Obama administration to roll out new/updated faith based office Thursday

[sabra]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/04/1780367.aspx

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama never shied away from the fact he'd be open to having faith groups have a major role -- not unlike George W. Bush's famous office of faith based initiatives. On Thursday, President Obama will roll out details of how he'll form his faith based office.

According to a White House official, key members of the president's faith council will meet with the president at the White House after tomorrow's National Prayer Breakfast .

The basic structure of the faith based office will remain the same: a White House Office, and Centers for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in the executive agencies. Note the inclusion of the phrase "neighborhood partnerships" in addition to the faith-based part of this office. This may quiet the criticism from secular non-profit groups that felt the Bush White House's faith-based office wasn't open to them.

The office is supposed to be a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government. Ideally, the office would serve as the primary mechanism for federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.

One new addition to the Office of Faith-Based initiatives: an advisory council of 25 leaders, both religious and secular, who will provide advice on policy issues. The Council is supposed to be bipartisan and include voices from across the religious spectrum as well.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Another promise kept

[ddeclue]

3. Bwwaa haaa....

an unintentional "Promise Keepers" reference?

:rofl:

No the gov't should NOT be in this business of subsidizing religion. The Constitution is CLEAR. I don't care if it's a Republican OR a Democrat doing the subisidizing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. If the Constitution were clear, the ACLU would have sued and had this office closed years ago

[ddeclue]

68. It is clear....

I can't help it what the ACLU hasn't done...

Doug D.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is an file a lawsuit

;)

[Hippo_Tron]

59. The Supreme Court says otherwise

Sandra Day O'Connor's lemon test is the criteria with which we decide whether or not government giving money to religious organizations is a violation of the establishment clause. You may not agree with the Supreme Court but they are the ones who get to interpret the constitution.

[ddeclue]

70. And thank God we finally have a Democrat in the White House

so that we can shift this court back to the center and away from Attila the Hun.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. The Lemon Test was established in 1971

My O'Connor reference was actually incorrect. She was responsible for the endorsement test, which is similar but not the same thing. The Supreme Court in 1971 is far more liberal than any court we will see during Obama's 8 years in office. Faith based initiatives are constitutional if they pass the lemon test.

Whether or not they are right is a different matter. In ideal circumstances I don't think they would be. The government should handle these problems and not outsource it to private charity. That said we don't live under ideal circumstances and the government does not have the programs in place to handle all of these problems. Changing that would require an act of congress.

[MADem]

2. I wish he'd roll it out and over a cliff. I don't like this mix of churches and state.

I don't like government outreach, government largesse, government favors, or a government office to deal with religion. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, after all.

That "Council of Elders" crap has to go, too. We don't need MORE government, MORE bureaucrats, and MORE religious bullshit.

[sandnsea]

11. Pre-schools in my town are at churches

They don't even mention religion, not ever. Why shouldn't those kids get some help with food programs?

[MADem]

18. What a shame that our government can't fund these things locally.

In secular locations with standardized building and safety codes.

And not have to rely on churches, who take money from people for being intermediaries to a deity, and don't have to pay taxes, just because they worship an invisible man in the sky.

Why shouldn't kids get help with food programs without having to make an association between food and "The Baptists" or food and "The Catholics" or food and "Insert Religion Here" to fill their little bellies? If you go to the CHURCH to eat, you associate food with religion.

You think these kids think of UNCLE SAM when they chow down on their welfare cheese? Please.

[sandnsea]

23. Citizens chose to build churches

Not community centers. If they wanted community centers to operate pre-schools, citizens would have built them. I don't even go to church and I can see what the country would lose if churches didn't fill in some of the social needs. Do you expect to turn the country into a nation of non-believers?

[MADem]

25. You elect representatives, who allocate money for community centers.

I don't "choose" to build churches. I do choose to vote for representatives who allocate funds for community centers.

You do know how government works, don't you? Citizens elect representatives, who decide how government disburses money?

Or is this all whooshing right over your head?

You want to believe, you go right ahead and BELIEVE. Don't use the tax dollars of the non-believers to foster your Believing Action, though.

And frankly, if this country turned into a "nation of non-believers" (and there's a fair percentage of those people out there, who either do not "believe" in the Magic Invisible Man, or who pretend to believe to get Freakishly Interfering People off their backs) or a "nation of grey parrot worshippers" it wouldn't matter to me, so long as the expenditure of tax dollars wasn't involved in the process. It certainly wouldn't be ME doing the "turning," in any event.

Separation. Church. State. It's a simple concept. No tax money to churches. Even if they don't preach. I can never be persuaded that this BushCo program was a smart idea, particularly when my "reverend" buddy chortles over what a boon it's been to his "business."

[sandnsea]

30. Citizens did not choose to do that - talk about whoosh

Hello!!! Citizens haven't asked for the government to build community centers in every town. That's the point. The citizens chose to build churches, synagogues, mosques. If you want a community center to serve as the basis for social services in YOUR community, then YOU get the group together and make it happen. But you don't have the Constitutional right to tell any other community how they choose to build. And if another community deems it a huge waste of money to build and operate yet ANOTHER building, when they've got a whole bunch of religious buildings standing there, then that's their right to choose that. What they do not have the right to do is to demand religious faith from individuals using the services.

People have spiritual beliefs and always have. People who don't worship create their own belief system, you can't put one foot in front of the other without some sort of belief in what will happen, and a certain measure of faith, throwing caution to the wind, whatever you want to call it.

I think we'll make more progress in getting sensible social services when churches are forced to produce results, and can't because pure faith never solved the problems of psychology and sociology and never will. So now they have to put the money where their fat mouths have been. Good. Get involved in groups that are demanding accountability of these church programs. Much better use of your time.

[WinkyDink]

49. "if churches didn't fill in some of the social needs." GET IT?? The churches shouldn't HAVE TO, if

we had a more JUST SOCIETY; aka, if our CITIZENS didn't demand TAX CUTS above all.

Don't give me that "nation of non-believers" bit; too many "believers" worship MAMMON.

[KansDem]

71. "Do you expect to turn the country into a nation of non-believers?"

So? What would be wrong with that?

[PurityOfEssence]

87. Resisting tyranny is NOT counter-tyranny

For the thousanth time: there's pro-religion, religion-neutral and anti-religion. NOBODY is proposing social services that preach that there's no God. We want the government to merely remain NEUTRAL, and this is taken as cruel and ugly domineering by those who consider it their literally God-given right to shove their guess down everybody's throats with every waking breath. It's somehow evil to resist their aristocratic, superior control.

These faith-based charities are a bullshit snow job: proponents WANT it to be beaten into the heads of the unfortunate that the ONLY source of succor or help in this world is from the love of God. The separation claims are nothing short of deliberate lies of the soul.

What's worse is that they want to take the public's money to support their worldview and endorse the concept of a supreme being.

Worse still is the deliberate setting of themselves above the law.

This is false advertising. If religions want to sell their shoddy product by preying upon the weak, then they should do so out of their own pockets. Representing the sweet nurturing of the downtrodden as coming from God and serving as proof of its existence when the money comes from the public coffers is a fraud.

What about the confused and mentally unstable person whose life has been ruined by religion? How is that person supposed to feel on some snowy night when he/she needs shelter and the only help has that big garish cross flashing above it? Help for the unfortunate should be as nurturing and neutral as possible; larding it up with emotional crap is abusive.

It's not like we NEED these organizations. The monies could be spent for secular organizations as straight federal agencies, and they could be done cheaper and CREATE MORE JOBS, and, lest we forget, jobs that would be open to all and not exempt from fairness hiring laws because of their bizarre beliefs.

I read many of these threads, and I don't see people wanting to convert the world to a bunch of non-believers with any of these resistances to theocracy.

Here's something that Christians and those of other proselytizing religions need to learn: you don't have the right to shove your beliefs down everyone's throats WITHOUT RESISTANCE. You have the right to annoy and try to convert as much as you please, and your victims have the right to shut the door in your face. Your victims have the right to keep you from having advantage. Your victims have a right to keep you from discriminating against them. Your victims have the right to protect their children from greasy messages from the voice of the Federal Government that endorse religion. Believers are merely equal to the non-religious, and many of them HATE AND RESENT not dominating the entire universe they survey. This is precisely the conservative mindset: "I know what's correct, and other mindsets should not be allowed to exist"; that's why liberalism is inherently secular and religion is inherently anti-democratic.

When someone says that a mere stance of neutrality is offensive, it's like the line in an old "Life In Hell" where the Boss-Monster yells "How DARE you duck when I throw things at you."

[qanda]

4. People who have a problem with this don't quite understand the role of churches in the community

Particularly the black community. Churches can't do it all and they certainly can't do it all by themselves. Churches have a window into many communities that the government never will and there is sometimes no better vehicle than the local church to deliver services to the people of the community. I have no problem with this and I'm glad to see it being extended to show that there are many religions and also secular groups that sometimes provide the same function in the community.

[MNDemNY]

8. Keep your fucking church out of my government.

I do not care what "services" you all render, the dis-service rendered by promoting religion negates it all. Remember...Science flies you to the moon, Religion flies you into buildings.

[qanda]

17. There really was no need to be so rude

It's fine that you disagree, but I don't think anything I said merited your response.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. All due respect

But I thought your post was rude. The implication that those who oppose mixing church and state don't understand the 'role of the church' is insulting, and based on a very narrow point of view. Many people who attend church do not agree with you on this. They understand very well that the money ties to government are a danger to both church and state.

Your holy books, what do they say about money and houses of worship?
Hint: a Temple cleasned with whip in hand. Whip in hand.

[joeglow3]

36. But you DON'T understand their role

Our local newspaper did a study about revitalizing the slums in Omaha. Their study showed that the average new house built was worth about $20,000 LESS than the cost of building it in the poor part of town. Thus, it is pretty obvious that it is up to charities and the government to build houses in this area and try to improve the standard of living. In something like the past 10 years, HUD had built a single digit number of houses, Habitat for Humanity was somewhere in the teens and Catholic Charities was well over 100 homes.

While this is still not enough, it was rather clear who is making the greatest effort to help improve the slums in order to attract more businesses.

[CATagious]

84. I'm not particularly religious...

in fact, I label myself as agnostic... but I have no problem with helping churches and neighborhood organizations help out their communities. One program that my church does is every week they fill up 100's of kid's backpacks with food and snacks and then deliver them to needy families. Now what is so wrong with helping with that?

[qanda]

37. It certainly was not my intention to be rude

I can only speak from my experience. Please accept that I never meant to be insulting and I apologize if that's how I came across.

[MNDemNY]

34. The condescending tone of your post well deserved a bitch-slap.

Religion has no GOOD role with mankind, it's time is long over. Embrace the truth. Science will be our savior, or our demise. Learn science, not fairy tales.Any one involved in promoting religion, any religion, is doing a dis-service to the world.

[qanda]

38. This is how we discuss things now?

The level of discourse on DU has declined greatly. Shame!

[MNDemNY]

39. One with bible quotes for a sig line gets no quarter.

[qanda]

41. So, people who quote the Bible are open to verbal abuse

Nice!

[MNDemNY]

43. I believe quoting the bible IS verbal abuse, so, yes.

[qanda]

47. Well, at least you admit that you're abusive

It's a first step. Get some help.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

62. Uninvited bible quoting Jesus freaks at my door commit assault that...

far exceeds abuse but they are totally incapable of comprehending that fact!
They deserve and get no quarter.
---------------------------------------------------

Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.
--Salman Rushdie

[qanda]

65. What are you talking about?

Are you the same person who responded to me earlier? You sound like the same person but your name is different.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

66. Not same person. Thank you for making my point. n/t

[qanda]

67. You have a point?

You post for the first time in this thread to a post that has nothing to do with you. And you're supposed to have a point? Give me a break!

[asteroid2003QQ47]

72. It's okay, I know your obfuscation is not deliberate. n/t

[joeglow3]

50. WHAT?????

You have awfully thin skin.

[Clio the Leo]

76. thank you NT

[BlooInBloo]

79. Yes, there was. Keep your fucking church out of my fucking government.

[PurityOfEssence]

88. You've crushed, harangued, hectored and belittled anyone who'd get in the way of your messiah,

so you only have yourself to blame. Obama has been VERY clear with is intentions to shove more religion down our throats for two full years now. The ugly "40 Days of Faith and Family" bit of religious xenophobia was hailed as tactical genius, when it was simple primitive ratfucking, so look in the mirror for some blame.

It was obvious, continuous and steadfast, and it went on unabated with virtually no complaints from the bedazzled, so accept some responsibility for once, go to a dictionary and look up "coexistence", "humility" and "tolerance" and come back and post when you've toyed with the concepts a bit.

Having been an extreme enabler, it's more than a bit untoward to bark at those who disagree with this.

Personally, as a extreme disliker of religion, I prefer to keep it on a less blustering and pompous level, and certainly with a bit of decorum.

[KittyWampus]

42. Maybe some day you will go hungry and need a food pantry. In that case, make sure you don't go to

any that are in churches.

[MNDemNY]

44. Ther would be less hungry in the world if not for religion.

Religion has done more harm to mankind than good.

[WinkyDink]

54. Let us hope society has by then seen fit to support its citizens through taxes, not prayer.

[sandnsea]

12. Particularly small towns

Small towns wouldn't function if the churches didn't do most of the social service work.

[MADem]

24. They used to do it all on their own, without getting money from the government.

This Faith Based Crap is a God Gravy Train. The St. Vincent de Paul society or the Hadassah didn't start up when George Bush took office,after all....but plenty of "religious community outreach programs" did when George starting handing out the cash.

Those small towns functioned Before Bush. The federal government, states and municipalities provided services Before Bush. And times were hard Before Bush, too. Using religions as a federal delivery service for public assistance is just WRONG.

[Raineyb]

16. Having churches provide services with tax money makes it way too easy

for the government to shirk it's responsibility to provide those services in the first place. The fact that in some places it is the church and only the church that provides services is proof that the government isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

I have no issue with churches providing its services so long as it's not the only or main game in town. If it is that's a problem and this faith based initiative nonsense only perpetuates such a situation which as a secular nation ought to be an anathema.

Regards

[qanda]

21. Thank you for your reasoned response

I do agree that government has a responsibility to its citizens and that burden shouldn't be put off on churches, but there are a lot of people falling through the cracks and churches, in a lot of cases, are the ones taking up the slack. Not saying it's right, just saying that it's the reality. Most churches don't get a dime of government money to do the work they're doing

[Runcible Spoon]

40. Umm, actually ALL churches get compensation in the form of extensive tax breaks

regardless of whether they do charity work or not. This includes taxes on massive amounts of lands held by churches and religious organizations; these breaks in turn have to be picked up on the tab of the US taxpayers. And now another example of churches getting more money to do the job of the government. Fantastic. :eyes:

[Lyric]

52. I would suggest that the solution is not to further fund church programs, then.

Rather, it is to reform laws in order to take care of those "cracks" that people keep falling through. The poor of America should not have to depend upon churches to get help when they need it; for the non-religious, being forced to turn to a church can be a humiliating, painful experience. Believe me--I've been there myself. While I am grateful for the help, I still believe that I shouldn't have had to go through that in order to *get* help. My government should have been there to help me back onto my feet, no religion involved or required.

I had terrible experiences with churches as a child, including emotional and physical abuse. It is, quite literally, a painful thing for me to even go NEAR one now. I have a panicked reaction every time. It's awful. And yet, because I have fallen through those "cracks" so often, I have been forced to undergo this trauma more than once in order to make sure my child was cared for during a rough spot. It shouldn't have to be that way, not for anyone.

:(

[MADem]

22. You want church outreach in your community? FINE. Do NOT ask ME to pay for it.

And I don't care if you're black, blue, white, or green, French, Hispanic, Jewish or Catholic.

Taxation without representation is tyranny--that's pretty basic. And those idiotic churches do not, will not, can not represent me.

Churches are FREE to "deliver services to the community." Just don't do it on behalf of the government, in the name of the government, or expect even MORE tax breaks and government largesse for doing it. Don't look for a "government tax break" for something called "charity." Render unto Caesar, after all.

I'll tell you what I don't understand--people who are so willing to muddy the church-state line because it is THEIR church doing the muddying. "Ewww, it helps the coMMUNity!!! See--it's friendly Reverend So-And-So!!!! No HARM there!!!" However, when it's that "creepy religion" that is culturally different, and it's those oddball guys with strange practices, these same people often look askance, especialy when the creepy religion starts creeping into their neighborhood.

[earth mom]

46. Keep your fucking church out of the government-first & foremost because it is unconstitutional.

Obama, a so called "constitutional expert" should know this.

This is nothing more than a license for churches to preach their bullshit and convert as many people as possible.

There is nothing "pure" in their intentions. :puke:

[WinkyDink]

51. Let me know when you think the same of mosques.

[qanda]

56. I thought I said as much in my post

"I have no problem with this and I'm glad to see it being extended to show that there are many religions and also secular groups that sometimes provide the same function in the community."

[MNDemNY]

5. We need to be "reality" based, not "faith" (read: insanity) based office.

Bad idea, from Obama, or Bush, still a bad, bad thing.

[Kalyke]

14. You honestly think that all religious people are insane?

Hey... pot. Black.

:eyes:

[MNDemNY]

33. By defenition, yes.

Fairy tales are fairy tales, no matter who tells them.

[KittyWampus]

45. Bigot.

[MNDemNY]

55. Neener-neener???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[earth mom]

48. I agree-the last thing this country needs is to give these churches the power to control more minds

:grr:

[Zynx]

57. That's a very dismissive and overly simplified response.

[MNDemNY]

58. Simplified, and dismissive, Yes, Overly? No.

[michaz]

64. By whose definition? Yours? hmmmmmm n/t

[MNDemNY]

81. people who have delusions are by definition, insane.

[Owl]

6. Ugh.

[debbierlus]

7. FUND THE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS - Real World Example

I have a friend who is not eligible for fuel assistance (about 200 hundred dollars over the amount). However, she is eligible for the Salvation Army Good Neighbor fund (through faith based initiative).

In order to get the Salvation Army money, she STILL has to apply for fuel assistance to PROVE she is not eligible. And, then, she has to undergo a second application through the initiative to get the money. The worst part is that hardly ANYBODY knows about this heating program. The fuel assistance people don't tell people, she just happened to know someone who told her about it.

How on earth does this make sense? Why don't we just fund the heating assistance program & up the eligibility to the levels funded through the faith based program? Why make the process more difficult, and basically ensure fewer people get help?

When people go for help, the FIRST place they look is government agencies.

[Raineyb]

19. Exactly!

Another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy with the added "benefit" of getting religious dogma "offered" to you constantly while you're at it. Government money used to allow churches to try to add to their numbers by taking advantage of people at their lowest.

Lovely.

:sarcasm:

Regards

[bullwinkle428]

9. Controversy is already brewing over the "right" of the various

churches to reject hiring those working specifically in the faith-based programs, on the basis of sexual orientation. It sure appears to violate the federal statutes on non-discrimination provisions in hiring.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100229826

[MADem]

27. The Salvation Army wouldn't hire those "awful" TEH GAY bell ringers a few years back.

http://www.americablog.com/2004/11/details-of-salvation-armys-rabidly.html

[Starry Messenger]

10. Sigh.

What century is this again?

[ieoeja]

32. It sure as heck isn't the late 18th century.

One of the big controversies during this country's founding was taxpayer funded churches. Both the Anglican church as required by British law, and other sects as required by individual colonies/states.

200 years ago Christians in the United States got pissed off at their taxes being given to a sectarian church not of their choosing. Today, they seem largely pleased being taxed to support the various Christian and non-Christian -- Nation of Islam is a big pig at this trough -- churches.

[Starry Messenger]

35. Mmm, true.

But I wish the values of the Enlightenment had gotten just a bit more of a foothold. I really dislike Federal involvement in religion, period.

[biopowertoday]

13. Ah-these members will be the lobbiests for their groups. awesome

sarcasm alert.

[Uzybone]

20. will ACORN be involved?

I sure hope they are.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Of course, Obama has to pay them back for rigging the election

:evilgrin:

[nichomachus]

26. Separate church and state!

A friend of mine has two special needs adopted kids. He sent them to a state-run summer program, which he found out later was administered by a "faith based" (i.e. religious indoctrination) group. He also found out that the kids -- who were Jewish, as is my friend -- were having Jesus preached to them on a daily basis. He was never informed of this ahead of time.

There was another community program in MA that was being run by a "faith based" (i.e. religious indoctrination) group. Turns out the minister running the program was taking kids to his church during their lunch hour and baptizing them.

[Lex]

29. If churches are going to get tax money, I hope they start paying taxes in.

Damn.

[acmavm]

31. So, this promise means enough to him to keep? I don't want

faith based anything anywhere near the White House, the House, or the Senate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

89. Perhaps you should have paid attention to the promises the President made during the campaign

[earth mom]

53. Is there a way for the people to sue the government over this shit?

Because it is a TOTAL violation of the constitution!!! :grr:

[zulchzulu]

61. Oh no! Community organizers!!!

Faith-based groups actually do some good things in poor neighborhoods. It's a fact, Jack.

Besides, there will be some secular influences and groups there too, unlike Chimpy's World.

[sohndrsmith]

63. I got the sense it was "faith-based oversight" at least in part...

Which I thought as a very positive move, though the more I think of it, that's probably not really Constitutionally appropriate.

But my first sense was that it was a committee that would investigate faith-based programs or institutions that are jam packed with less than holy fiscal or ideological practices in the "name" of religion, which seems to be too frequently slapped on stuff which is supposed to make it automatically right and pure and challenging it an unthinkable heresy.

Which is really dumb. There is too much exploitation of ugly, greedy activity under the guise of religion or faith-based purity. I don't like it and it undermines what is good and beautiful and positive about faith and religion.

Boy I sound grumpy, don't I. Well, it can be scary to criticize religion - which is not what I'm doing, but I do have other questions (and nothing more - it is pure curiosity and confusion, not challenge or derision) about some things concerning religion, but I'm too afraid to bring up because I'll get pummeled... but that's another topic.

[LittleBlue]

69. Separation fo church and state? Hello?

Constitutional scholar Obama... please recall this basic tenant.

[jeanpalmer]

74. Big mistake

Just get religion out of government. There's no room for government funding of faiths. It's a purely political move.

[liberal1973]

75. I agree

Separation of Church and State one of the greatest foundations of America.

[HOLOS]

77. Separation of church and state is vital

[Terran]

78. Separation of Church and State

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... First Amendment to the US Constitution

I contemplate with sovereign reverence 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 and state. Thomas Jefferson, 1/1/1802

The Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is doing nothing that violates the above, either in spirit or letter. All it does is help religious non-profits to apply for federal funding to do what they already do, or expand what they do in the way of helping the poor. I know there are lots of anecdotal stories about religious agencies who receive federal funding abusing the privilege by engaging in proselytizing; but there are federal regulations that clearly prohibit such behavior, and any agency that is caught doing it is very likely to lose their funding.

At least try to educate yourselves on this issue before you shoot from the hip; the ignorance (and the bigotry) in this thread is really very embarrassing.

[tammywammy]

80. Agreed

:thumbsup:

[Blasphemer]

82. All non-profits can apply for said federal funding... no need to have an office for the religious...

ones... it's blatant and unnecessary pandering designed by Bush's GOP to appease their conservative base. It's existence is unnecessary whether unconstitutional or not.

[Terran]

83. Yeah, I think you and I have been over this before.

And being that you have no idea how any of this works, your argument carries zero weight. If that's your only objection, I suggest you go on a crusade to cut *truly* unnecessary federal spending, because this agency does fulfill one function, and that is to increase the number of agencies who apply for federal grants to help the poor. You will never convince me (nor should any rational person be convinced) that that is a bad thing.

And in case you hadn't noticed, Obama has stated the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will not favor faith-based agencies over secular agencies. So in effect this agency exists now only to increase participation in available federal grant-making, period. And unless you've ever been involved in the process of applying for and/or managing a federal grant (I manage about $5 million worth per year), you really should, well, just shut the fuck up.

[MadHound]

86. Oh yay, more faith based change we can believe in

Geez, it's happening. Obama is going to confirm some of Bush's worst acts and then we'll be stuck with them.

Stop this mixing of church and state!