Completely ignoring the ever-important (like it or not, conservative folks!) separation of church and state is "successfully revolutionizing another facet of government??" Yeah, that's impressive...

OJ:

That "He's a moron" script is completely consistent.

Just so long as they are willing step up to being dumber than a moron.

People with that little brain acitivity get the plug pulled, don't they?

The Constitution simply says that no particular religion shall be Established. Established religions are fed taxes and hold privileged positions under government protection.

There's a world of difference between having religious groups join secular and for-profit groups in providing services, on the one hand, and establishing a particular religious group as the official national religion, on the other hand.

Take to its extreme, the concept of separation of church and state becomes an active war against religion.

Yes, I suppose taken to its most paranoid extreme it probably would be viewed by some as "an active war against religion", quite amazingly.

Anonumous:

Conserving what? It's an extraconstitutional standard. To conserve it would be to join the assault on the Founding.

Off topic...

A tribe of hunter gatherers in the Amazon, lacking numerals above two (2), cannot count beyond two (2), and the researcher studying them says this is evidence for Worf's hypothesis that language circumscribes the thoughts we are able to form.

The Telegraph sums it up thus: "Language moulds our thoughts so much that we cannot conceptualise ideas for which we do not have words, according to an American researcher."

But what about turning this around? Perhaps we cannot invent meaningful new words (in this case, numerals greater than "two") before we have formed the concept in our mind?

This is not an open and shut issue from the perspective of the faith community. While I do not represent them in this sort of matter directly, I have been asked whether or not participation in the programs that are being opened up can threaten a group's exempt status. While I have not yet seen a proposed activity that would represent even a theoretical threat, when I read about activities such as developing a strip mall to enocurage economic development, my heart skips a beat.

You could probably structure such a deal to avoid any threat to the organizations exempt status, but I can think of some issues that somebody damn sure better look at. What I am hearing more talk about from church people who are on boards opf some of my exempt clients is that they don't yet know enough about the strings that will inevetibably be attached to determine whether participation is worthwhile for them or not.

anonymous: how exactly would you separate your church from the state?

Considering that, in all likelihood, your Church is the State.

The churches have been exempted from trillions of dollars of taxes, hardly warfare against religion.

At least one of the Founders wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Dan:

The president can have the IRS rewrite the rules, no?

Churches have given millions back in the form of servcies, charity and hospitals. Having a church is actually good for the entire community. Think of it as divirsity if it makes you feel better that way.

Harry:

Yes, the statute is in no wise in conflict with the rather religious nature of our state. Madison of course sat in the first Congress whose first act was to hire chaplains.

Harry: you're simply repeating the modern mistake, which is to reduce religion to Christianity. In truth and in fact, government is the modern religion, and it is thumpingly, crushingly, resoundingly Established.

Joe:

That would make government a religion in which all sects participate equally and without fear of reprisal.

A religion. In which all sects participate without reprisal.

Those two concepts just don't track.

Jeff:

No, only the secularists get a say in government in your vision of separation. It's sectarian, just happens to be your sect in control.

Andy, you cannot mean 'divirsity', diversity is a black and white issue, not religious.

The Supreme Court has ruled that public school busses can transport parochial school children. Why? Safety of the children, of course. This was not considered an endorsement of religion.

Why then would opening grant funds up to religious organizations to provide services that are not related to evangelizing people be so radical an idea?

My vision of separation stops government from foisting a specific sect's religious observances and customs upon others.

That is a position backed by many Jews, among others. They are very well acquainted with being foisted upon.

Jeff:

Yet they eat turkey on Thanksgiving.

Jeff: what oj said. You don't have to be happy about the prospect of a sectarian Christian establishment replacing the current establishment (I'm certainly not), but don't kid yourself about what it would replace. If you are for genuine disestablishment, as I am and the Brothers are not, then you're going to have to deal with the idea that secular statism has become a full-fledged religion in its own right, and that it is our established religion, to the tune of a couple of trillion consecrated (excuse me, Federally taxed) dollars per year. That's why the fight over things like vouchers and the faith-based initiative is so ferocious -- it's not a war between religion and its absence, it's just a war between two religions.

Mmmmm, turkey. I want everyone to accept that the word for people who have a Christmas tree in their house on Christmas is Christian.

On the question of the American religion, flash back to the 9:13am comment.

That would make even me a Christian.

On the other hand, when I was a Catholic, Orrin wouldn't have accepted me a Christian.

The idea that the churches "give back" is delusional. The amount they "give back" is derisory, and (with rare exceptions like Salvation Army), the conditions they give back under are unfair.

Third, the notion that religions will provide services without evangelizing contradicts all history.

That people rely on a state (or corporation, sodality or burial insurance society) does not make it a religion. I tend to agree with joe that American religion is such a milk-and-water proposition that almost anything qualifies, but on the other hand, if it's so mushy, what is its value?

Joe:

I don't have any problem with vouchers or faith-based initiatives. So long as both are completely and freely available regardless of belief.

Which is the problem with so many sectarian impositions. In Hamtramck, MI churches were allowed to violate noise ordnances that applied to everyone else. The Muslim community took offense, and now they get to broadcast calls to prayer over loud speakers.

The initial exception meant there was no justification to stopping anything calling itself a religion from making whatever call to worship racket they desired.

The secular alternative, on the other hand, would be to uniformly enforce noise regulations, and suggest everyone exercise their constituional right to buy a watch.

Similar reasoning accounts for Jewish opposition to holiday creches.

Jeff:

Of course you make the opposite argument for trivial matters like motrorcycle helmets, betraying your animus towards religion.

OJ:

You misunderstood my argument regarding helmets.

Motorcyclists face a risk of head injury during an accident, as do motorists (my step brother is permanently disabled as a result due to secondary impact with the vehicle structure following an accident)

My desire is that all people should be allowed to decide what level of risk to assume for themselves. My position is that it is hypocritical to allow one group to decide while not allowing another. It is also hypocritical to consider yourself "ordained," while knowingly taking an unnecessary increase in risk. You aren't willing to follow your own reasoning.

Your position is that some do, and some don't, and there is no need to do anything personally until the government says so.

The sole impact of my helmet argument with respect to religion is that the rules better apply to every group equally, or none at all.

That the local bell-Ringing churches could whine as loudly as they did about calls to prayer only demonstrated how difficult a concept irony is for most.

Jeff:

The rules apply across the board to all motorcyclists, regardless of their race, gender, creed, etc..

A local noise ordinance of long standing that seems oppressive to a new group would be legal. A new ordinance intended to stifle religious exercise would not.

So RLUIPA says.

Curiously, if you visit Becket Fund's Website (where if you poke around you'll find quite a few of my stories), you'll find that -- just as Jeff says -- a large fraction of the cases have nothing to do with secularists imposing their antireligious views upon the religious, but with the religious refusing to allow other religions to have what they arrogate to themselves.

If there were no secularism in this country, there'd be no country and there'd be many fewer religions.