In the Public Square
- Mar 21, 2007 - 24
Faith-Based Groups Vulnerable in Head Start
Before Congress breaks for Easter recess, the House could vote on an amendment to make clear that faith-based organizations offering early childhood services to disadvantaged children cannot be discriminated against when competing for federal grants.
The House Education and Workforce Committee last week marked up H.R. 1429, a bill intended to strengthen the Head Start program, but failed to approve an amendment offered by Resident Commissioner Luis Fortuño of Puerto Rico that would protect faith-based organizations from surrendering their religious identities when administering the program. In addition to nondiscrimination protections for religious organizations seeking Head Start grants, the amendment states that faith-based groups administering Head Start programs would not be required to hire staff with opposing religious beliefs or remove religious art, icons, Scripture, or other symbols.
Last Congress, the House included faith-based provisions in the School Readiness Act, a bill similar to H.R. 1429, but the Senate failed to pass the bill.
If you believe faith-based groups that seek federal grants for early education programs should not be discriminated against and should be ensured of their constitutional right to take religion into account when hiring staff, please tell your congressman to support an amendment to H.R. 1429 to protect faith-based organizations.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Family, Children, Citizenship, Church and State, Hunger/Homelessness, Legislation, National, Religious Liberty
24 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Mar 21st, 2007, at 6:21pm, eric wrote:
Let me get this straight: Christian groups want equality with other groups in administering government-funded [civil] programs, while fighting gays and lesbians who seek the equality of civil marriage.
Hypocrisy: n. Simulation of virtue or goodness; dissimulation, pretence. [Oxford Concise Dictionary]
2 On Mar 24th, 2007, at 8:00pm, Keith B. wrote:
This has nothing to do with hypocrisy or equality—it is a matter of protecting our religious identity while serving the community. Religious institutions simply want to help disadvantaged children without having to sacrifice that which they stand for.
3 On Mar 26th, 2007, at 10:17pm, steve wrote:
Keith, there’s nothing to stop you doing what you propose. Simply supply your own money. Taxpayers have a right to expect that their money isn’t going to be used for proselytizing.
That said, however, if church groups do use their funds to help disadvantaged children then the extent to which they push their religious beliefs down the throats of these kids should be carefully monitored.
Actually, teaching kids that if they sin they’ll go to hell for eternity is really child abuse - isn’t it. So on second thoughts maybe Christians should be kept out of the whole process.
4 On Mar 27th, 2007, at 9:37am, Keith B. wrote:
By the way, it is my own money…this program is not designed to become a private school. On the contrary, the nation has a vested interest in the education of the disadvantaged.
Further, in order to protect the community, the grantee cannot discriminate when evaluating whom they will serve, for each eligible family has a right to learn about Head Start, be given a fair chance to have their child considered for enrollment, and in turn accept or reject that offer. The grantee is accountable for what they teach these 0 to 5 year olds.
Last, the environment in which these 0-5 year old children are currently dwelling is pushing values down their throats- values that in many cases will lead to more murder, rape, and crime. Pick your poison my friend, the imposition of morality is the law of the land, God bless America when our kids are educated in a Judeo-Christian environment!
5 On Mar 28th, 2007, at 3:26pm, steve wrote:
Keith, I tend to think that the language a person uses is a strong indicator of their values. As such I’d never choose the words “Pick your poison my friend” in the context of educating children.
Precisely what do you mean when you talk about a Judeo-Christian environment? Why is it the best ‘poison’ to give to our kids?
I’m currently lucky enough to have a young grandson and I take great delight in watching and helping him grow. The thought that well meaning but deluded people would get the opportunity to fill his impressionable mind with tales of hell and satan abhors me. I am, however, looking forward to the day when he’s old enough to have a chuckle with me about the silliness of believing in a book of fables written by ignorant men in unsophisticated days.
Religion has no place in education - it is a form of child abuse.
6 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 11:42am, Keith B. wrote:
We can have a legitimate debate about the current legislation if you are familiar with it. Your belief that religious education equals child abuse does not warrant serious discussion. To blind kids from the reality that there are consequences for their behavior is the mark of gross negligence.
The desire to help disadvantaged children is good; the attempt to neglect and thus destroy them is evil. The question is not can we, but should we defeat this evil that plagues a large number of our children. The plan to provide these children with food and education is to allow them the opportunity to have the capacity to take control of their own destiny; otherwise they will be slaves to a pattern of continual destruction that is unhealthy for all of us.
7 On Mar 29th, 2007, at 12:59pm, steve wrote:
Keith, religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse. The fact you can’t, or refuse to, see this fact is indicative of the problem.
I agree that we need to help disadvantaged children. I’m simply saying it must be done using secular humanist values. Kids aren’t helped to reach their full potential if they’re wrapped in the chains of religious ideology. If you want to proselytize wait until they’re mature enough to see the implications of what you’re proposing.
8 On Mar 30th, 2007, at 11:26am, Keith B. wrote:
And secular humanism is not a religious, albeit naturalistic, ideology? When you make claims about the universe, the human person, and the meaning of life you have provided an “all-comprehensive” doctrine—a worldview—it is just like a religion.
View comment one for a definition of hypocrisy.
9 On Mar 30th, 2007, at 4:01pm, steve wrote:
No, secular humanism is the antithesis to religion. SH is about applying the things we know to be true and provable and engaging in an ongoing search for the truth behind the things we currently don’t understand. Religion looks at the things it doesn’t understand and makes up a story to cover the gap. That’s why religions die out - human inquisitiveness eventually disproves the story.
SH encourages inquisitiveness to find truth - religion assumes the truth is known and discourages inquisitiveness.
Actually Keith, you might find this funny, there is one religion that actually teaches kids that a god created a guy called Adam and, although this god was almighty, he actually forgot to give this guy Adam the means to procreate. Adam had to offer up one of his ribs to get a woman (imagine how different women might be if he’d paid an arm and a leg). Can you believe people teach this stuff as truth!?
10 On Apr 2nd, 2007, at 2:13pm, Keith B. wrote:
The Humanist Manifesto from 1933 called their worldview religious humanism. Anyone who believes that secular humanism is the antithesis of religion is unaware of its pedigree.
You are unfamiliar with Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the ACLU, both of which at one time wanted to enforce a religion of secular humanism in schools. It’s rather understandable as to why you would abandon that language and seek to avoid at all costs being denoted a religious organization, for then humanists would be subjected to the same ousting from public schools that other religious groups have endured. Funny how humanists considered their worldview a religion until the separation of church and state debate intensified; now its an obstacle to your political aims to be considered as such.
Now that secular humanists are seeking to impose their values on our nation under the auspices of a secular name, they have married church with state, the very union we are all desperately seeking to avoid.
11 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 7:46am, eric wrote:
“ Madalyn Murray O’Hair and the ACLU, both of which at one time wanted to enforce a religion of secular humanism in schools.”
“secular humanists are seeking to impose their values on our nation..”
Keith: Would you care to offer any slight proof of either, or do you just do the ‘drive-by’; state a questionable statement as fact, ignore any requests for proof, and move on to the next piece of disinformation? [the Ann Coulter school of ‘debate’]
“they have married church with state, the very union we are all desperately seeking to avoid.”
Offer any of evidence that you are seeking to avoid this! Your statement, “God bless America when our kids are educated in a Judeo-Christian environment” would seem to be contradictory!
12 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 2:23pm, Keith B. wrote:
You can do the research yourself…if you don’t know where to begin, start with the Humanist Manifesto of 1933.
“Humanism remains de facto the established religion of our land, and the public schools are the main vehicle for the promotion of its worldview”. Charles Francis Potter, one of the original signers of the Humanist Manifesto.
Our nation is blessed when children are educated in a Judeo-Christian environment…its called private schools. Secular humanists want exclusive rights to use public schools and taxpayer money to impose their form of values on all of America’s children, which is the marriage of an establishment supported church with the state-- and this is what we are trying to avoid.
13 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 4:17pm, steve wrote:
You just don’t get it do you Keith. Rather than confront the argument you throw in red herrings or harp on semantics. Like you I was a God fearing Christian as a consequence of childhood indoctrination. After a fair degree of reflection and research I realized my belief in God, Christianity or any other superstition was a delusion. Once having expunged these beliefs I found that the label that best described my new worldview was Secular Humanist. If you believe that people have a right to be happy and you threw away your RELIGION then you too would be a secular humanist - as would a Muslim, Jew, Hindu etc.
SH is pretty much the default human condition.
The difference between you and me Keith is that my motive is to see kids grow up to be happy and meet their full potential. You on the other hand espouse the same viewpoint but your actual motive is to save their imaginary souls - this leads to a conflict of interest.
14 On Apr 3rd, 2007, at 8:17pm, eric wrote:
“Secular humanists want exclusive rights to use public schools and taxpayer money to impose their form of values on all of America’s children, which is the marriage of an establishment supported church with the state-- and this is what we are trying to avoid.”
Sure, Keith; whatever dubious rationalization works for you. Just be aware that when you take this specious reasoning outside the church basement, and into the real world, you’re going to get a rude awakening. Keep preaching to the choir.
15 On Apr 5th, 2007, at 10:22am, Keith B. wrote:
Finally, we have come full circle. Thank you Steve, we are back to the conflict of interest.
The Head Start program is designed to provide comprehensive child development services to economically disadvantaged children, focusing upon reading and math skills so that preschoolers can be successful in school. We must give them a future.
I don’t want your worldview imposed upon our children and you don’t want mine. This program is designed to be neutral. Neither one of us should be seeking to “proselytize” these children; rather we should be preparing them to understand the implications of what ideas will be proposed to them when they are old enough to understand.
16 On Apr 5th, 2007, at 5:13pm, steve wrote:
Keith, if we’ve gone a full circle its only because you sound like a cracked record.
You need to understand that the Head Start program is secular humanism in action. Humanist because its designed for the betterment of fellow humans and secular because its designed to keep religious superstition out of it.
You say it’s designed to be neutral, that’s not the case. When I put my car into neutral it goes nowhere - Head Start is designed to be put into Drive. The thing that irks you and your fellow travelers is that you’re being asked to not put your religious baggage in the trunk.
Of course Christian groups intend and want to use it to proselytize - why else would they (you) be opposed to putting aside your Christian identity or being banned from restricting hiring to same faith people? If your concern was simply about ensuring the kids happiness and functional development then it shouldn’t be an issue - but it is because you want to save their imaginary souls!
17 On Apr 10th, 2007, at 1:19pm, Keith B. wrote:
Steve your definition of secular humanism is as profound as your surface level understanding of Christianity and this program.
If you consider teaching kids to read, write, do arithmetic, and eat as going nowhere, then your consideration of humanity is repulsive…funny because you consider yourself a humanist!
Your ramblings indicate that you would rather see kids starving and uneducated than be offered this program through a faith based group. All groups that implement the program are held accountable for what they teach—acquaint yourself with the program so that you can grasp this. As I’ve been saying, secular humanism is a religious movement and by forcing these views upon children you are imposing a worldview- you are proselytizing using unsound materialistic, naturalistic assumptions. And Head Start is not a secular humanist program, it is designed to teach basic skills, not provide a worldview, and this is why faith based groups should be allowed to participate.
18 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 2:20am, steve wrote:
Keith, as yet you’ve refused to explain why you are opposed to putting aside your Christian identity or being banned from restricting hiring to same faith people when involved with head start.
You’ve failed to explain why your position on the above issue isn’t a desire on your part to proselytize or put forward a biblical worldview.
You’ve refused to comment on the proposition that as a Christian your priority is to save kid’s ‘souls’ rather than developmental learning to get them through the REAL world.
Instead you’ve resorted to hyperbole designed to portray me as some rambling misinformed repulsive person. Hey, maybe I am (to you anyway) but at least I’m confident enough about who I am and what I do or don’t believe in not to have to dodge any questions.
If you want people to support you simply answer the questions. And, apart from the ones above, answer this one - if a kid were to ask you about god, abortion, gays, etc what answer do you give - Secular or Christian?
19 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 7:22am, eric wrote:
“As I’ve been saying, secular humanism is a religious movement”
Sure, Keith; and it’s true because you say so, right? Or because your pastor told you it was true? Or because it’s the only straw you have to grasp in this discussion, and if it were not true, your whole house of cards would come crashing about your ears?
Denial is not a persuasive argument, and those who must resort to it do so to save face, like a petulant child’s ‘Did not!”
“it is designed to teach basic skills, not provide a worldview, and this is why faith based groups should be allowed to participate.”
I look foreward to your endorsement of Wiccan participation.
20 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 10:51am, Matt Hawkins wrote:
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
To all,
Though we have every capability to do so, ERLC.com prefers to refrain from censoring the posts on this site. We are committed to keeping these threads as wide open as possible. After all, we believe that truth will ultimately win in open debate.
However, if comments continue to condescend and mock people of faith (or of no faith), then we’ll kindly ask those participants to leave.
Christianity and atheism both have long histories of participating in thoughtful, respectful debate and we encourage each of you to follow in those traditions. Mocking the audience (including the hosts of this forum, or those with whom you disagree) is unlikely to produce converts to your side of any debate.
Keep the comments on topic. Make your case. Cite your references. Put the attitudes and arrogance on ice.
That is all. Please carry on.
21 On Apr 11th, 2007, at 1:23pm, steve wrote:
Thanks Matt.
To be honest I was surprised that the ERLC have a site that actually allows two way discussion, and although I disagree with most of what the ERLC stands for, you guys must be congratulated for this.
Given it’s your site I certainly respect your right to moderate and I must admit that of the numerous posts I’ve submitted only 2 have been slightly edited and on both cases the editing was in line with your stated policy - i.e. it was fair.
Keep up the good work - with the site that is.
Cheers,
Steve.
22 On Apr 12th, 2007, at 12:41pm, Keith B. wrote:
I will answer your last question for now. How to answer the inquisitive, abortion-minded, 3 year old child? Secular or Christian. First of all, this is a false dichotomy, but I understand what you mean.
Second, most of the kids who qualify for the program are too young to conceptualize.
Third, you must realize that our identity is who we are- I cannot just lay aside the fact that I am a man, from Texas, and am a Christian…so in addressing any situation, it does not matter the location (church building or not) we always bring our identity to bear. If I were to work for Head Start, whether it was located in a church or elsewhere, my goals would be those of the program, not some hidden (very hidden if you know what I mean) agenda.
I have plenty of opportunities to use my freedom of speech to “proselytize”, but using tax-payer money is not one of them. Even the Aristotelian three year old could be steered back to his sandwich and complicated math homework, i.e. 1+1=2.
23 On Apr 19th, 2007, at 7:51pm, steve wrote:
Keith, I notice you haven’t decided to answer my core questions but that’s OK. A key tool that some of us secular humanists use to win the political debate (note: political not religious) is to simply ensure fence sitters actually get to hear the Christian Right’s viewpoint. This tends to be enough for most people including moderate Christians to turn away from your point of view. Sometimes, however, and this is a case in point, your silence is deafening.
24 On Apr 23rd, 2007, at 9:02am, Keith B. wrote:
Actually, Steve, I have answered your most pressing question, remember, “apart from the ones above, answer this one.”?
After you have satisfactorily addressed that answer, then we can move on. But for you to ignore the response to your most pressing question and simply say that I am remaining silent is ridiculous.
Until then, I’ll suppose that you don’t have a response.