The current top headline on the Drudge Report www.drudgereport.com is BUSH IN SCIENTOLOGY SHOWDOWN:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON FEB 19, 2001 18:01:23 ET XXXXX BUSH IN SCIENTOLOGY SHOWDOWN: DIVERSE RELIGIOUS GROUPS POISED TO TEST CHARITABLE INITIATIVE President Bush is headed for a religious showdown on Tuesday when his new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives opens its door for business and new questions are raised about exactly what constitutes a "legitimate religion".

Out of the gate the Church of Scientology is planning to ask Bush for money to fund its controversial drug rehabilitation and literacy programs.

But Bush said in an interview last year: "I have a problem with the teachings of Scientology being viewed on the same par as Judaism or Christianity."

While established charitable programs, like those run by Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army, are expected to have little tr ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The text ends abruptly. The site changes very frequently, it will probably be fixed soon.

I hope people remember what SCIENTOLOGY ITSELF says: Scientology is NOT based on faith.

-- SCIENTOLOGY IS SECRETLY A UFO CULT ASK THEM ABOUT XENU Mike O'Connor <http://www.leptonicsystems.com/>

His three months in the program have been "a blessing," hesaid his only complaint was that for some reason the kitchen served nothing but vegetarian food. When he was told that the cuisine was restricted because this halfway house was affiliated with the Hare Krishnas, Mr.

Fabio looked as if he had been ambushed by "Candid Camera." For almost 20 years, Hare Krishna devotees in Philadelphia have received millions of dollars in government contracts to run a network of services, including a shelter for homeless veterans, transitional homes for recovering addicts and this halfway house for parolees.

The unusual collaboration between government agencies and a religious group that depicts God as a baby-faced boy with blue skin offers a glimpse of the challenges ahead for President Bush's initiative to expand government support for social service programs run by religious organizations.

Mr. Bush's new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives officially opens for business on Feb.

20. The president says religious programs will be judged not on their beliefs but on the results of their work.

=A0"We do not impose any religion," Mr. Bush said at a prayer breakfast on Feb. 1. "We welcome all religion." The president's assertion may be questioned in the coming days. While established charitable programs, like those run by Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army, are expected to have little trouble winning further government support, it is the smaller programs run by less traditional faiths that are likely to test the president's promise to avoid discriminating on the basis of belief, and the public's acceptance of his approach.

=A0Now, members of a wide variety of religious groups, some once considered far outside the mainstream, are busy preparing proposals for government financing to support the kinds of programs that Mr. Bush has said he will make his focus: literacy, sexual abstinence and substance abuse. The Church of Scientology plans to seek support for its drug rehabilitation and literacy programs.

Mr. Bush's effort could provoke new questions about what constitutes a legitimate religion. One definition of religion likely to be applied grows out of the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1965 case involving draft exemptions. In that case, the court defined religion as "a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption." By any measure, the definition is broad.

=A0"One of the big issues that people haven't talked about much is that some very controversial religions could get active in this," said Philip Jenkins, the author of "Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American history"(Oxford University Press, 2000), and a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University.

"Running a faith-based program raises the question, what faiths are out of bounds?" Mr. Jenkins said. "Either you fund all faith groups, even groups you radically don't like, or you fund none. I have nothing against funding everybody, but I think people need to be prepared for the issues that might arise. How do you distinguish between a Methodist and a Moonie? The answer is, you can't."

There are a few clues so far to how the Bush administration will look on proposals from less traditional religious groups. In an interview with The New York Times during the campaign, Mr. Bush was asked if, for example, he would approve of government financing for a Church of Scientology antidrug program. He answered: "I have a problem with the teachings of Scientology being viewed on the same par as Judaism or Christianity. That just happens to be a personal point of view. But I am interested in results. I am not focused on the process."

For its part, the Church of Scientology, founded as Dianetics in the 1950's by the science-fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, claims it can document the effectiveness of its literacy programs and its drug and prisoner rehabilitation programs, Narconon and Criminon. In Oklahoma, the church receives state money to treat drug addicts at Narconon Chilocco, a Scientology rehabilitation center, said Kurt Weiland, director of the Church of Scientology International. =A0=A0"In Scientology, we believe in past lives and future lives," Mr. Weiland said, adding that the church's programs are open to people of all beliefs. "Nobody who does anything in drug rehabilitation or in literacy programs has to formulate that belief in order to go through the program."

NY Times, 20. Feb 2001 -- 'Bush's Call to Church Groups Attracts the Untraditional' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "DANGER FEARED IS FOLLY:

DANGER FACED IS FREEDOM."

Dr. V. Raymond Edman ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

------------------------ Diverse groups will test Bush's faith-based help The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives opens today.

New York Times
February 20, 2001
http://www.sptimes.com:80/News/022001/Worldandnation/Diverse_groups_will_t.shtml PHILADELPHIA -- After eight years in prison, Joseph Fabio now lives in a halfway house next to a funeral home where counselors have helped him steer clear of drugs, find a job in a gas station and contain the uncontrollable anger that earned him a murder sentence at age 18.

His three months in the program have been "a blessing," Fabio said, and like many of the residents, he complained only that, for some reason, the kitchen served nothing but vegetarian food. When he was told that the cuisine is restricted because this halfway house is affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, better known as the Hare Krishnas, Fabio looked as if he had been ambushed by Candid Camera.

"They're around still?" he asked, recalling having seen monks in pink robes in airports years ago. "I didn't know."

For almost 20 years, Hare Krishna devotees in Philadelphia have received millions of dollars in government contracts to run a network of services, including a shelter for homeless veterans, transitional homes for recovering addicts and this halfway house for parolees.

The unusual collaboration between government agencies and a religious group that depicts God as a baby-faced boy with blue skin offers a glimpse of the challenges ahead for President Bush's initiative to expand government support for religious social services.

Bush's new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives officially opened for business today. The president says religious programs will not be judged on their beliefs, but on the results of their work.

"We do not impose any religion," Bush said at a recent prayer breakfast.

"We welcome all religion."

The president's assertion may be questioned in the coming days. While established charitable programs, like those run by Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army, are expected to have little trouble winning further government support, it is other programs run by less traditional faiths, including the Church of Scientology, that are likely to test the president's promise to avoid discriminating on the basis of belief, and the public's acceptance of his approach. The initiative also runs the risk of sparking conflict. Already, one group has tried to prevent another from being allowed to participate.

Bush signed the executive orders launching his initiative flanked by a score of Christian ministers, two Jewish leaders and a Muslim imam, and hailed the event as a "picture of the strength and diversity" of the country. But if the religious portrait of the nation is a great stained glass window, those leaders represent only a few large pieces of glass.

Now, members of a wide variety of religious groups, some once considered far outside the mainstream, are busy preparing proposals for government financing to support the kinds of programs that Bush has said he will make his focus: literacy, sexual abstinence and substance abuse treatment. The Church of Scientology, which has its religious headquarters in downtown Clearwater, plans to seek support for its drug rehabilitation and literacy programs. The church of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, now called the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification U.S.A., plans to promote its abstinence programs in the schools.

There are few clues so far to how the Bush administration will look on proposals from religious groups that seem out of the mainstream. In an interview with the New York Times during the campaign, Bush was asked if, for example, he would approve of government financing for a Church of Scientology antidrug program.

He answered: "I have a problem with the teachings of Scientology being viewed on the same par as Judaism or Christianity. That just happens to be a personal point of view. But I am interested in results. I am not focused on the process."

For its part, the Church of Scientology, founded as "dianetics" in the 1950s by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, claims it can document the effectiveness of its literacy programs and its drug and prisoner rehabilitation programs, Narconon and Criminon. In Oklahoma, the church receives state money to treat drug addicts at Narconon Chilocco, a Scientology rehabilitation center, said Kurt Weiland, director of the Church of Scientology International.

"In Scientology, we believe in past lives and future lives," Weiland said, adding that the church's programs are open to people of all beliefs.

"Nobody who does anything in drug rehabilitation or in literacy programs has to formulate that belief in order to go through the program."

Bush's effort could provoke new questions about what constitutes a legitimate religion. In the case of the religious organizations that would be applying for government money, one definition of religion likely to be applied grows out of the Supreme Court's ruling in a 1965 case involving draft exemptions. In that case, the court defined religion as "a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption." By any measure, the definition is broad.

"One of the big issues that people haven't talked about much is that some very controversial religions could get active in this," said Philip Jenkins, the author of Mystics and Messiahs: Cults and New Religions in American History and a professor of history and religious studies at Penn State.

"Running a faith-based program raises the question, what faiths are out of bounds?" Jenkins said. "Either you fund all faith groups, even groups you radically don't like, or you fund none. I have nothing against funding everybody, but I think people need to be prepared for the issues that might arise. How do you distinguish between a Methodist and a Moonie? The answer is, you can't."

In Philadelphia, David D. Dobson, executive director of the Philadelphia programs for the Hare Krishnas, expects to add Krisha spirituality to his programs by hiring a few clergy and mentors, and teaching about the history of non-Western religions.

"We're not just here to educate and feed people," Dobson said. "We see people as spirit souls. Our goal is to help them spiritually develop."

From: ptsc <ptsc@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: BUSH POISED TO GIVE FEDERAL FUNDING TO GROUPS LIKE SCIENTOLOGY
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:45:48 -0500
Organization: ARS: Perhaps The Most Malignant Newsgroup on Usenet
Message-ID: <l4s79t4mku9ch372ivu9vf6s5rfb7clp1p@4ax.com>
On 21 Feb 2001 12:17:17 GMT, rkeller@netaxs.com (Rod Keller) wrote:

>"We do not impose any religion," Bush said at a recent prayer breakfast.
>"We welcome all religion."
And, of course, spit on all non-religious programs.

The fact is that George W. Bush simply does not give a good goddamn about the Constitution or anything related to it, and I wouldn't be surprised if the slack-jawed moron has never even heard of the Establishment Clause. He's also certainly not familiar with the Lemon Test, which his proposal fails in every respect.

George W. Bush does not care that his illegal proposal will certainly be demolished with the first court challenge, so long as he gets to suck up to the religious fanatics and fundamentalist bigots who got him elected.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm Separation of Church and State Home Page --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lemon Test --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research by Jim Allison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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."

According to separationist scholars Barry Lynn, Marc Stern, and Oliver Thomas, the fact that a law may have a "religious purpose or be motivated by religion does not mean it is unconstitutional as long as it also has a bona fide secular or civic purpose" (The Right to Religious Liberty, p. 3). Similarly, "a law that has a remote or incidental effect of advancing religion is not unconstitutional as long as the effect is not a 'primary' effect" (p. 3). Finally, the Court has allowed some entanglement between church and state, as long as this entanglement is not "excessive" (p. 3). Hence, the Court has built some leeway into the test so as not to invalidate laws that have only remote connections to religious practice. This is not, in other words, the work of a Court that was hostile to religion. On the contrary, Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee, is generally reckoned as a conservative on social issues.

We note also that the Lemon test is squarely grounded on the principles articulated in Everson v. Board of Education. Accomodationist legal scholar Stephen Monsma, for example, notes that Burger's opinion is:
Deeply embedded in...the sacred-secular distinction and the Supreme Court's evaluation of the state's attempts to separate out the two and subsidize only the latter. His opinion noted that at the trial-court level several teachers had testified "they did not inject religion into their secular classes." And the District Court found that religious values did not necessarily affect the content of secular instruction. Burger agreed, but made the additional, crucial observation that "the potential for impermissible fostering of religion is present." He then went on to conclude that under such circumstances state attempts to assure a strict separation of the sacred and the secular would require continuing state administrative supervision and surveillance, resulting in state entanglement with religion (When Sacred and Secular Mix: Religious Non-Profit Organizations and Public Money, pp. 32-33) The Lemon test has not escaped criticism. Many scholars (including separationists Leonard Levy and Donald Laycock) have argued that the test is unduly subjective and internally consistent, and it's usefulness has been questioned by a majority of the sitting Justices. Still, as noted by Monsma,
...[the test] has not been formally overruled and the basic principles on which it rests--no-aid- to-religion and the sacred-secular distinction--still form the core of what is the dominant line of reasoning dealing with public funds going to religious nonprofit organizations (p. 33)
ptsc

DERRICK HARKINS, pastor of Nineteenth Street Baptist Church in Northwest Washington:

People have attacked President Bush's initiative on the grounds that it erodes the barrier between church and state. But they haven't given it a chance. I can tell you that the element of faith is a strong motivation for the providers of services. Most of my fellow pastors in the African American community here agree. I can only surmise that those political leaders who are in opposition are a bit out of step with their constituencies.

Nineteenth Street Baptist has a long history of involvement with the community. We're always looking for ways to revitalize existing programs and to launch new ones. Our Counseling Ministry, which we developed to bring mental health counseling to the community as a whole, is fully accredited and professionally staffed. We have a number of projects that we are aching to expand -- ones that don't get much public attention, such as HIV and AIDS prevention and education for geriatrics. That's a hundred-thousand-dollar kind of program, and we're eager to find new sources of funding.

With a congregation that's about 1,200 strong, we're one of the mid-size D.C. churches. Our funding comes from the pew and from both public and private grants. The idea of applying for grants is not rocket science for us. We have a Community Development Corp., with professional grant writers and administrators. We're fortunate in that respect. That's the kind of thing some smaller churches will have to pay attention to: They'll need to develop skills to handle this kind of responsibility.

FRITZ RITSCH, pastor of Bethesda Presbyterian Church:

At 11 a.m. every Saturday, my church's doors open to serve mealsto about 50 homeless people in our neighborhood. Many of the volunteers arechurch members, but the others don't necessarily belong to any religious group -- they come because they want to help.

We have spoken often about using the lunch program as a way to integrate homeless folks into our congregation, but our affiliation with Bethesda Cares, a government-supported nonprofit, limits us. Our hopes have been raised, somewhat, by the Bush administration's new emphasis on faith-based initiatives. Lois Elieff, who oversees our lunch program, told me she thought we should give the new relationship a try, though Sue Kirk, who coordinateswith Bethesda Cares, has real concerns. What strings will be attached to money that comes to us that way? And what happens if government aid dries up with the next administration?

More than this, I am concerned that work that ought to be done by the federal government will devolve onto churches. People often forget that giving aid to the needy is part of our mission -- but it's not all of our mission. I have a congregation to care for and a goal of promoting God's kingdom.

I've always felt that separation of church and state is as good for the church as it is for the state. We don't want our unique message to be watered down by further government dependence.The fact is, though, thatwe can't really run the lunch program without government help. So I'll approach the new initiative -- but with caution.

SCOTT ALEXANDER, senior minister of River Road Unitarian Church in Bethesda:

My congregation is passionately committed to social justice and human service work in the Washington community. We have 15 active task forces that donate thousands of volunteer hours and more than $150,000 annually to providing affordable housing and food to the poor, funding minority college scholarships and offering after-school ministry to D.C. youth.

Nonetheless, most of my congregation and I are extremely wary of President Bush's faith-based initiative. As one of the country'smany minority religions, we are gravely concerned about which religions and faith-based programs would be "approved" for funding, and which would not be. By what theological, moral or programmatic standards are federal officials going to decide whether the prison ministry they fund will berun by evangelical Christians, Black Muslims, the Church of Scientology, Buddhists, Presbyterians, Mormons or Unitarian Universalists? Perhaps the president does not fully grasp how diverse religious beliefs are in these United States, and maybe he's forgotten that more than 50 percent of Americans have no formal religious affiliation at all.

Compassionate congregations like the one I'm so proud to serve will continue to do their part, alongside secular human service agencies, to address the social ills of our nation. But let'snot expand the role federal dollars play in faith-based programs, which need to do their work as free as possible of interference, prejudice or conflict.

MAGGI G. GAINES, executive director of a new national organization designed to support and expand the number of Jews in service:

I know that volunteers make a difference, and that volunteering enhances the meaning of life. I know that the value system supporting service is often rooted in religious tradition. But I'm also a strong believer in that protective wall of separation between church and state. So I have mixed feelings about President Bush's initiative.

I've worked for the last dozen years as executive director of Baltimore Reads, a secular organization that supports adults and children who want to develop better basic skills, particularly in reading. In this work there is a crucial role for well-trained volunteers as well as members of various service programs, including Americorps and VISTA.

The math is simple: More volunteers doing service means more people getting helped. The service needs to be done by people who are motivated to improve the communities in which they live. Now I'm involved in launching a national organization called the Partnership for Service, which will solidify the traditional link between the core Jewish value of service and Jews doing service. For many the commitment to do service comes, whether consciously or unconsciously, from a religious value system.

So I'm conflicted: I am concerned about the church-state ramifications of Bush's initiative and about the definition of faith being too narrow; and I am also concerned that we help people who want to improve their lives.

Subject: Scientologists push for govt. funding
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
From: dst@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Message-ID: <3a938f81.0@news2.lightlink.com>
Date: 21 Feb 2001 04:50:57 -0500

OFCBI Faces Busy First Day, Questions of Inclusion
Tuesday, February 20, 2001
By Sharon Kehnemui
WASHINGTON - Staff at the new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House were slammed with phone calls upon their official opening Tuesday. The 10-person staff spent the better part of the day fielding calls from well-wishers to faith-based groups looking for information on grant applications.

"There's a lot of interest," said OFCBI Associate Director Michelle Tennery, adding that it has all been positive.

"Not one, we have not gotten a single negative call," Tennery said.

Telephone operators at the White House switchboard have been logging 200 calls a day since President Bush's Jan. 29 announcement that he was establishing the OFCBI. Letters have been arriving at a magnitude of two bins per day.

Tennery said Tuesday's information seekers represent a broad range of organizations from "different denominations of Christianity"

including Methodists and Baptists, to Islamic groups and Orthodox Jewish congregations, as well as nondenominational associations and think tanks.

"They feel blessed that there's an opportunity" to work with the government, Tennery said.

As the OFCBI - located in the Old Executive Office Building - hits the ground running, some observers have expressed concerns that select groups will be left out, or worse yet, that other groups could be let in.

That's why the head of the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish group that fights anti-semitism, met with OFCBI Director John DiIulio last week. ADL wanted assurances that the Nation of Islam, an organization headed by Louis Farrakhan, will not receive federal funding.

"The Nation of Islam is a racist, anti-semitic organization," said ADL Director of Media Relations Myrna Shinbaum. The ADL, Shinbaum said, wants to make sure that the government avoids funding "programs with spite and hate as the core of their message."

As a matter of course, the ADL opposes any government funding of religious organizations because it fears organizations will end up using the money to indoctrinate individuals that come to them seeking assistance.

"We would prefer that there be nothing that wear away this wall of church and state," Shinbaum said.

Shinbaum also said that giving government funding to groups like the Nation of Islam would, in effect, be government-sponsored hatred.

"Their proselytizing would be promoting anti-semitic, anti-white, anti-Catholic and anti-gay messages," she said.

A minister at the Nation of Islam declined to speak about the group's legal religious status, their intent to seek public funding or its community outreach programs.

But OFCBI Deputy Director Don Eberly responded that the office will do everything it can to make sure that religion and social services are separated.

"We feel very strongly about the Constitution. I, as an individual, come out of a fairly strict separationist background," Eberly said. "Our response to those raising red flags is, 'Yeah, we respect your caution.'"

For other groups, access to the grants available through five cabinet agencies - Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Labor and Justice - is their concern.

The Church of Scientology wants to make sure that the programs they sponsor are given access to grants. They released a statement Tuesday emphasizing that position. "These programs are secular social betterment charities and have been in existence in many communities for more than a quarter century. They are very deserving of support from all sectors, public and private."

The Church of Scientology has long sponsored Narconon, a detox program for drug addicts that started in an Arizona prison in the 1960s.

President of the District of Columbia-branch of the church Susan Taylor said methods for kicking the habit created by church founder L.

Ron Hubbard are included in the detox program, but the church's scriptures are not.

"We have a set of scriptures that are not used outside the church," said Susan Taylor.

For the Church of Scientology, the separation of religion and social services is almost like a catch-22. The church has often been shrouded in secrecy and stories of Hollywood couples like Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman being ripped apart over the religion have led many to suspect it of cult-like behavior. Taylor said those accusations are based on misinformation disseminated by the media and have no foundation.

"Every new religion has problems. In [Christianity's] early years, Christ died on the cross ... we feel fortunate we've never been through that kind of persecution," Taylor said.

But it's because of the stories that some people, including President Bush, think that Scientology is not as legitimate as Judaism or Christianity. To that, Taylor said that the Internal Revenue Service granted the church its non-profit religious organization status in 1993 so there is no reason the church's social services should be excluded from receiving federal funding.

In response to those concerns, Eberly repeats the office mantra - program results are more important than who is sponsoring them.

"We have made clear all along that we are not there to support or subsidize a religion," he said.

Eberly said Congress has already set up boundaries in 1996 legislation to guide the OFCBI in safeguarding the separation of a religious organization's activities and their religion. He also said that faith-based organizations know how to run their programs minus proselytization or indoctrination.

"I have a lot of confidence in faith-based providers. They are a lot more developed than people give them credit," he said.

Eberly said that in the off-chance that an organization fails to make the separation, the agencies will have the tools to respond, including denying funds and excluding groups from the grant process. But Eberly added that those incidents will be so rare that it's not worth the "debate about the rule to the exception to the rule."

ADL, however, is urging President Bush and the OFCBI to post firewalls to prevent the mingling of religion and government. The firewalls ADL is calling for would guarantee that taxpayer money does not fund religious discrimination in the hiring and firing of people who will deliver the services, that secular alternatives to religiously provided services are readily available, and the development of proper firewalls between government-funded services and the core religious activities of a religious organization.

Part of the ADL's concern stems from the often misused word "church" and its use by white supremacist and hate-based organizations.

"Are they going to fund the World Church of the Creator? Would the Church of the Ku Klux Klan get funding? Because they all call themselves a church," Shinbaum said.

Go Back