Catholic League Asks for Boycott the Golden Compass Movie

I would counter this by suggesting that conservative values are actually to AVOID government funding of social programs and pushing for local charities or churches to pick up alot of that slack.

I would agree with you in principle "that conservative values are actually to AVOID government funding of social programs," but the reality is that the primary conservative party in this country, the Republican Party, has effectively abandoned this principle in practice if not in pretext. If you need evidence, simply consider the fact that the single largest social entitlement program in U.S. history (i.e. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) was a piece of Republican legislation...sponsored by Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert, advocated for strongly by G.W. Bush, and passed handily in a Republican dominated Congress.

Conservative values tend to push for limited government invovlement. In what way, then, could there be a conservative social program? (That'd be like having a cold fire.)

I think you are ignoring the fact that the primary focus of "conservative values" has changed significantly in recent decades. Your contention might have been true for traditional conservatives, but there really aren't that many traditional conservatives operating in the Republican Party these days. I think it is fundamentally (pardon the pun) incompatible for a conservative to suggest that he prefers limited government involvement in social programs while simultaneously asking for new legislation designed specifically to interfere in the social decisions of private citizens (such as the Defense of Marriage Acts or State or Federal Marriage Amendments). The reason that "conservative social programs" are not impossible (and in fact are becoming more common) is that the traditional "hands off" conservatism of the Republican Party has been supplanted with the much more intrusive social conservatism of that Party's religiously fundamental base.

Again, a Conservative program would be to NOT spend government money on such a thing.

Not necessarily.

"Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante."

A government program that advances a socially conservative aim is by definition conservative. And, abstinence-only education certainly falls into that category, in my opinion.

I would note, however, that if you want to avoid teen pregnancy and STDs, cutting down on the amount of sex you have is a good way to do that. Can't get the TD without the S. That teens ignore such things and diddle one another anyway doesn't take away from the effectiveness of abstinance. . .. just, perhaps,takes away from the ability of liberal teachers to teach such a thing. Of course, the VAST majority of sex ed seems to revolve around teaching girls how to put a condom on a guy, and how to avoid people who have stds. Neither of those have cut down on teen pregnancy or produe values of the a reduction in stds.

As it turns out, which is nothing new... Teens don't care. They also tend to not understand the concept of consequences until they learn it 'the hard way' . ..

but, that's how it has always been with teens, for generations.

While it is true that the best way to avoid unwanted pregancies and STDs, it is a statistical demonstrable fact that abstinence-only education is ineffective. And you're right, most teens don't understand the concept of consequences, which should suggest to you that just telling them "don't do it" isn't a very good strategy if your goal is to reduce the actual instances of unwanted pregnancy and STD infections. On the other hand, comprehensive sex education--which despite the claims of many conservatives also teaches about abstinence, but also takes the realistic step of giving students information on how to protect themselves if they (as even you recognize that they often will) choose otherwise--has shown itself to be statistically effective. (LINK)

Please do explain how the government giving tax breaks and promotion to faith based and community groups is somehow the establishment of religion (your 'constitutional' remoark, obviously).

First of all, I suppose I should address the fallacy that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives is simply "giving tax breaks" to various religious groups. In 2005 alone, the OFBCI provided more than $2.2 billion in grants to christian-based charity groups.

Now, as to the question of whether or not this program is unconstitutional, one need simpy measure it against the three prongs of The Lemon Test.

1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose.

Even though I don't like the idea of the government funding charities at all, there is nothing innately religious about the act of giving charity. Thus, the OFBCI satisfies this prong of the test.

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion.

When the OFBCI gives money to a program that is owned and operated by a religious organization, it seem unavoidable to me that this money would not represent a direct benefit to the advancement of that religion's doctrinal beliefs. It seems unreasonable to me to suggest that service provided by religious person, working in a religious organization and providing a religiously motivated service would not generate an obvious benefit to that religion.

Now, is that the primary effect of this program? I think yes, for the simple reason that the OFBCI does not grant money to non-religoius groups. In fact, the program goes even one step farther by favoring only ONE religion in its grants. If the first director of the program (Jim Towery) is to be believed, then this program only grants funds to christian groups. At best, the program favors religious programs in favor of non-religious programs, and at worst it appears that the actual effect of the program is to favor one religion in particular. That alone should be sufficient to raise a red-flag to take a close look at the constitutional integrity of this program.

Thus, I think the program fails the second prong of the test.

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

This one is a no-brainer. There are secular organizations that already cover all of the kinds of services that this program funds. It is completely unecessary to involve any religious group in order to provide these services to the public. As that is the case, the creation of a specific government agency designed to distribute funds based on whether or not the recipient groups are religoius in character is plain example of an excessive entanglement.

I think that the OFBCI clearly violates the third prong of the test.

And, just in case you think my evaluation of the situation is unreasonable, the programs of the OFBCI are already being sucessfully sued for providing money to fund programs that specifically promote worship as part of their services. In Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries (2006) for example, the District Court ruled as follows...

Whether considered as an effect of the state contract in this case, or under a separate, traditional Lemon I inquiry, the facts and conclusions drawn above leave no room to doubt that the state of Iowa is excessively entangled with religion through the InnerChange program. ... For all practical purposes, the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates. ... There are no adequate safeguards present, nor could there be, to ensure that state funds are not being directly spent to indoctrinate Iowa inmates. The state, through its direct funding of InnerChange, hopes to cure recidivism through state-sponsored prayer and devotion. While such spiritual and emotional “rewiring” may be possible in the life of an individual and lower the risk of committing other crimes, it cannot be permissible to force taxpayers to fund such an enterprise under the Establishment Clause. “As the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, one of the few absolutes in Establishment Clause jurisprudence is the ‘prohibit[ion against] government-financed or governmentsponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith.”

Furthermore, private ownership of social programs is all that has ever been shown to be effective at stopping the LOCAL causes of problems .. especially when they already exist and the creation of a government version of what already privately exists is a horrid waste of money (what with all the double work)

I am certainly in favor of leaving the burden of social programming on the shoulders of private entities. But, that's really not what is happening in the OFBCI. The OFBCI is still using public money to fund social programs, only now it adds an obviously unconstitutional religious test as an obstacle to the organizations who would otherwise be seeking this funding.

As is often the case, I think Thomas Jefferson said it best...

"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical...Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Furthermore, explain where the government is a better steward of our money than the private sector?

I think that the government is rarely if ever a "better steward" of our nation's money, but that's really not the point, here. I would prefer that the government ceast the funding of ALL of these sorts of social programs. Unfortunately, that goal is not realistic and we must therefore find a way to ensure that when the government does fund program of this sort, that it does so in a constitutionally consistent manner. Directing funds to religious organizations doesn't satisfy that concern, and rather obviously so, IMHO.

percivale

-------------------------

"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)