Americans United for Separation of Church and State's Letter to President-Elect Obama

[usregimechange]

Dear President-Elect Obama,

Congratulations on your recent victory. You are assuming the leadership of our nation at a challenging time, and we are sure there are many people and organizations competing for your attention.

As you prepare to assume office, we would like you to consider the importance of separation of church and state. This principle, enshrined in our First Amendment, is the platform upon which our religious liberty rests. We believe it is vitally important that it not be eroded.

We hope you will show leadership in supporting the separation of church and state. There are several key issues your administration may confront in the coming years. These include:

* ‘Faith-based’ funding of religion: we find it alarming that our nation seems to be moving away from the idea that religion is best supported by individual contributions made voluntarily. Instead, “faith-based” initiatives to fund churches and other ministries with taxpayer dollars are increasingly common. We urge you to oppose such measures.
* Voucher subsidies for religious schools: A federally funded voucher program is currently subsidizing religious and other private schools in the District of Columbia. Voucher programs have been proposed for other states and cities, as well. We urge you to oppose government subsidies for religious education and focus on improving our public schools.
* The composition of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court wields enormous influence over how the First Amendment is interpreted and applied. If you are faced with vacancies on the high court, we hope you will take into account any potential nominee’s views on church-state separation and the role it plays in defending our liberties.
* Church electioneering: Currently, federal tax law prohibits houses of worship and other tax-exempt groups from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. Polls show overwhelming support for this concept. Yet proposals have been introduced in Congress to alter the regulation or do away with it altogether. We urge you to use the power of your “bully pulpit” to oppose such misguided legislation.

These are just some of the church-state issues you might face. We hope you will use your time in office to unite Americans on the need to support the separation of church and state.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Staff and Membership of Americans United

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=fld_dear_pres_elect


Please, kick this thread if you sign and support the aforementioned goals.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. K&R.

:kick:

[rawtribe]

2. k&r

[spooky3]

3. k&r

[Why Syzygy]

4. k&r .. Bring back the Constitution!

[Adsos Letter]

5. AMEN!!!... and K&R...

:patriot:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

6. K n R

[tbyg52]

7. Hooray for AU! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

8. K&R

[Clio the Leo]

9. My father preached the most wonderful sermon today....

.... about how the first Thanksgiving was not about being thankful to God for His blessings (although that was an aspect) but about the celebration of the seperation between church and state. He talked about the misery the pilgrims endured to be able to attain that freedom.

I was sitting in the pew wishing there was some way for me to "kick" a sermon. :)

[Adsos Letter]

14. Interesting...

but I hope you realize that freedom of religion wasn't on the Puritan menu...only the freedom to establish what they considered to be the proper form of Calvinist worship, as opposed to the "unregenerate" Church of England.

The Puritan socio-political economy was one of "covenant relationship," with each other and with God.

They relied upon the power of the State to ensure that the Law (as far as the Puritan's interpreted it) was enforced.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Hey, he's a preacher,not a history instructor.....

... he used a bit of dramatic license to push the liberal agenda. :p

[Clio the Leo]

10. And what is our general concensus on this.....

(Ha! As if we could come to a concensus on anything!)

Barack Obama's Faith-Based Community Service Plan

On July 1, 2008, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama unveiled his plan to continue, with significant modifications, the faith-based funding initiatives established by President Bush.
Briefly, the modifications to the Bush plan include:

Faith-based and secular community service organizations will be considered equally for partnership under this plan.
Prohibitions against faith-based organizations using these programs for religious instruction or proselytizing.
Prohibitions against such organizations in discriminating against potential or actual program participants.
Periodic evaluations of all programs against "best practices" benchmarks.
Additionally, the Obama faith-based initiative includes a new, $500-million-a-year plan for a summer literacy program to strenghten reading and math skills for one million children from low-income families each year.
(Also see Obama's Faith-Based Plan: An Education Agenda Disguised as Religion for my evaluative thoughts on this initiative.)

PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITIES OF FAITH

The following are excerpts from the full text of the Obama '08 campaign's report, PARTNERING WITH COMMUNITIES OF FAITH.

Barack Obama supports a White House office dedicated to a strong partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular.

As president, he will establish a new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment to strengthening the partnership between government and neighborhood community programs.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Barack Obama believes that our problems require an "all hands on deck" approach, and that the federal government should enlist effective faith-based and community groups to help solve them.

Obama also respects the First Amendment and prudential concerns that have been raised on both sides of the debate over the role and scope of faith-based initiatives.

Obama’s initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:


Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.

Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.

Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.

Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.

Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding.
Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not – whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.

(more)

http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/ObamaFthBsd.htm

[Adsos Letter]

15. My personal take is that government should restrict the application...

of tax monies to secular institutions. I understand the reasons for wanting to support "faith-based" organizations...but I think it better to safeguard the distance between Church and State.

Fund either secular or governmental organizations, and include strict oversight.

Just my opinion... :hi:

[atimetocome]

11. k and r

[Bryn]

12. K & R

[usregimechange]

13. more?

[mopinko]

16. knr

[Upton]

18. k&r

[DavidDvorkin]

19. Excellent letter

And what a great and necessary organization AU is.

[Maat]

20. Proud member and monthly donor here ....

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State - the staff and the members!

[Dragonfli]

21. Signed Supported Kicked And Recommended

[Festivito]

22. I wish I had time to write this rebuttal better. But, rebut I must.

I sense your sincerity, and wish to respect that. However, ....

The audience is meant to be a Constitutional law instructor, yet it repeats separation over and over and over, and even attempts to claim that separation is "enshrined in our First Amendment." Only its inference appears there, and even that is a stretch. As a platform, separation IS NOT where religious liberty rests, rather the actual words of the first amendment is where this idea can rest, if not in the Constitution in its entirety and finally in the American people themselves.

Do not take me wrongly. I want separation, I think I want it more than you do sometimes! I believe that when a people have free choice combined with free practice that that wall of separation builds between those of differing religions. Each secure that the other will not bother them.

The rub happens today when the anti-God-atheist religionists (not to be confused with atheists who benignly lack religion), I speak of the those who actively promote/proselytize their lack of religion to be the only religion anywhere they can push disallowing the free practice of others in the same venues, that the only right religion is no religion in public spaces. A Christmas display side by side with a Hanuka display should be fine. Deny one, then deny both. But, not to deny one because the other did not ask.

I too am alarmed at the Bush administration use of religion to use the lay people and to use the good work of churches to force-proselytize needy people in their care. This will backfire on the churches perpetrating these actions. But, I feel that it is not the churches where this really starts, it started with a concerted effort to infiltrate churches starting years ago. Had churches not existed, clubs and other organizations where people meet would have been the places infiltrated and abused.

Vouchers can be insidious. Draining money from public schools, awful. But, wait. Why shouldn't the amount of the voucher be set based on the total cost of educating the special cases. If a school does not take handicapped, its voucher value is diminished, if it takes the blind, it is increased by the amount needed. There should be no problem with the money. It just offers Americans more choices. If you have certified teachers and teach the required points well, you should share in the public money as you do the public bidding.

I must stop here and continue with other work.

Thank you for your time.

I wish that we might see where we differ better.

Sincerely,
--Fes

[usregimechange]

23. Frankly I think it is absurd to suggest that the very accurate description of the Establishment

Clause, as creating a of wall of separation between church and state, is a "stretch." It is how the founding father's themselves described it.

[Festivito]

25. Perhaps I see enshrined differently from your view.

Is this your "very accurate description of the Establishment Clause?"

This principle, enshrined in our First Amendment, is the platform upon which our religious liberty rests.

For me, the actual wording, not a description of the actual wording, creates a wall of separation.

I denounce your use of absurd.

And I said so much more that was more important that this.

[usregimechange]

24. If only "the anti-God-atheist religionists" supported it we would not have it at all

“The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church and the State.” ~James Madison, Father of the Constitution

[Festivito]

26. I'm not completely sure to what it refers.

Perhaps we would all do well if we all supported free choice and free exercise, leading to a wall of separation free from wear and tear, where "the number, the industry, and... .