Removing the barriers between church and state.

Also that the secular organizations are set up with employess who are trained in the field. The point is that this is just shifting the social programs over to faith based -- it isn't doing away with government programs to aid the needy as it will not deter any cost of the bureaucracy other than some wild theory. It will add other administrative problems that it seems difficult for some to recognize.

Lightwizard - Who claimed that this would reduce bureaucracy?

Nobody claimed it will -- I see it increasing the bureaucracy and the intanglement of the government with all sorts of religions, including rather dubious sects like Scientology. Their program for addicts and alcholics, for instance, is based on their philosophy and I don't see anyway that can be prevented. What administrative processes and policy in the churches, temples, et al, will go into place to hire people qualified to handle non-sectarian counseling in alcoholism and addiction for instance. AA used church facilities for meetings for which they pay rent (they insist on it) and the Methodists actually encourage gay and lesbian AA meetings at their premises. There's going to be no bias in the Souther Babtist church? Give me a break.

There are a lot of Religious groups that have already said they would not be trying for any faith based money because they will not open up their books.

The scheme that I foresee happening is organizations will open new entities to handle faith based grant monies. They will then make charges from the parent organization for various expenditures to "kick" money on up - therefore, keeping open bookkeeping and audits away from the arena they do not want touched or open to public eyes.

LW - You wrote:

From this I inferred you were challenging the notion that it would "deter" cost of the bureaucracy" as you seem to suggest "some wild theory" claimed it would.

Further, your latest comments seem to suggest that Bush's faith-based initiative will have churches undertaking new activities other than those in which they currently engage. This is possible of course, but it is neither a given, nor likely in most cases.

The point here is to end the exclusion of these organizations based on their religious affiliation, nothing more. As I stated before, I see this as no different than allowing a religious individual to compete for government grants. My question remains unanswered:

Would you deny a government grant to an individual simply because he or she was a member of a religion? If not, how then do we justify denying federal funds to a group of people for that reason?

Many people seem to miss the point that we only run up against a Constitutional problem if we favor one religion over others. If the government treats all religions equally, the Constitution is unharmed. In fact, I think you can make a compelling argument that taking a stance for complete disassociation of the government from any religious group is tantamount to establishing a government religion, which is precisely what the Constitution forbids.

Consider this: Why did the founders want to bar the federal government from the establishment of a state religion?

Answer: Because establishing a state religion limits the access of all other religions to the benefits of government, relegating all other religions to a secondary status.

Well, by attempting to have a complete separation of church and state the government effectively places all religions into that secondary status, but does so without actually espousing a religion of its own. We end up harming religions in exactly the way the Constitution seeks to avoid harming them, effectively incurring all of the negative consequences of a federally "established" religion, but without actually establishing one.

Something I have never understood; If church and state, are alledgedly separated, why don't churches have to pay taxes? Sounds pretty respectful to me.

Taxes is of the government - they are separate so the church isn't suppose to establish the government (yeah, right) and the government isn't suppose to tax the church.

Setanta - You seem to be misconstruing much of what I wrote. My account of the woman who lost her job was spot-on, and I clearly wrote that SOME positions within a faith-based organization might reasonably require a person of that faith, but that a position operating with federal funds likely would not.

I did read the section you quoted. What the author does not make clear and the detail you seem to have missed is that the law allows faith-based organizations to take faith into account in hiring, but which hiring? All hiring, or only hiring for positions where a person of the faith is required? This detail is glossed over by an author who clearly wants to present the faith-based initiative in the worst possible light.

I would encourage you to go back an reread what I wrote, as you seem to have missed my point in more than one way.

I often wondered about that Booman. The answer came from fishin', I believe - that churches are nonprofits, and exempt from taxation on that basis, not religious. It sounds plausible to me.

And yet, the church is protected by the army, and police forces. their trash is picked up by the municipality, etc.,etc.,...... 'splain dat Bill.

I had posted this link under "politics", but I think that it would be appropriate here too. It is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. It is an advocacy group which supports the idea of the government staying out of the business of religion. The thing that I find so fascinating, is that many of the supporters of the group are clergy, and various religious groups:

Link to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State

booman, Protection is umbrella, trash is utility. The military defends the border, the police protects the municipality and they pay for trash unless they are specifically exempted. The Salvation Army has the same status as the church in these regards. There are differences between the two-

BTW, I take no absolute stand on this issue as I am divided. The part I want to see is equality, how will they be protected. Government is and always has been associated with one group being more equal than others (usually in relationship to money, power, ideology). I abhor this, especially with the suggestion of this policy coming from an administration that is so caught up in deference!

Oh....so that's why they're exempt from taxes. Thanks for clearing that up.

booman, I added to my response. Also, these aren't the only reason - in effect, they are also a charity. There are church related organizations that lose their tax exempt status, BTW.

booman, Roger also brought up on the bottom of the previous page that Setanta said they are non profits - this is also true. It is hard to tax something that makes nothing. Obviously, this isn't allowed in the code when it for tax evasive purposes.

I see where you're coming from Bill. (No sarcasm this time )

I think that it is clear. If you are a religious organization religious discrimination is acceptable. Even when tax supported.
I can understand that if one is dealing with church business. However the tax dollars are supposedly for secular pursuits such as shelter, food and etc. Why should religion of the care giver be considered? Because along with the services comes a bit of proselytizing. I say not on my tax dollar.

au, it would never pass constitutional muster, just like we will never see the SCOTUS cross State Rights in regards to legitimate voting in that state!

AU1929 pretty clear to me