…and this is a 
Call your legislators and protest, Californians
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: February 13, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
Take a look at the newly introduced California Bill AB 165.
This bill would establish the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the office of the Governor and would require the office to serve as a clearinghouse of information on federal, state, and local funding for charitable services performed by charitable organizations, as defined, encourage those organizations to seek public funding for their charitable services, act as a liaison between state agencies and those organizations, and advise the Governor, the Legislature, and an advisory board of the office on the barriers to collaboration between those organizations and governmental entities and on strategies to remove those barriers. This bill would also create the Advisory Board of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, to be appointed as specified, and require it to provide direction, guidance, and oversight to the office and publish a report of its activities on or before the first day of August of each year.
Yep, California legislators will be considered establishing a Faith-Based Office. That's all we need—the legitimization of more unsupported nonsense in our government. Please, let's stick to evidence based leadership, OK?
Comments
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | February 13, 2007 6:08 AM
I think that the Advisory Board's Task should be pretty easy. All they would need to do is say "Faith Based Initiatives are unconstitutional." And then go home for the rest of the year, until they need to say it again.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | February 13, 2007 6:20 AM
"Existing federal regulations make *CERTAIN* faith-based organizations eligible for specified federal grants."
Hey, as long as the church of the FSM and its charity for the owners of invisible pink unicorns is on that list I don't really see a problem with this.
Posted by: David Marjanović | February 13, 2007 6:35 AM
And what, anyway, do faith-based initiatives and community initiatives have in common?
Posted by: zayzayem | February 13, 2007 7:25 AM
Settle down PZ.
The Office's title legitimizes non-faith based initiatives as valid positive contributors to communities.
Maybe this can stem the tirade of insults that atheists aren't involved in positive community initiatives.
Faith-based initiatives can't be ignored by state management, lest they get the idea they can do whatever they like because they are part of a church.
Faith-based charities are legitimate. It's pretty mean to say they aren't able to try and make a positive contribution to society because the institution is based on hokey pokey.
Posted by: Jud | February 13, 2007 7:26 AM
It's first eligible to come up in committee on February 22nd. Don't see a committee assignment yet.
Posted by: 386sx | February 13, 2007 7:27 AM
Okay, time for a good fisking.
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/02/do_you_honestly_believe_god_wo.php
My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture.
Doh, then I suppose bad things never happen at all because they would take God out of the picture.
Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created?
Duh, haven't you ever heard of the Apocalypse?
Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!"
Doy, you're a moron.
I have a huge problem with that.
Well, okay we all have our differences.
This concludes our fisking. Have a nice day!
Posted by: Joe Shelby | February 13, 2007 7:45 AM
The Office's title legitimizes non-faith based initiatives as valid positive contributors to communities.
So why not just called it the "Office of Community Initiatives" and leave it at that? If the "faith-based" organizations are asking for money for community initiatives, and so are non-religious charity organizations, then adding "faith-based" to the name is completely redundant.
It *implies* endorsement, even if the application of the law is fair to non-religious organizations. In the end, it becomes *unfair* because non-religious organizations may be deterred from asking for funding because the title of the department implies that it's only for "faith-based" groups.
The title is intentionally misleading, and while it won't create intentional violations, the application will be unfair because of the deception.
Posted by: G. Tingey | February 13, 2007 8:29 AM
If they are going to deal with (and subsidise?) faith-based initiatives, are they not making "an establishment of religion" contrary to the US constitution?
Posted by: Zeno | February 13, 2007 8:32 AM
Years ago, when I worked at the State Capitol in Sacramento for a member of the legislature, one of his constituents came in to pitch an idea. She wanted my boss to sponsor legislation to create a California State Department of Religion. Its job would be to promote religious faith and good works. My boss pointed out that such an idea was certainly unconstitutional, whereupon his constituent replied that she had anticipated this objection and was ready with the perfect answer: "Oh, no, this department would support all religions, so it would be all right."
Perhaps she or her philosophical descendants are still working the corridors at the state legislature.
Posted by: no one | February 13, 2007 8:42 AM
the barriers to collaboration between those organizations and governmental entities"
What barrier might they be referring to? The 'wall of separation', perhaps?
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | February 13, 2007 9:21 AM
Unwarranted assumption. Assumes that there was evidence-based leadership to begin with.
Posted by: George | February 13, 2007 9:24 AM
Bill was introduced by Kevin Jeffries. He goes to the Cornerstone Community Church in Wildomar. They have a picture of a person being "baptised" in a swimming pool on their web page.
http://www.go2cornerstone.com/
He's a kook.
Enough said.
Posted by: quitter | February 13, 2007 10:01 AM
I think the issue that is even more pressing than the establishment complaints are how the Bush administration used their Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. According to insiders like Kuo and D'lulio it had no interest in even performing it's stated purpose and instead was using their federal funds to spend lots of money on churches in areas where elections were tight. It was essentially a political goodwill apparatus for whoever was in power to get churches involved in "get out the vote" efforts.
So, it's probably even worse than you think.
Posted by: Grumpy | February 13, 2007 4:42 PM
We've had a faith-based office just like that in Alaska for the last couple of years. No harm done -- although the leaders of one of the model non-profits has just been indicted for using federal grants to the charity to buy themselves a big-screen TV. And then some.
Now lest you imagine that this is some kind of crooked clergyman, think again. He's a crooked clergyman *and* a crooked politician.
http://newsminer.com/2007/01/25/4726/
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 13, 2007 5:00 PM
Hey, I took a poke around inside it:
"12082. As used in this article, "organization" means an entity that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and provides charitable services to needy residents of this state. The organization may be, but is not required to be, faith-based."
So it's an advisory board towards tax-exempt organizations. Mind you, I understand that those are primarily (if not all) faith-based, but read in its entirety, seems to be a reasonable step.
As a resident of CA, I think this one falls into the 'molehill' variety. I'd as soon as not have any of these folks be tax exempt, but they are, & some regulation has to be put into place.
Who knows? Maybe w/all these folks peering into the internal gears, one can hope that discrepancies &/or embezzlements will be spotted.
Posted by: zayzayem | February 13, 2007 11:39 PM
It's protecting both Faith-based and non-faith based. By clearly stating it is for Faith based and non-faith based organisations.
Faith based needs to be there for two reasons:
1. Faith based charities are still valid charities. And a lot still do good unbiased positive community work.
2. Faith based community initiatives need to be regulated. They cannot be allowed to say we are a "church thing" so we don't have to follow normal rules. Hopefully if this organisation does what I think it's supposed to do it will have the ability to stop Catholics telling people lies about condoms, Scientologists about pharmaceutical drugs, and certain muslim youth groups about women's rights (a problem being noticed here in Australia).
It needs to say it is for both faith based and non faith based, so that faith based organisations don't get an air of superiority, and think the office doesn't cover non-faith based charities.
They have been very sensible with their titling, keeping it about "faith", not a particular (or indeed restricting it to just) religion, or the word "church". I think it's great. I just hope it pays off properly.
Atheists being skeptic of do-good Christians are as bad as Christians skeptical of do-good athiests. Both crowds have their share of puppy-eaters.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 14, 2007 12:17 AM
Mind you, I understand that those are primarily (if not all) faith-based,
501c3's that are not religious in nature are far more common than seem to be thought.
I registered one that was involved in shark research, for example.
based on the actual wording of the bill noted in this thread, there should be literally thousands of registered NON religious 501c3's in CA that would be scrambling for that cash.
who actually GETS it will be the real question.
Moreover, I could easily see this as a rider on a federal/state funding bill, as CA is still trying to recover monies owed to them by the feds ever since the power debacle.
look to see this streamlined and tagged as "monies going to the CA general fund".
if you see wording like that, then you won't have to worry about the fundies getting it, that's for sure. In fact, likely it will simply get lost in the general fund, and token amounts will be distributed to satisfy whatever federal regs there are for the "faith based initiative".
watch and see.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | February 14, 2007 2:16 AM
Ichthyic:
501c3's that are not religious in nature are far more common than seem to be thought.
Thx for pointing that out.
based on the actual wording of the bill noted in this thread, there should be literally thousands of registered NON religious 501c3's in CA that would be scrambling for that cash.
Hmmm...time to notify some of our more local secular orgs, no?
Moreover, I could easily see this as a rider on a federal/state funding bill, as CA is still trying to recover monies owed to them by the feds ever since the power debacle.
Excellent point.
zazayem:
Atheists being skeptic of do-good Christians are as bad as Christians skeptical of do-good athiests. Both crowds have their share of puppy-eaters.
Chuckle, snort.
We've got puppy-eaters in our midst? Maranthra anathema! Errr...ummm...do we have a secular version of that?
I didn't get the memo: guess I have to change my diet. ;)