Due to an investigation prompted by an SD CityBeat expose, the County of San Diego has halted payment of a $20,000 grant to a group on grounds it might use the money for religiously-based activity. The money, and previous grants, was recommended by Supervisor Bill Horn.
This is a great coup for CityBeat’s watchdog journalism. While I’ve criticized CityBeat in the past, and will probably do so in the future, I also think it’s only just to give praise where praise is due.
CityBeat published the news Aug. 18, after it published the expose by Dave Maass on July 28. The San Diego Union-Tribune tardily deigned to inform its readers today, Sept. 3. At least the U-T article mentioned CityBeat’s role, although far down.
This is the kind of watchdog story the San Diego Union-Tribune should have done. After all, the U-T has far more staff than SD CityBeat. So my Libertarian cap’s off to CityBeat and Maass. Read his entire story, which builds its case on a just-the-facts approach.
The group in question, Life Perspectives, claims not to be a religious organization. But even a cursory look at its “biblically based” “Whole Life Curriculum” shows the organization’s religious purpose. Nothing at all wrong about that, unless you’re trying to get taxpayer money. It would be just as wrong if an atheist group were to solicit money to advance its agenda.
Who's Praising Whole Life Curriculum? Click to Read.
Here’s the brochure for Whole Life Curriculum, 500K, in PDF.
Life Perspectives should have admitted that it is a religious organization, then shown a plan how it would use the county’s money only for secular purposes. Religious charitable organizations do this all the time. While Father Joe Carroll has an overtly religious mission with his work for the homeless and poor, the care he provides is easily justifiable on secular grounds.
But instead, the group hid its religious basis. That deception alone should disqualify Life Perspectives for funding.
For the Christians who don’t like this message, let me repeat: I think the same standard should apply in case an atheist group sought money for its cause. The government should not be funding programs that proselytize on religious viewpoints, including programs opposing religion.
And if Supervisor Horn is looking for a more worthy recipient of the $20,000, may I suggest Brother Benno’s, North County’s version of Father Joe. I would hope that’s a cause worthy of donations people of all religious persuasions, or none at all. (Whether the Supervisors should be giving out grants at all is another question entirely).
(As with all I write here, this is my opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, the North County Times.)
Comments 5
Thank you very much, Mr. Fikes. Thank you.
Author
Dave,
You simply did a great job. I admire how you patiently piled fact upon fact, in a neutral tone, letting the evidence speak for itself. The only thing I would suggest is that you include links to the pertinent materials, (or have them hosted on SD CityBeat’s site in case they’re removed). That way, readers can look at the evidence directly to satisfy themselves it’s being fairly represented in the article.
Life Perspectives talked out of both sides of its mouth about its religious purpose, much as do the intelligent design creationists. With the Internet, such groups have a harder time saying one thing to their core membership and another thing to the press without the deception being found out.
Thanks. I do have all the documents and screen grabs. I’ll try take a moment this week to compile a full repository online. We’re just getting used to our new site software and I think this is one thing we can do with it
What do you think should/will happen to the $60,000 they received for the two previous life walks?
Author
Dave,
I think we first need to find out what the law and precedents are in such instances.
IANAL, but presumably the county would have to make a legal finding that the money previously allocated was invalidly appropriated. Then the county would need to find out whether Life Perspectives was aware that money could not be used for religious purposes, and tried to hide its religious goals. For example, did the group remove religious references from its Web site when applying for the money? Were there any instructions not to discuss the group’s religious connections with the county? If the group was aware of that prohibition and disregarded it, it arguably committed fraud.
If such awareness cannot be demonstrated, the picture is murkier. In that case, the county would presumably (again, IANAL), look for precedents when money illegally appropriated was mandated to be returned, even if the recipient didn’t know of the illegality. If Life Perspectives refused to reimburse the money, the county would probably have to weigh the likely cost of legal action vs. the money at issue.
The county might decide to refrain form legal action if Life Perspectives stipulates that it understands county grants must be used for a non-religious purpose, and that it will not apply for grants without a major non-religious public benefit. Of course, Life Perspectives would not admit to any wrongdoing . . .
“If the group was aware of that prohibition and disregarded it, it arguably committed fraud.”
This is an area I find particularly interesting. I’d like to know to what extent Horn’s office helped them craft the grant application. Horn has had a history of stepping deep into the gray area of church and state. And considering he’s sponsored it for several years (records indicate he even had a team walk in the event) it’s hard to believe he didn’t know.
If the county doesn’t pursue a return of the funds, then the question is what the ACLU will do.