Comments on: systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state

systematically eliminated or weakened rules designed to enforce the separation of church and state

amberglow — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:35:58 -0800

The herders of this remote mountain village know little about America, but have learned from those who run a US-funded aid program about the American God. A Christian God. ...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:37:48 -0800

and from there: ...The numbers also show that the faith-based initiative overseas is almost exclusively a Christian initiative: Only two Jewish development groups and two Muslim groups of any type got any grants or contracts between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2005, and Christians received 98.3 percent of all such funds to religious groups from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2005. ...

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:40:04 -0800

Old news. In other news, mainline liberal churches in the northeast are getting the majority of the Faith Based Initiative monies, much to the annoyance of the Family Research Council. Natch that, you bushie twatted arses!

By: dios

dios — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:44:35 -0800

Oh goody! This again. Last time we talked about this, people made the argument, rejected by the Supreme Court, that this violates the Constitution. Are we going to have that discussion again?

By: SBMike

SBMike — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:44:54 -0800

Hey, this is great! All those isolated people finally hearing the word of God. Maybe they can burn all their cultural artifacts to get rid of their pagan past. That would really make God smile.

By: freebird

freebird — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:47:39 -0800

Well, I guess if the Supreme Court says so it must be true.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:48:16 -0800

It's not the fault of Christians that Jews and Muslims don't eat pork.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:49:39 -0800

The other point to make is that most Christian groups are willing to go for government funding for overseas aid. Whereas the vast majority of groups helping people overseas wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten-foot pole. Muslim orgs like Islamic Relief does wonders without ever getting gov funding, like Christian Peacemaker Teams, who were villified after going to Gaza and Iraq. Also, Americans always overestimate how much aid we are giving overseas. The real number is something like 0.07 per cent of GDP and the majority of that goes to fund arms deals with our 'allies'. That's the real thing that should be getting outcry.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:51:36 -0800

The other point to make is that most Christian groups are willing to go for government funding for overseas aid. SCRATCH THAT! Meant to say that it is mostly Christian groups willing to go for government funding for overseas aid.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:54:11 -0800

Now we have known that you don't need to struggle to please God. makes me wonder what kind of religion they're teaching to these people

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:02:02 -0800

Remember when Republicans stood for smaller, less-intrusive government? Now w.r.t. Democrats it's more a matter of degree than of kind.

By: ewkpates

ewkpates — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:13:03 -0800

Perhaps third world countries need to progress to the next level of religous thought. Maybe this is helping them. They aren't at a level where secular government is a battlefield. They are pouring milk in the river.

By: SBMike

SBMike — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:28:56 -0800

Perhaps ~~third~~ first world countries need to progress to the next level of religious thought. What's helping these people is the roofs over their heads and the food brought by these groups. The religious message isn't helping them at all.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:38:38 -0800

Remember when Republicans stood for smaller, less-intrusive government? The fucking slime, they were just waiting to get into power to implement all their private plans. Really unforgivable.

By: Mental Wimp

Mental Wimp — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:10:03 -0800

Are we then Christo-imperialists?

By: ahimsakid

ahimsakid — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:11:59 -0800

Great post Amberglow. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all this money being directed to the administration's "base," is just another form of graft? Where is the big bucks grant for the good works of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster??

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:16:15 -0800

“The real number is something like 0.07 per cent of GDP and the majority of that goes to fund arms deals with our 'allies'. That's the real thing that should be getting outcry.” -posted by parmanparman So...you’re saying God isn’t an American? What’s with all the kids named Jesus then?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:18:15 -0800

they're mexicans

By: the Real Dan

the Real Dan — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:37:56 -0800

"God is an American", sang David Bowie.

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:56:46 -0800

That is one godDAMN scary photo. This article dovetails really nicely w/ the current business section of the NY Times' 4-part special, too. Jesus loves a tax break. God DAMN IT! Is anyone else bothered by the fact that all this money being directed to the administration's "base," is just another form of graft? ARGH!!!!!!! Motherfucking YES I"M FUCKING BOTHERED BY IT!

By: rough ashlar

rough ashlar — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:11:57 -0800

Remember when Republicans stood for smaller, less-intrusive government? posted by ZenMasterThis at 10:02 AM PST I remember when that was claimed and alot of people believed it. But now the GOP isn't using that mantra much as its harder to believe now.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:26:40 -0800

Last time we talked about this, people made the argument, rejected by the Supreme Court, that this violates the Constitution. Umm, dios... A law might be "facially neutral" with respect to its constitutionality, but may be blatantly unconstitutional in how it is implemented or enforced.

By: bardic

bardic — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:46 -0800

I dunno. In the short term this stuff really bothers me. But in the long term, churches are going to become more obviosly the businesses that they are and always have been. Fine. Socialism, I mean, "faith-based initiatives" are the new thing. Just get rid of their tax-exempt status so we can make this lunacy as transparent as possible.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:17:11 -0800

Are we going to have that discussion again? The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. -- Eccl. 1:9, KJV

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:28:24 -0800

You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb, and this may cost me my "lefty" card, but I could care less if a group wants to feed the hungry and also wants to spread a message about "salvation" just so long as the feeding part does not require the listening part. I didn't find anything in that article that lead me to believe that the recipients of the aid were required to participate in the religious ceremonies only that they were offered in addition to the aid. I'm for feeding hungry people. I'm also in favor of people having the right to speak freely and to freely practice whatever religion they want. So long as the aid money goes to legitimate relief efforts, I could care less if the people delivering the aid are Christians, Jews or Scientologists.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:00:44 -0800

so long as the feeding part does not require the listening part. I didn't find anything in that article that lead me to believe that the recipients of the aid were required to participate in the religious ceremonies only that they were offered in addition to the aid. Actually, that is in the article. And there's no oversight on whether any of these groups are requiring participation or not in the prayer and attempted conversion before giving aid or food or whatever it is.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:24:37 -0800

Christians received 98.3 percent of all such funds to religious groups "Such funds" being government monies earmarked for donation to third-world charities? 'cause if that's the case, it's little wonder they get most of the money. They likely outnumber others by 100-to-1.

By: owhydididoit

owhydididoit — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:58:55 -0800

I don't see a way around some religious groups trying to evangelize, but it should be secondary to delivering tangible aid, and participation should be entirely voluntary, and compliance with both conditions should be subject to scrutiny.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:41:02 -0800

Considering that about a third of US foreign aid goes to Israel, this should lead to a substantial decrease in the number of practicing Jews on the planet.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:52:52 -0800

from Olbermann last night: ...It wasn't just discrimination against non-Christian charities. (One official who rated grant applications told Kuo, " when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero…a lot of us did. ") ...

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:04:18 -0800

K, that's much worse. Welcome to Bureaucracy Theocracy.

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:32:18 -0800

You know, Republicans always claimed that more government was bad. They're just trying to prove it, is all.

By: Deathalicious

Deathalicious — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:36:02 -0800

Pollomacho, I'm with you most of the way. Some of the better NGOs, such as World Vision and Save the Children are, I believe, faith-based, Christian organizations. But I wonder, I really do. I remember watching the 700 club and seeing Pat Robertson flat out say that saving souls was more important than feeding people. I don't want those kind of people getting government money.