Obama signs order clarifying church-state relationship

[struggle4progress]

By Dan Gilgoff, CNN

President Barack Obama signed an executive order Wednesday clarifying the ground rules for religious groups partnering with the federal government through the White House's controversial faith office.

The order says that religious organizations receiving federal funds must conduct explicitly religious activities in a time and place that are different from when and where they do government-financed work.

But the order also states that faith-based organizations receiving federal dollars may use their facilities to provide government-backed social services, even if those facilities include religious art, icons, scriptures and other religious symbols.

A religious group receiving federal money may also keep religious language in its name, select board members on a religious basis, and include religious references in its mission statements and other documents, the executive order says ...

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/17/obama-signs-order-clarifying-church-state-relationship/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. EO purview?

Not sure about that.

There's a piece of paper...

[redirish28]

2. This really is sad all around. Sad that in the 21st century we don't

have people who understand the the bill of rights and second of all a president has to write a EO about it.

[Angry Dragon]

3. This also needs to be posted in GD

it is a greater issue than just religion

[struggle4progress]

4. knock yourself out and enjoy

[Angry Dragon]

5. I don't like to hijack others' posts

[rurallib]

6. post a link

When Bushco came up with that 'faith based initiatives' I thought sure some court somewhere would have enough sense to say"Boy this stinks to high heaven."
But no. And now rather than do the right thing, we keep squirting it with perfume to cover the stink.

[midnight]

7. Does that mean prayer breakfasts will finally end?

[struggle4progress]

9. The National Prayer Breakfasts are not a government initiative:

The National Prayer Breakfast is a yearly event held in Washington, D.C., on the first Thursday of February each year ...The event — which is actually a series of meetings, luncheons, and dinners — has taken place since 1953 and has been held at least since the 1980s at the Washington Hilton on Connecticut Avenue N.W. ... The National Prayer Breakfast is .. organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation, a conservative Christian organization more widely known as "The Family" ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Prayer_Breakfast

[cleanhippie]

10. You mean THIS prayer breakfast?

At National Prayer Breakfast, Obama to Address Shadowy Christian Group Tied to Uganda's 'Kill the Gays' Bill

The prayer breakfast is a display of power for an underground religious group that often shapes U.S. foreign policy in ways that sometimes conflict with our policy goals.


The National Prayer Breakfast, an annual Washington exercise attended by politicians of all stripes who wish to demonstrate their piety, is one of those must-go events for the U.S. president, or so the conventional wisdom has it. Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has attended.

But the prayer breakfast, however benign it may seem on the surface, is really a display of power for an underground religious group that often shapes U.S. foreign policy in ways not easy to see, and sometimes at odds with the policy goals of the government. This Thursday, President Barack Obama is expected to address the gathering, as he did last year. But if there was ever a year for the president to have a sudden scheduling conflict, it's this one.

--snip--

Introductions are made and meetings arranged for foreign dignitaries through the auspices of the Family, led for the past 40 years by Washington insider Doug Coe and comprising powerful men from all over the world, including a number of prominent members of Congress. That group of powerful men includes two who are behind a controversial anti-gay law in Uganda, proposed by two politicians with strong ties to the Family. The law carries the death penalty for what it calls "aggravated homosexuality."


http://www.alternet.org/news/145366/at_national_prayer_breakfast,_obama_to_address_shadowy_christian_group_tied_to_uganda%27s_%27kill_the_gays%27_bill



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

Doesn't sound much like anything jesus would attend....

[AlecBGreen]

11. I agree

Jesus would skip the big-wig fat-cat convention and go meet some homeless people, check on how they're getting along and then treat them to a Chili Half-Smoke from Ben's Chili Bowl (*nom nom nom*).

[county worker]

8. Not new

During Reagan's administration my brother ran the Catholic Charities office in Washington DC. They got federal money because they were an organization that was already in place so the government did not have to find a way to administer the money.

My brother used the money to do such things as open a credit union in El Centro CA so that the people who worked there could join and keep the money they earned in their community rather then put it in a bank such as Wells Fargo or something.

[Ian David]

12. Press Release from The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism

Press Release from The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=265141&mesg_id=265141

[Manifestor_of_Light]

13. Why do we have a National Cathedral?

Can someone answer that? I am assuming that it is funded with taxpayer money?

I want to see those Hindu and Buddhist faith-based initiatives.

[struggle4progress]

14. I think it's Episcopalian

[Deep13]

15. So, complete intermingling with no wall of separation.

Way to cave in, Obama. If the administrators of a Federally approved charity can be selected for religious purposes, then that is governmental financing and establishment of religion.

Let's see if the Constitution can clarify the church-state relationship.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can Congress make a law financing religion in the name of charity? Nope, Congress shall make no law. Can Congress require that recipients of public charity go to a religious institution to receive it? Nope, Congress shall make no law.

"Article 6, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Can those who administer public funds be selected for religious reasons? Nope, that would be subjecting an office of public trust to religious test.

[humblebum]

17. But, as the case may be, not everyone interprets the 1st Amendment as you do.

You first have to ask the question, "What religion is being established?" Answer: none. Not Buddhist, not Christian, not even atheism. And yes, the courts have ruled that atheism is a religion when regarding the Free Exercise clause. Then you need to look at the original intent of the Establishment clause. The framers were making sure that there was no established state religion as in England or the rest of Europe. And then you would have to investigate how the Amendment has been interpreted throughout American history - since day one - for any indication of intent. Answer: The country has recognized the FREE exercise of religion over the past two centuries. Free does not mean restricted to private concerns only. It means FREE. If those who wrote the First Amendment continued to allow religion and government to have a relationship within reason, then that would prove original intent. Your interpretation is relatively recent and certainly does not meet the test of original intent.

[onager]

16. Was Rick Warren there?

:argh: