Declaring that "there is a force for good greater than government," President Barack Obama on Thursday established a White House office of faith-based initiatives with a broader mission than the one overseen by his Republican predecessor.Obama said the new office, which he created by executive order, would reach out to organizations that provide help "no matter their religious or political beliefs."
...Before signing the order at the White House, Obama told the annual National Prayer Breakfast that the program would not show favoritism to any religious group and would adhere to a strict separation of church and state.
Ever since Bush initiated this, I still don't see how a government program to support religious nonprofits adheres to a strict separation of church and state.
4 comments
"The Consitution may not be a perfect document but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now." I'm not sure who said that first but there is some truth to it.
I don't think you can truly get separation of church and state, but President Obama has at least opened the door to religions other than Christianity. Under Bush's version if you weren't Christian you got zilch!
It's not hard at all to have a seperation of church and state as long as you can tell religious people they will get no special treatment. If they can't live with that they can'tbe part of the program. If you want to discriminate against homosexuals you do whatever you like on your own but there is no government funding. I don't really care if they let more religions in or not. Buddhist or whatever, abide by all laws or you're out. And while I'm at it I'll say what a great idea it would be for religious institutions and people to pay taxes.
Sorry to chime in so late. The Rev. Danny Fisher posted part of Robert Thurman's response to this issue HERE.I agree with Thurman. If religious groups wish to provide things such as medical care, food, education or shelter to people in need, I don't see a huge problem with providing government financial assistance.But if these groups are proselytizing, I don't like it. For example, say, to get a meal you have to hear a religious lecture, or you are subjected to a "pitch" for one particular group and its politics. I have a big problem with taxpayers providing funding for that sort of thing. It reminds me of those "free weekend vacations" where you get to stay at a great condo resort, but you have to sit through endless sales presentations to get the good stuff. There's no such thing as a free lunch!I have known people who are very religious AND work to serve a community in need. These people would accept government assistance ONLY if there were no other way to keep a charity program afloat. These are the kinds of "religious" charities worthy of taxpayer support, IMO -- and they're the ones least likely to accept government money.On another level, I am surprised that no Nichiren practitioners have mentioned Nichiren's extreme distrust of state institutions. If Nichiren groups were ever to take government handouts, I'd think he'd be dismayed.Of course, Nichiren groups -- as religions -- have tax-exempt status. To clownhidden's point, I think it's OK for religions to be tax-exempt as long as they do not seek government grants or involve themselves in politics....But then, Nichiren Buddhism is very political (Rissho Ankoku Ron) -- so...pffft. That's where my train of thought fizzles out.