[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

I think I've pinpointed the problem with Bush's drug addiction treatment voucher proposal, and can explain it in fairly unmistakable terms. Here goes.

Under Bush's proposal, federal money for drug treatment could wind up going to Narconon.

Don't look at me like that. They're faith-based.

Comments

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

Well, there was another 'treatment' program that specifically claimed to be chiefly interested in recruiting drug addicts into the ranks of its religion. Of course, it was a born-again Christian program, so Shrub, Jr. probably can't recognize it as being bogus. To me, though, the Church of Scientology isn't any more bogus than a program that claimed that regular treatment just produces 'a reformed junkie, but when someone accepts Christ, they're a whole new person'.

No, I don't have the link handy, sorry.

[bryant]

Oooh, pity. I'll keep an eye out for it.

[point5b.livejournal.com]

Don't look at me like that. They're faith-based.

They are. And I oppose the whole idea of faith-based initiatives and, further, think that government/charity integration is a harmful thing overall.

However, something bothers me about using these examples, and I had to think about it myself. I concluded that I don't think that simply pointing out groups that could possibly get funding and that are dishonest or weird is really a useful argument against faith-based initiatives.

A perfectly valid response to the CoS example is, "Well, we'll watch these groups and audit their charity work, then pull the plug on them if they do anything hinky." Then you're stuck trying to convince them that the government isn't all that good or consistent at detecting corruption, since the inevitable answer is, "We'll watch them closer, then."

As for pointing out weird but apparently honest religious groups like the born-agains, keep in mind that the use of religious faith and even the fervor of conversion aren't such unusual approaches to treating addiction (and other mental and emotional problems); even AA invokes belief in a "higher power" in their programs. A lot of people who don't even have the same views as such a group do believe that religious experiences can be redemptive and will tend to think such a group does good. Others won't mind much even if the group does strike them as outright weird, unless you convince them the group's a mind-control cult. About the only people this argument plays well to are those who really hate some religious group, and I think that's an ugly tactic to use.

[bryant]

The point, my contumacious friend, is that the chances are there's /some/ religious group which weirds you out no matter who you are. To support this initiative, you have to be willing to see federal money go to Narconon. You also have to be willing to see federal money going to born-again groups that are explicitly treating people as a means of conversion. Those two groups have the same general goals and the same general tactics.

Why assume that the CoS will do something that would result in the funding getting pulled? I'm not. I'm assuming that successful Narconon treatment which results in the subject converting to Scientology would be disturbing to the Christian right which currently supports this initiative, and I don't see how you could define the program to exclude Narconon as long as they're getting results.

I'm just recommending that supporters look at the natural consequences of success -- not the probability of fraud.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

groups that are explicitly treating people as a means of conversion.

Or even groups that are explicitly converting people as a means of treatment.;-)

If the faith-based initiatives are applied fairly, then tax money would be used not only for born-again Christian groups, but also for CoS groups, Islamic groups, and pagan groups. My fear isn't so much that the born-again Christian groups will get funded (though any group that discounts all medical means of treatment worries me), but that the born-again groups will get funding, and the other groups will be quietly shunted off to the side as either 'not real religions' or 'not good enough to fund' without any evidence that they have lower success rates than the born-again groups.

I'm not so much afraid of an honest attempt to fund faith-including drug treatment as I am of this administration's complete inability to do *anything* honestly.

[point5b.livejournal.com]

Just as a point of fact, I'm not religious, so I find all religious groups to be weird in some way.

I don't think you're remotely correct with your characterization of all faith-based initiative supporters as Christian Right, if by that you mean fundamentalists. The support strikes me as broader, especially when I know supporters who are far from socially conservative. These are not people you'll scare off by mentioning Scientologist charities...or groups that are Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, or any other religion some fundamentalists don't like. Or, if they do react badly to the idea of Scientology behind involved in some federally-funded charity, it's because of the suspicion of dishonesty in that group, which goes back to my first point.

The reason not to fund religious groups isn't because of the non-Christian groups that might or might not get funded, it's because doing so in any form connects church and state.

This is also the real reason why support is broader than some people are willing to realize: a huge fraction of people in the US really don't care much about separation of church and state. These aren't snake-handlers or followers of big hair televangelists, these are people who may be pro-choice, pro-premarital sex, and even non-churchgoing, but who just don't see what the big deal is. (And judging by the number of European democracies that have state churches and/or support churches themselves, not just charitable groups, with tax money, this isn't limited to the US by far.)

To convince these people that funding faith-based groups is wrong, you have to actually hit the issue itself, not try to play religious groups off against each other. Strangely and ironically enough, one of the best points about the dangers of mixing church and state has been made by the fundamentalists who dislike the plan - that you can't dip your church's chocolate with the government's peanut butter without the peanut butter getting on your chocolate.

[bryant]

Oooookay.

"I don't think you're remotely correct with your characterization of all faith-based initiative supporters as Christian Right, if by that you mean fundamentalists."

Neither do I. Here's what I said:

"I'm assuming that successful Narconon treatment which results in the subject converting to Scientology would be disturbing to the Christian right which currently supports this initiative..."

Not: "To the Christian right which are the sole faith-based initiative supporters." Pointing out that the Christian right supports this initiative does not imply that they are the sole supporters of this initiative.

You keep reading these weird things into what I say, and you're generally right -- if I was saying what you think I'm saying, I'd be wrong. But I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. Sometimes I'm even agreeing with you.

I dunno. I guess what I'm saying is feel free to comment, but if I don't respond, it's because I don't think you'll actually take the time to read what I'm saying, and frankly, I have better things to do than to write responses which are only gonna be misconstrued anyhow. Part of discussion is the effort to understand what the other guy is saying. You don't seem to want to do that, and whether you flat out misunderstand me or you cloak the deliberate misunderstanding in condescending advice on the proper way to argue... either way, it's not worth my time.

[point5b.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry to have irritated you. I didn't mean anything I wrote as condescension. I have definitely read what you've written in these discussions, but I think I clearly have misunderstood or simply been unable to tell where you're arguing from at times. None of it was intentional, but I know that can leave a bad taste, especially when someone wanders in uninvited.