Progressives/Liberals - The 1st Amendment is an effective tool to stem religious extremism.

[pinto]

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.

The right wing has increasingly looked to parlay and co-opt - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - to advance a broader agenda beyond simple free exercise, free speech, etc. They conveniently disregard the leading clause - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". And they're good at it.

"Shall make no law". Legislation at any level, local, state or federal, is open for review under that constitutional standard.

I think all of us interested in aspects of religion in the public sector could coalesce around this. It's an effective approach with long lasting components. Think of all the other movements in the country in regards codified extremism / bigotry.

Coalitions proved to make the case in the long haul. It's a start.

[trotsky]

1. Except that many progressives/liberals are OK...

with some laws that are "respecting an establishment of religion."

The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, for instance. I have seen people here oppose that Bush era creation, and other DUers leap to criticize them for doing so.

[pinto]

2. I'm unfamiliar with the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives - what's their stated agenda?

[trotsky]

4. Here you go:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Office+of+Faith-Based+Initiatives&l=1

Critics of the OFBCI, including Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union, assert that it violated the Establishment Clause by using tax money to fund religion.

[pinto]

6. Seems there's a financial wall established in the funding.

See my post #3.

[trotsky]

7. No doubt a solid and impenetrable one.

Federal auditors visit each and every location doing a detailed analysis of their records confirming the funds are spent as indicated, right?

[pinto]

11. No doubt there's some lack of efficiency. Happens in all federally funded programs.

What would you suggest?

Discontinue all funding?

Increase audit oversight?

Rewrite the guidelines?

Re-allocate funding to other organizations?

I see this as more an issue of efficiency and oversight than a church / state separation thing.

[trotsky]

12. Oh, so you admit there is disagreement, even among progressives/liberals...

on what constitutes a "church/state separation thing?"

[pinto]

3. I "googled" it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Neighborhood_Partnerships

Safeguards on faith-based organizations

Faith-based organizations are eligible to participate in federally administered social service programs to the same degree as any other group, although certain restrictions on FBOs that accept government funding have been created by the White House to protect separation of church and state.

They may not use direct government funds to support inherently religious activities such as prayer, worship, religious instruction, or proselytization.

Any inherently religious activities that the organizations may offer must be offered separately in time or location from services that receive federal assistance.

FBOs cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when providing services (GAO 2006:13).

[trotsky]

5. And naturally, the auditing program to verify these institutions don't do those things is....?

Meh, what do the ACLU and Americans United know.

[pinto]

8. ACLU and Americans United both have good points. What's the issue with oversight?

Seems there's a standard set - one that is common and required on public funding to many programs operated by faith based organizations.

Is there a lack of oversight. That would be something to look at.

[trotsky]

10. Well thanks for illustrating the problem with your plea in the OP.

If arguments by the ACLU and Americans United can't sway you, then how could any arguments we make possibly resonate with moderate/conservative America?

[pinto]

13. I agree on efficient oversight. And I support programs that meet the constitutional standards.

That's a good case, imo.

Moderate/conservative America may have a different take, yet I think we win on this one.

[trotsky]

14. Well, I guess as we all agree with you on what meets constitutional standards...

we'll have a nice unified front!

[pinto]

15. You don't have to agree with me.

[trotsky]

16. Great!

I'll side with the ACLU and Americans United instead.

[pinto]

17. Enjoy these discussions. Appreciate your point of view.

Thanks.

[trotsky]

18. I'm sure you do. n/t

[rug]

20. You sound disappointed.

[cbayer]

9. Agree with how the right wing has wildly embraced one part while

rather completely dismissing the other part.

Also agree that coalitions that include both religious and non-religious secularists are the best bet in stemming this tide.

We are seeing more and more of that happening, imo

[rug]

19. It's also a good tool to ensure secularism.