Separation of Church and State

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Separation of Church and State
21
Fri, 08-06-2004 - 5:15pm
I can't remember where, but this was an issue buried in another thread. This is an interesting article that appeared in the Seattle Times yesterday. The assistant professor makes some interesting points.

Published on Thursday, August 5, 2004 by the Seattle Times

Mixing Church and State can Damage Both

by James Wellman



A week into the U.S. war in Iraq, I walked by a Baptist church covered in pro-war placards, one of which proclaimed: "Jesus, The Supreme Commander." That sign unintentionally summed up the actual situation: Never before in our nation's modern history has the White House so thoroughly mixed politics and religion.

President Bush does this by proposing that social problems can be ameliorated most efficiently through organizations that are faith-based. And that America's task in the world is to spread freedom because liberty "is God's gift to humanity."

In both cases, the rationale for action is God and faith. Why is this a problem? It poses serious risks not only for democracy and sound policy, but for the very religious groups that tend to be the most enthusiastic audience.

One of the remarkable cultural facts of the 20th century is that American evangelicals won the religious competition. We now know that one-third of adult Americans — more than 50 million — claim a born-again status. Nearly a majority of American Christians can be broadly called evangelical.

But what is more remarkable is that more than three out of every four white evangelicals voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 election. As has been widely reported, Bush political counselor Karl Rove thinks that Bush can win the White House in 2004 with white evangelicals alone. They are the new Protestant establishment. Their religion is the new American civil religion.

So why might Bush's policies, in the long run, be counter to their interests? The starkest reason is that Bush has subtly made his faith (a Christian evangelical Methodism) the center of his domestic and foreign decisions. And the relation of religion and the state has a bloody history. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then mixing religion in merely glorifies this corruption.

Is it possible to name one empire or government which, partnered with religion, did not end by using religion to rationalize human suffering or human-rights abuses? One simply needs to think of the Mesopotamians, the Christian Crusades, and various Islamic regimes. Also, observe state Buddhism in medieval and early modern China and Japan.

The partnership of religion and the state is an equation for tragedy not just for enemies of the state but for the religion that is the state's partner.

Domestically, when the federal government funds religious organizations to do social service, they become arms of the state. They give up their independence and compromise their ability to fulfill their specific charitable missions.

When foreign actions are sanctioned, however subtly, on the dubious idea that a liberal democracy is a gift from God and that somehow the United States should be an instrument of that gift, where will our gift-giving end? Who will end it? Religion says that God is in charge; democracies say that the people rule. Who will adjudicate this debate?

Bush proclaimed after 9/11 that it is the U.S.'s calling, led by his sense of moral leadership, to rid the world of evil. How can we decide who and what is evil? Moreover, what makes us think that we can rid the world of evil? This injection of black-white thinking into the international sphere has created more enemies than it has overcome and alienated friends as well.

Again, where does Bush get his calling? It seems he gains it from his own prophetic sense of authority. This kind of religious charisma trumps normal political debate and veers toward the very mixture of state and religious power our Founding Fathers tried to prevent.

Many evangelicals outside the country have expressed concern at the arrogance of the U.S. role in the world; neither do they believe that it is helpful to their Christian cause. Even U.S. international missionaries feel that their cause and their safety are compromised by the melding of religion and politics in Bush's foreign policy.

There is no doubt that Bush's rhetoric of fighting evil and of overcoming evildoers with democracy and freedom is a potent rhetorical brew that appeals to the central cords of evangelical theology. Nonetheless, evangelicals should refuse to be co-opted by Bush and his team. For their Lord said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

When religious people begin to believe that they are the kingdom, this is the beginning of the end.

James Wellman is an assistant professor of comparative religion at the University of Washington's Jackson School of International Studies.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-08.htm



Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 5:21am

I first read this article early last month, July, when it came out. The issue contained several interesting articles about Jefferson.


Recently there's been much discussion & various opinions on the separation of church & state. This article makes the case for separation & puts the Creator in context.


God Of Our Fathers.
Jefferson's spiritual beliefs were vague, but one thing is clear: he wanted to keep religion and politics separate.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/subscriber/0,10987,1101040705-658322,00.html


Whenever an argument arises about the role that religion should play in our civic life, such as the dispute over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or the display of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse, assertions about the faith of the founders are invariably bandied about. It's a wonderfully healthy debate because it causes folks to wrestle with the founders and, in the process, shows how the founders wrestled with religion.


The only direct reference to God in the Declaration of Independence comes in the first paragraph, in which Thomas Jefferson and his fellow drafters of that document — including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams — invoke the "laws of nature and of nature's god." (The absence of capitalization was the way Jefferson wrote it, though the final parchment capitalizes all four nouns.) The phrase "nature's god" reflected Jefferson's deism — his rather vague Enlightenment-era belief, which he shared with Franklin, in a Creator whose divine handiwork is evident in the wonders of nature. Deists like Jefferson did not believe in a personal God who interceded directly in the daily affairs of mankind.


In his first rough draft of the Declaration, Jefferson began his famous second paragraph: "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable ..." The draft shows Franklin's heavy printer's pen crossing out the phrase with backslashes and changing it to "We hold these truths to be self-evident." Our rights derive from nature and are secured "by the consent of the governed," Franklin felt, not by the dictates or dogmas of any particular religion. Later in that same sentence, however, we see what was likely the influence of Adams, a more doctrinaire product of Puritan Massachusetts. In his rough draft, Jefferson had written, after noting that all men are created equal, "that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable." By the time the committee and then Congress finished, the phrase had been changed to "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." For those of us who have toiled as editors, it is wonderful to watch how ideas can be balanced and sharpened through the editing process (and also how even giants have trouble knowing whether the word is inalienable or unalienable). The final version of the sentence weaves together a respect for the role of the Almighty Creator with a belief in reason and rationality.

The only other religious reference in the Declaration comes in the last sentence, which notes the signers' "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." Most of the founders subscribed to the concept of Providence, but they interpreted it in different ways. Jefferson believed in a rather nebulous sense of "general Providence," the principle that the Creator has a benevolent interest in mankind. Others, most notably those who followed in the Puritan footsteps of Cotton Mather, had faith in a more specific doctrine, sometimes called "special Providence," which held that God has a direct involvement in human lives and intervenes based on personal prayer.

In any event, that phrase was not in Jefferson's original draft or the version as edited by Franklin and Adams. Instead, it was added by Congress at the last minute. Like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, it got tucked into a resounding peroration and somewhat broke up the rhythm: "... for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

In the Constitution, the Almighty barely makes an appearance, except in the context of noting that it was written in "the Year of our Lord" 1787. (Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time, so he missed the convention.) The one clear proclamation on the issue of religion in the founding documents is, of course, the First Amendment. It prohibits the establishment of a state religion or any government interference in how people freely exercise their beliefs. It was Jefferson, the original spirit behind the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, who emphasized that this amounted to a wall between two realms. "I contemplate with sovereign reverence," he wrote after becoming President, "that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church & State."

Colonial America had seen its share of religious battles, in which arcane theological disputes like the one over antinomianism caused Puritans to be banished from Massachusetts and have to go establish colonies like Rhode Island. The founders, however, were careful in their debates and seminal documents to avoid using God as a political wedge issue or a cause of civic disputes. Indeed, that would have appalled them. Instead they embraced a vague civic religion that invoked a depersonalized deity that most people could accept. "Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved," Jefferson once wrote. "I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker, in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." So it is difficult to know exactly what the founders would have felt about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or about displaying the Ten Commandments. It is probable, however, that they would have disapproved of people on either side who used the Lord's name or the Ten Commandments as a way to divide Americans rather than as a way to unite them.

Walter Isaacson is president of the Aspen Institute. His most recent book is Benjamin Franklin: An American Life

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 6:10am

"This injection of black-white thinking into the international sphere has created more enemies than it has overcome and alienated friends as well."


True. Things are rarely only black or white.


"Again, where does Bush get his calling?"


From a twelve step program? ;)


"It seems he gains it from his own prophetic sense of authority. This kind of religious charisma trumps normal political debate and veers toward the very mixture of state and religious power our Founding Fathers tried to prevent."


IMO one's religious/spiritual beliefs SB private, a

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 7:35am

Well alleluiah & pass the collection plate!


The Right Rev. George W. Bush
Among the worshippers at the president's traveling revival show.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2104842/


COLUMBUS, Ohio—"I feel like a talk-show host," President Bush says midway through Thursday's first campaign event. He's standing next to a stool and a lectern, and he paces in circles to address the audience seated on all sides around him. Even from a distance, I can see why Bush charmed the press corps during his 2000 campaign. He's likable, winning, and self-deprecating. He's also quick on his feet, not with an instant recall of statistics but with snappy retorts that break up the room. This event was billed as an "Ask President Bush" forum, and although there didn't turn out to be much time for questions, from the outset the intimate setting made it more interactive than a typical presidential visit.


The president didn't get it quite right when he called himself a talk-show host. He opens more in the vein of a revival-tent preacher, albeit a subdued one, and he concludes as a standup comic. "I think you have to ask for the vote," Bush says near the beginning, as he always does. "You got it!" yells someone, the first of many call-and-response moments. Then Bush segues into something that sounds more like a sermon than a stump speech.


"All of you are soldiers in the army of compassion," the clergyman-in-chief tells the crowd. "And one of the reasons I'm seeking the office for four more years is to call upon our citizens to love your neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself." After his usual endorsement of the Golden Rule, Bush speaks of souls, which also isn't unusual for him: "We can change America one soul at a time by encouraging people to spread something government cannot spread, which is love."


Bush goes on to talk about his desire to have the government fund more faith-based initiatives. "If you're an addict, if you're hooked on drugs or alcohol, sometimes government counseling can work. But sometimes it requires a change of heart in order to change habit," he says. "There are people who are empowered to change hearts in our society. Not by government, by a higher calling, and therefore government ought to welcome these words of compassion and healing."


Bush isn't a fire-and-brimstone preacher, talking about sinners in the hands of an angry God. He's a hippie priest, emphasizing the Christian message of brotherly love. I can almost hear the guitars and tambourines. He says, "I know we can change America for the better by calling on those who are change agents, those who are willing to put our arm around someone who needs love and say, 'I love you, brother. I love you, sister. What can I do to help you have a better life here in America?'"


From there, Bush becomes a teacher, imparting "the lessons of September the 11th, 2001." "We'll never forget!" a man seated among the firefighters calls out. Bush's Lesson 1: "We're facing an enemy which has no heart, no compassion. And that puts them at an advantage in a way, because we're a country of heart and compassion." Lesson 2: "In order to defend the homeland, we got to be on the offense. We must deal with those people overseas, so we don't have to face them here at home." Lesson 3: "In order to be able to defend ourselves, we've got to say to people who are willing to harbor a terrorist or feed a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists." Lesson 4: "When we see threats, we must deal with them before they fully materialize." Lesson 5 is a corollary of Lesson 4: "We saw a threat in Iraq."


Even while Bush is in his teaching mode, the whole event has a Sunday-morning air. Bush says of Saddam, "He had used weapons of mass destruction. Remember that? He had used them on his own people." The crowd murmurs back, "That's right, that's right." When Bush mentions that John Kerry and John Edwards were two of only 12 senators—whom Wednesday he called "a small, out-of-the-mainstream minority"—to vote against the $87 billion for the war in Iraq, someone else yells out, "Shame on them!"


Bush almost gets weepy later, when he tells a story "that touched my heart," about seven Iraqi men who visited him in the Oval Office. The men's right hands were chopped off by order of Saddam Hussein, and they had X's burned into their foreheads. An American organization provided them with prostheses. "A guy took my Sharpie, wrapped his new fingers and wrote, 'God bless America,' in Arabic," Bush says, his voice choking up. "What a contrast," he says. In America, "We want to heal you, no matter who you are," his voice catching again.


So, are we going to abandon Iraq? Bush asks the crowd. "Are we going to be a country of our word?" he asks. "Or are we going to go timid and weary and afraid of the barbaric behavior of a few?" The crowd shouts back: "No!"


As the event winds down, Bush gets looser and funnier. He points to a member of the crowd, one of the hand-picked Ohioans intended to represent a particular Bush policy, and says that she can explain it better than he can. Then he turns to another audience member and says, "You didn't have to agree with her." When another of the Representative Americans tells Bush that she recently received her associate's degree, magna cum laude, Bush replies, "That's better than I did, I want you to know."


Bush says a CEO in the audience has an interesting idea to share. The man doesn't say anything. "Flex time," Bush says. "I'm glad you told me what my interesting idea was," the CEO says appreciatively. Bush replies, "I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like I'm leading the witness." "I appreciate that," the CEO says, and Bush shoots back, "You appreciate the fact that I'm not a lawyer?"


After last week's Democratic convention, I felt that John Kerry had become the favorite in the presidential race. Now, after only two days with President Bush, I'm not so sure. He's that good. Unlike many people, I'm not threatened by the president's religious rhetoric. It must be the Midwestern Catholic in me. Like the people in the audience, I find it familiar and comforting. I can see why so many people believe the president is "one of us," no matter how rich or how elite his background. And I can see that Kerry will have a tough time besting Bush in all three debates.


Still, not everything goes perfectly. When Bush gets ready to leave, he announces, "I'm off to Saginaw, Michigan," forgetting what must be a central tenet of Buckeye State politics: Never mention the state that is Ohio State's biggest rival, especially in Columbus, home to the university. For the first time all day, two men near me boo.

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 11:45am
I can remember in the 70s listening to Pat Robertson taking down the wall. It was definitely an end run around the Constitutions. Citing the constitution his interpretation was literal and one way: the state was not to mess with the church, but it did not prohibit God fearing men from using their religion in administering the state. He saw no wall, only a one-way mirror.

What makes the interpretation so difficult is the changes that have taken place in hermeneutics. Originally, the practice looked back to what the original authors believed. Over time, the study was broadened and the focus removed from to the author to relationship between the i.e., what does it mean to this person at this time. Thus there is no "correct" interpretation, only better or worse interpretations depending upon the perspective of the individual.

Now if I interpret the establishment clause as written, "It prohibits the establishment of a state religion or any government interference in how people freely exercise their beliefs." You get what Pat Robertson got a limitation on the state with reference to religion. The reverse is not mentioned, after all it was a guideline for governance.

The current author looked back to what the intent of Jefferson was, i.e., hermeneutic tradition. Then you could reach the conclusion: "that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church & State." Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't say this.

Historically, this was the way the clause was read. Until the RR rose up and began to muddy the interpretation. Now we are in a battle over "how do we interpret the clause". As are all questions relative to the constitution, the difficulty is left to the Supreme Court. This is why the new belief about the interpretation needs to be debated and moved through the legal process. This never solves anything, it just makes everything more difficult.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 12:14pm
<>

I think the key words here are "outside the country". There is a type of religion taught by people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, many TV ninistries that advocate a particularly rabid form of Christianity; they are very similar to fanatical Muslims. I have been disappointed to see the growth in this form of religion because I think is perverts the faith. They are however very powerful in the US, I think they are about 1/3 of the population.

The symptoms are: absolute certainty that their view if right, unwavering in their belief beyond reason, a bifurcated world (evil or good), and a personal relationship with God. That is, that God speakes to individuals personally.

<>

IMO, Bush exchanged one addiction for another--God replaced alcohol. I don't think GWB went through a program, he says God came to him and told him to stop drinking. There is a reason Marx called religion the opiate of the masses, and when religion replaces reason it acts as like any drug. My problem with this is an ancient one: If God speaks to Bush, how do WE know it's God he's listening to? Many people tell us that God talks to them and some are mentally ill. This discussion is not recorded and can't be proved, it must be accepted on faith or trust. I don't trust GWB. Who is he listening to?

<>

I agree, but within Christianity there is a imperative to "spread the good news."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 5:08pm
Boy, would I like to respond. However, I lent a book I need to one of our interns and she hasn't returned it. Of course, she just got married and so probably has more interesting things to do with her spare time right now.

Soon.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 08-07-2004 - 6:58pm
If you have thoughts on the matter why do you need a book to respond? I would like to hear what you are thinking.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:33pm
To ALL

"Said AU's Lynn, "The faith-based initiative is bad policy on numerous fronts. Taxpayers should never be forced to pay for the building or renovating of houses of worship. And the federal government should never subsidize groups that engage in employment discrimination."

--------------

Bush 'Faith-Based' Agenda Spreading In Federal Government, Report Finds: Initiative Ignores Constitutional Principles And Civil Rights Protections, Says Americans United



WASHINGTON - August 17 - A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

The report by the Roundtable, which is a project of the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, N.Y., reveals that religious groups "are now involved in government-encouraged activities ranging from building strip malls for economic improvement to promoting child car seats."

Americans United, which has spearheaded opposition to the faith-based initiative, said the report is a useful, but alarming, overview of the administration's actions on this issue.

"The report shows an administration obsessed with seeking faith-based solutions for almost everything," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "I am deeply troubled that vital constitutional and civil rights protections are being shoved aside as the faith-based crusade advances."

Bush unveiled the faith-based initiative soon after taking office, but it stalled in Congress due to constitutional and civil rights concerns. To circumvent Congress, Bush issued executive orders to implement administratively as much of the proposal as possible.

The Roundtable report studies the numerous federal agencies that are now offering public dollars to churches and other religion-based social service providers and finds that new regulations created under the faith-based initiative "mark a major shift in the constitutional separation of church and state."

In particular, the research notes that the regulatory changes "encompass two reversals of longstanding policy on Constitutional interpretation. The federal government now allows faith-based groups receiving federal funds to consider religion when employing staff, and to build and renovate structures used for both social services and religious worship."

Said AU's Lynn, "The faith-based initiative is bad policy on numerous fronts. Taxpayers should never be forced to pay for the building or renovating of houses of worship. And the federal government should never subsidize groups that engage in employment discrimination."

The report notes that in May the administration issued an "incomplete yet revealing tally of grants" to faith-based and community organizations at a number of federal agencies. The administration's figures, the report says, "indicate a significant increase in the availability of federal funding to faith-based social service providers."

To see the full report, visit the Roundtable's website at http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0817-02.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 1:55pm
Another article:

Bush's faith-based changes scrutinized

He has made changes without Congress' OK

Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer

President Bush has gone "under the radar" and around the Congress to spread his faith-based initiative throughout the federal government, according to a new study released Monday.

The study, compiled by researchers at the Rockefeller Institute of Government in Albany, N.Y., is one of the first comprehensive looks at the Bush administration's efforts to redirect government grants to churches and other faith-based groups.

"Religious organizations are now involved in government-encouraged activities ranging from building strip malls for economic improvement to promoting child car seats,'' the study states.

Branches in 10 agencies

Taken together, the report finds that the Bush programs "mark a major shift in the constitutional separation of church and state."

"Few if any presidents in recent history have reached as deeply into or as broadly across the government to implement a presidential initiative administratively,'' said institute director Richard Nathan.

The study focuses on the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, which has set up faith-based branch offices in 10 federal agencies ranging from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Bush administration officials say the faith- based initiative is meant to merely "level the playing field" so churches and other religious groups can compete for billions of dollars the federal government hands out each year through government social service contracts.

Jim Towey, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said Monday that he hadn't had time to read the entire study.

"But parts of it that I have read seem to lay out dark motives for what is happening,'' Towey said in an interview with The Chronicle. "What it shows is that the president is taking the steps he promised he would take to end discrimination against faith-based groups.''

Religious groups such as Catholic Charities USA and Lutheran Social Services have long gotten government funding to feed the poor, heal the sick and house the homeless. But they were required to set up separate nonprofit agencies to run those programs and to operate under strict rules that forbid them to proselytize or limit hiring to employees of a particular faith or religious denomination.

So far, Congress has resisted Bush administration proposals to rewrite the rules and loosen long-standing restrictions against preaching in publicly funded poverty programs.

What the new study by the Rockefeller Institute's Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy shows is how the administration has pushed its agenda through presidential fiat.

Study has 'point of view'

Anne Farris, a co-author of the report, said President Bush had promoted his personal beliefs "both in ideology and deeds -- in the workings of the federal government."

Nathan, the institute director, said the study was based on "independent, nonpartisan research on faith-based social service."

Towey questioned the institute's motives and said they had not interviewed him about the program he runs. "They have a point of view," he said.

Most of the report relies on the government's own statistics and Bush administration statements about expanding church involvement in social welfare programs.

For example, grants given to faith-based groups by the Departments of Health and Human Services increased 41 percent in fiscal year 2003.

The report also cites newly revised Department of Labor rules that exempt religious organizations from provisions of the Civil Rights Act that forbid discrimination in employment based on religion.

It also notes changes in federal regulations that now allow churches to use federal funds to renovate buildings that are used for both social services and religious worship.

Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, called the new study "very alarming."

"This administration seems obsessed with faith-based solutions for everything,'' Conn said. "What they don't seem to worry about is the Constitution.''

'Pray for rain'

Even the Department of Agriculture now has its own office of faith-based initiatives, Conn noted.

"Maybe they're going to pray for rain,'' he said.

Towey said Conn and the Rockefeller Institute are overreacting to White House efforts.

"President Bush does not want to proselytize or fund religion,'' he said. "We're talking about things like job training and substance abuse prevention, and opening up to small groups that have been shut by the ACLU and a radical fringe that wants an extreme separation of church and state.''

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/17/MNGLC89C1I1.DTL

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Wed, 08-18-2004 - 3:47pm

"The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization."


"Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "I am deeply troubled that vital constitutional and civil rights protections are being shoved aside as the faith-based crusade advances.""


Why is this being allowed to happen? This isn't a dictatorship.


>"Religious groups such as Catholic Charities USA and Lutheran Social Services have long gotten government funding to feed the poor, heal the sick and house the homeless. But they were required to set up separate nonprofit agencies to run those programs and to operate under strict rules that forbid them to proselytize or limit hiring to employees of a particular faith or religious denomination."<


These guidelines SB adhered to.


I'm very uneasy with Bush.


If only we could have a committed atheist in the White House. ;)


cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages