of the issues he addressed.
Neo- The notepad idea was only partly facetious. Unless I’m talking to someone I’m very familiar with, I often have to scroll back up into the thread to find the name of the person I’m addressing, and sometimes copy and paste it, especially if it’s a long one or an unusual. spelling.
Don’t give up. We all screw up. Did you see the major fuck-up I accomplished with blockquotes last week? It was a doozy.
Back to GodFree-
I’m trying very hard to comply with the replying to phreedm ban. I still read, and so I saw he addressed me directly, which was difficult to ignore, but I did. I have slipped once or twice, for which I apologize. I join you in urging others to ignore him.
GodFree&Glad ,
I am 4 months 2 weeks and 5 days free. I have been tempted many times cause I can’t avert mine eyes fast enough; usually a mistake. Occasionally I slip and make a tangential comment but never do I address the name that shall not be mentioned, directly.
Neowolfe,
I have occasionally read the wrong name at the top. It happens.
Phreedm,(check me on this)
I was unaware of this legislation and campaign promise. But, that does not surprise me much. I live in Idaho, where your vote for President only counts if you are Republican. Therefore, I sat back back and watched in disbelief as these people voted away their worker rights and elected their church as president.
But, this is not new or unique. The founding fathers of this country sat in session for days and weeks trying to hammer out a policy on which this government would be based. The fact that they agreed upon the wording, “all men are CREATED equal” was a huge leap for human society. But, the truth is, that all men are not even BORN equal. I may have firmly supported theoretical disagreements with Einstein’s spinoff theories about the fabric of space and time, but, that does not make me his equal. Maybe I “got game” but I am not going to win one on one basketball with Shaq O’Neill. But, the issue of equal human rights was set aside and not confronted. Thus, the Civil War.
The fact has to be faced that we are the unchosen few. Either blessed or cursed, to see beyond the cloud of religion and superstition, but those who seek the approval of the majority are left without the option of pandering to the blinded majority.
You can come to your own conclusion. One of the options is that democracy doesn’t work, that technocracy is better, that only the higly educated can vote. But, we are stuck with what we have, and as you look at the lot of the rest of the planet, we are the lucky ones.
As a species our greed and desire for dominance has always far exceeded our compassion and clear thinking on tough issues, like overpopulation, the influence of modern medicine on natural selection, and the role of religion in the accumulating roster of human holocausts throughout history. As a group, I think we are the last hope of humanity. But, the clock is ticking and the job is huge.
How did I do, karen, hon? Did I make any sense?
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
Well, I’m still not clear on what point you’re trying to make. Is the “we” you keep referring to atheists? Americans?
You did make me go look up technocracy. Tempting, but I don’t agree with it. And I looked into Charitable Choice, since I guessed that was the legislation you were referring to and I didn’t remember hearing of it either. (turns out it was during a major dissociative period for me)
Being created equal to me doesn’t imply we all have the same intelligence or skill sets, but we have the same rights and responsibilities. “Created,” not in the sense of being formed, but by an act of bestowing of/and or acknowledgment of those rights and responsibilities, which is what we do in a democracy or a republic such as we have.
How is this so? Isn’t that exactly what is happening now in the presidential campaign?
I think that’s enough for starters. Except, I would caution you about responding to phreedm. He is a troll. He doesn’t answer questions. He only asks more questions and misdirects the conversation.
karen,
You say this is exactly what is happening in this presidential campaign, but that was exactly my point. That under this system it is inevitable for politicians to pander to the blinded in order to hold a hope of being elected.
As far as the fearsome “phreedm”, he has already won. I can’t even figure out whose arguing what. But, given a one on one debate about religion, science, and practical politics, I fear no man or woman. You can change the subject, but I’m ready there, too.
NeoWolfe
Karen
I used to respond to him until I realized that he craves attention. It is so much fun denying him of it! It really gets under his translucent theist skin.
Neowolfe
OK, but you said “those who seek the approval of the majority are left without the option of pandering…”
What am I misunderstanding? Do you mean that atheists cannot run for office and pander to the majority?
phreedm isn’t fearsome; he’s annoying. Like a little yappy dog, that runs around in circles barking at the door to go out, and when you open the door for him, he runs to another door to repeat the process, only this time, instead of running to another door, he shits on your carpet. Then, he barks some more, like you did something wrong. And he believes his shit smells like roses.
What-
Good point.
BTW, I’ll have to look into the thread suggestion you gave Dave. I’m way overdue on posting a new blog at GifS. Thanks!
Karen,
I guess if phreedm has no valid point to argue, eventually everyone will skip over his comments and move on.
But, you claim to misunderstand, but I think you understand clearly. Nothing prevents an atheist from running for public office, but being elected is a different thing entirely in a democracy. You must appeal to, and be trusted by more people among the voters than your opponent. What comes to mind is : Read my lips. No new taxes.” Bottom line is that in business a verbal agreement is as binding as a written one if you can prove it in court. A verbal agreement in politics doesn’t mean shit. It’s all about winning regardless.
NeoWolfe
Neo
I get it now that you have affirmed the answer to my question. The part about it pertaining to atheists running only occurred to me when I typed the question earlier. I didn’t realize that that was to whom you were referring. Sorry for being so slow on the uptake.
I hope we’ll soon see a time when an open atheist on the ticket is commonplace and draws no particular attention. Heck, I’d settle for an open atheist on the ticket with a lot of brouhaha surrounding him/her. We have to keep letting the rest of the country know that we exist, and that we vote.
karen,
I share your hopes about what might be, but the reality on the ground is that we are hugely outnumbered. That is why I recommended caution on the subject of comemmorating sites of fallen law enforcement members with crosses. In essense it’s true that spending government money to plant a cross at the site is a violation of the separation of church and state. But, from where we stand, even though we know that free thinkers are the last hope of humans on the planet, the battle for hearts and minds is more important than hopes for a victory that would only be won if we could uproot every cross in Arlington national cemetary. More inteligent fronts exist that warrant our time and trouble.
We are winning, a little at a time, because we have the greatest minds on the planet behind us, but, the nuclear clock is ticking and the question now looms, who is in control of Pakistan’s nukes? The pimple has come to a head.
NeoWolfe