Missing COVID Relief, A Church Bailout and Atheists for Liberty

In this episode Doug talks about the recent covid-19 relief bill passed in Congress and how for the 4th time Republicans got their own way. Then he talks about a federal bail out of churches using our tax dollars and finally he takes a look at a new conservative group by and for atheists.

Show Notes

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Missing COVID Relief

SPEAKER_01 0:00

In this episode, I talk about the recent COVID-19 relief bill passed in Congress and how for the fourth time Republicans got their own way. Then I talk about a federal bailout of churches using our tax dollars. And finally, I take a look at a new conservative group by and for atheists. I'm Doug Berger, and this is Secular Left. Congress returned to DC on Thursday, April the 23rd to vote on another massive COVID-19 relief bill. The price tag this time is close to $500 billion. While it included more money for small businesses and some relief for hospitals and more funding for testing, there still hasn't been any real relief for workers and the average person, such as rent assistance and more food stamp funding. It also doesn't provide money for additional election security or the U.S. Postal Service. There is also no help for the states who actually need funding since most have taken a huge hit because their main source of income are sales and use taxes. Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez from New York spoke out against it.

SPEAKER_02 1:35

It is a joke. And we have to fight to fund hospitals, fighting to fund testing. That is what we're fighting for in this bill. It is unconscionable. If you had urgency, you would legislate like rent was due on May 1st and make sure that we include rent and mortgage relief for our constituents. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER_01 2:08

As Democracy Now pointed out, the GOP got what they wanted, and progressives were left out again for the most part. There might be another relief bill in the future, which has been promised to address the outstanding issues, but Senator Moscow Mitch McConnell has started to indicate that his party has no interest in bailing out blue states. You know, the same states that pay far more into the federal government than they get in return? McConnell should know because his home state of Kentucky gets back far more than what they pay in. Governor Cuomo of New York questioned the intelligence of McConnell in suggesting states just needed to declare bankruptcy.

SPEAKER_00 2:49

This is one of the really dumb ideas of all time. Because I don't believe they want to fund state and local governments. They want to fund small business, fund the airlines, I understand that. But state and local government funds police and fire and teachers and schools. How do you not fund police and fire and teachers and schools in the midst of this crisis? And not to suggest we're concerned about the economy. State should declare bankruptcy? That's how you're going to bring this national economy back? By states declaring bankruptcy? You want to see that market fall through the cellar? Let New York State declare bankruptcy. Let Michigan declare bankruptcy. Let Illinois declare bankruptcy. Let California declare bankruptcy. So just dumb. What he's saying is if you look at the states that have coronavirus problems, they tend to be democratic states. New York, California, Michigan, Illinois, they are democratic states. So if you fund states that are suffering from the coronavirus, they're democratic states. Don't help New York State because it is a democratic state. How ugly a thought. I mean just think of just think of what he's saying. People died. So why should we help them?

SPEAKER_01 5:12

Then later, during the question and answer period of his press conference, he said, let me just go back to my self-proclaimed grim representative McConnell for another second.

SPEAKER_00 5:23

He represents the state of Kentucky, okay? When it comes to fairness, uh New York State puts much more money into the federal pot than it takes out. At the end of the year, we put in to that federal pot $116 billion more than we take out. He's distributing the federal pot of money. New York puts in more money to the federal pot than it takes out. His state takes out more than it puts in. Senator McConnell, who's getting bailed out here? It's your state that is living on the money that we generate. Not my state.

SPEAKER_01 6:41

We've been down the street many, many times. Democrats work with the GOP, give them what they want, and accept a promise to return the favor on a future bill. And it almost never happens. We saw it with the Affordable Care Act. It was a Republican framework, and the Obama administration, wanting to win, accepted a less than great plan. Like it didn't, it set aside universal health care and it decided not to end the profit for profit health insurance companies. In many press conferences during that time period, all the people in Congress promised to fix the act in future bills. We were always told, well, this is just a step. We're going to get there. And it has not happened yet. The only thing that they've ever fixed about the Affordable Care Act so far is they removed a tax on medical devices and they fixed the payments that went to the doctors. That's it. People still are at the mercy of the health insurance industry, and you have a current administration that refuses to lift a finger to make the Affordable Care Act better. Democratic members in the Senate and the House seem to still not get it. The GOP can't be trusted. They are the ones that let Trump off the impeachment hook and allow him to put people in danger with his wild pronouncements on health topics during his daily COVID-19 campaign rallies. I applaud Governor Cuomo for offering up the facts on who is getting bailed out and who isn't. I hope the Democrats put McConnell's feet to the fire for the next bill, but I won't bet any money on that. I'm afraid it will be more of the same. In our next segment, we look at the serious side effect of the COVID-19 relief bill, a potential massive taxpayer bailout of churches. This is Secular Left.

Federal church bail out

SPEAKER_01 8:44

While we are talking about the COVID-19 bill that was passed on Thursday, April the 23rd, I should note that the small business loans as part of the Paycheck Protection Program doesn't include any restrictions on who can apply for the money. That's why there was such a big deal when some national chains like Shake Shack and Ruth Chris Steakhouse were able to drain millions from the program intended for actual small businesses. You know, like the t-shirt printer down the street or the corner carryout. That's why the program funding ran out so quickly, and the additional funding was in the bill passed on the 23rd. That bill also doesn't include any restrictions on who gets the money, and the administrator, the small business administration, is removing rules that prevent churches from getting the loans. Of course, this raised the hackles of American atheists. Congress must include these First Amendment protections in any future stimulus bills, particularly after the Small Business Administration weakened its own regulations, allowing the original $350 billion in stimulus money to fund religious worship, said Alison Gill, Vice President for Legal and Policy at American Atheists. Long-standing SBA regulations had prevented, quote, businesses principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling, or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious or secular setting, unquote, from receiving business or economic disaster loans. However, with its guidance on the paycheck protection program from the CARES Act, SBA suddenly indicated in early April that it would decline to enforce these subsections. If the SBA won't do its job and protect the Constitution, Congress must finally step in, said Nick Fish, president of American Atheists. Congress is rushing to replenish paycheck protection program funds after countless businesses were unable to access these loans to preserve jobs. What we don't know is how many well-heeled megachurches were able to secure government money to pay their pastor's salary, while small businesses were left out in the cold. I look deeper into this issue, and American atheists are right on the money, as it were. According to an FAQ from the SBA, under number one, are faith-based organizations, including Houses of Worship, eligible to receive SBA loans under the PPP and EIDL programs? They say yes. And we additionally clarify that faith-based organizations are eligible to receive SBA loans regardless of whether they provide secular social services. That is, no otherwise eligible organization will be disqualified from receiving a loan because of the religious nature, religious identity, or religious speech of the organization. The requirements in certain SBA regulations, such as 13CFR, 120.110K, and 123.301G, impermissibly exclude some religious entities. Because those regulations bar the participation of a class of potential recipients based solely on their religious status, SBA will decline to enforce these subsections and will propose amendments to conform those regulations to the Constitution. Although 13CAFR 120.110A states that nonprofit entities are ineligible for SBA business loans, which includes the PPP program, the CARES Act explicitly makes nonprofit entities eligible for the PPP program, and it does so without regard to whether nonprofit entities provide secular social services. So this to sum up, the text of the FAQ also indicates that it would approve loans for Catholic churches, even though the Roman Catholic Church has billions of dollars they could provide to needy church to needy parishes. And also note how the SBA decided that the normal rule prohibiting churches from getting loans was, quote, impermissible, unquote. This isn't surprising because the Trump administration has tried to give tax dollars to churches, like after Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2017. FEMA even changed a rule in 2018 that said churches couldn't get aid at all. Now they can if they provide a covered service, like storing disaster aid or serving as a shelter, as many churches do around the country. The SBA rule for the payroll protection program goes too far. It could be used directly on activities like worship services by paying for ministers or priests. Churches being ineligible for tax dollars to fund their religious activities is based on the trade-off that they don't pay taxes. Not getting subsidized by the state also protects the independence of the church. Many of these churches want the free money and they still want to discriminate in hiring and who they marry. Why do they get special treatment? I stand with American atheists on this issue. And in our final segment, I talk about a different kind of atheist. This is Secular Left. There

Atheists for Liberty

SPEAKER_01 14:24

is a new conservative group that formed recently that is run by atheists. They call themselves Atheists for Liberty. But if you look closer, you find a group that is based on rehashed typical conservative talking points that rails against social justice issues it claims is harming America and is filled with misogynistic white men. They claim their mission is that Atheists for Liberty is an educational nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting for and sustaining individual rights and the separation of religion and government. They say that they work to defend the fundamental freedoms that support the human quest for knowledge. And they also go along and they list in another part of their website their values that they subscribe to in bullet points. And they include individual liberty, religious freedom, a free exchange of ideas, the constitution, and secular government. And you will find that like many mashups of atheism and libertarianism, they also had this classic libertarian view that they had listed under the value secular government. They wrote, government should not quote, pick winners and losers, unquote, whether it's in business or religion. Normally you see that in just purely political groups, and so that tells you some things. He's listed as the president and the founder, and he has a nice resume of excellent conservative groups like College Republicans and Turning Point USA. His claim to fame was that he admitted he lied about supporting social justice issues back when he was a leader of another atheist group that was not a political group. And he is proud to be out of the closet now. So basically, he was a he wanted to be a jerk, but because he was a leader, he felt he couldn't be, but now he's free to be one. Another member of the group is Michael Trollin. And he's listed as the chairman of the board. And for leading a group that's all about free exchange of ideas, he makes his Twitter feed private, which means that unless you ask to see it, you won't see it. And he's also done an interview um back in 2018 where the topic was about complaining about um uh identity politics. And that's also known as those mean women when guys like him start talking about stuff like that. Another member of the board of atheists for liberty is Dr. Michael Schirmer. He is one of the advisors, and he is the founder of Skeptic Magazine. He has been accused of being inappropriate with a number of women, and he recently has said that the Nazis, these are the World War II Nazis in Germany, were actually left-wing people. Which is just disheartening that somebody who claims to be a let leader in the skeptic community would think that Nazis were left-wing. And then finally, also listed on their website as an advisor is Dr. Peter Burgrosian. I probably mispronounced the name. Um, he is a full-time faculty member in the Department of Philosophy at Portland State University. His claim to fame was conducting an experiment without getting prior approval from his college, and he used uh inappropriate methods. And it was all part of his attempt to discredit gender studies. So that tells you what kind of a man he is. He does not like gender studies. I also want to note, too, at this time, that on the Atheist for Liberty website, under the individual liberty value they write, regardless of race, creed, color, or political beliefs, we are all naturally free people. Free to think, speak, feel, believe, and act any way we choose, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' liberties. Notice what's missing? Sex. Most times when we see a section, a non-discrimination section similar to that written, it's written usually as regardless of race, sex, creed, color, or political beliefs. But they left out sex. So there you go. There's another red flag for this group. So they would actually be more welcoming of a Christian than a woman or a transgendered woman. Then recently, and the reason why I'm even talking about this group, um, I knew that they had formed recently, and I checked them out earlier, and that pretty much I knew what it was going to be about. But then I had a friend of mine share a meme that had been put out on the Atheist for Liberty's social media platforms. And it was a picture of Peter Burgrosian with a quote of his where he says, and he and he and it's quoted, as social justice creeps into everything and rewrites it with illiberalism, accusations, unfairness, and conspicuous refusal to have a reasoned conversation about anything it proposes, we put ourselves and our societies at tremendous risk of losing the norms civil society needs to function. We must stand up to social justice ideology. We must fight. Just wow. There's just so much to unpack from that quote. A typical uh conservative view of social justice is to say it will disrupt the natural order of things. And usually by that they mean that men are at the top of the food chain, women are basically tolerated, and forget about the rest of the marginalized groups. Um that's usually what they're talking about when they're talking about uh uh the norms of civil society. You know, back in the old days when when men were men and a woman was a cigar or whatever, however the saying goes. So that's another red flag. All social justice means is that everyone is treated equally, or at least we try to treat everyone fairly and equitably, which I thought is one of the values Atheists for Liberty claims to hold. They say everybody's equal, right? All have equal rights. If you support individual liberty, then it follows one should support steps taken to reduce income inequality and racism. These guys also want to discuss things, like wondering if a woman should be equal or not, or groped without consent, is something that needs to be debated constantly. We can debate how we will reduce racism or sexism or reduce income inequality, but we shouldn't be debating if sexism is wrong. That ship sh sailed a long time ago, just like using the N-word has been wrong for many, many years. I also disagree with their take on the First Amendment. That amendment protects speech from the government, not private locations. The First Amendment also doesn't protect you from pushback for what you say. These guys, and many more like them, think that they should be able to say what they want and we just go, oh, okay. Whatever. They don't believe, they they think that we are uh infringing on their First Amendment rights if we get into an argument with them or if we cancel their speaking engagement because they're going to cause uh a riot. And many of these guys, like especially like Dr. Shermer and uh Dr. Burgosian, they have their careers. They they have not lost anything just because they can't use the N-word in public if they want. What really needs to be debated is how these men take advantage of the privilege afforded to them to get where they are, and someone who isn't a white cis man doesn't seem to deserve the same opportunities. Who made the men the winners? Who made them the winners? Other men. It's this simple. Yes, some atheists can be assholes. Atheism doesn't make one a better thinker or a better person. It can help you formulate how to come to conclusions, but if your conclusions are full of shit, atheism won't cover that up. I should also note that I attempted to get someone from the group for an interview, not just for this podcast, but for another podcast that I work on, so that I could get their side of what it is that they're fighting for and to ask them some of these questions that I'm talking about here. But for a group demanding a free exchange of ideas, they didn't want to exchange them with me. No one ever got back to me. I never got a no, nothing. They just never returned my emails or I even filled out their contact form. But my offer is still open. If one of them wants to be interviewed for this podcast, just send me a note and we'll do it. And that way then I can actually ask you some questions. Thank you for listening to this episode. You can check out more information, including links used in the show, in our notes page on our website, secularleft.us. Secular Left is hosted, written, and produced by Doug Berger, and he is entirely responsible for the content. Send us your comments and complaints using the contact form on our website or by email to comment at secularleft.us. Our theme music is Raving Energy by Kevin McLeod from filmmusic.io and licensed under Creative Commons using Attribution 4.0 International. See you next time.