The press release announcing the creation of OFANP declared:
It is for this reason that lip service to "the principle" of separation falls far short of what's necessary. The meaning of separation today is very much up for grabs. And the president needs to make clear what it means to him.
The separation of church and state is a principle President Obama supports firmly - not only because it protects our democracy, but also because it protects the plurality of America's religious and civic life.But what does the principle mean? Certainly that there can be no official religion in the United States--like, say, England's Church of England. But go much beyond that and, these days, the disagreements quickly begin. Take, for example, a little tempest that the religious right has been brewing up over the stimulus bill. It prohibits use of federal for:
(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities--Once upon a time, such separationist provisions would have seemed innocuous: public funds aren't supposed to pay for religious facilities. But now, the Traditional Values Coalition wants its folks to draw this conclusion: "OBAMA BIG SPENDING BILL STIMULATES ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY." And when an amendment based on that proposition was rejected, its sponsor, Sen. Jim Demint (D-SC) was moved to say, "This is a direct attack on students of faith, and I'm outraged Democrats are using an economic stimulus bill to promote discrimination."
(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or
(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission
It is for this reason that lip service to "the principle" of separation falls far short of what's necessary. The meaning of separation today is very much up for grabs. And the president needs to make clear what it means to him.
It is for this reason that lip service to "the principle" of separation falls far short of what's necessary.>
Only establishing a national religion is a violation separation of ch. and st. The founding fathers gave plenty of money to convert the indians. The entire separation doctrine is bogus.
I honestly struggle with, "Separation Between Church and State". In part because it not found verbatim in the constitution and the remnant of Jeffersonian thought - not a comprehensive ideal of the founders of our nation.
It seems more proper to do as the words say and neither establish a state religion, or prohibit the exercising of varying religions. Which does not support a separation, but rather an allowance for religion to flourish. To look in the era of its creation, I believe this was a simpler definition; religion was probably thought of in the Christian denominational sense rather than the current understanding of actual different religions.
Forcing organizations to not mention Christ, Mohamed, Allah, God etc. seems to restrict the exercise of religion. If it is Ramadan, I don't mind having signs about Islam around, If it is Yom Kippur I would welcome expressions of Judaism etc. I don't believe we should find issue with our tax money going to faith based organization that is well run but only hires those of their own faith and beliefs. An organization that is not allowed to speak of traditional religiosity is itself encouraging a certain belief system. Which, in the end, is the essence of any religion; a system of belief.
We should be able to believe what we believe - even if that means believing someone else is wrong. For all, not only Christians, following the idea of "separation of church and state" perhaps does more damage than good.
blackwasp19: It seems more proper to do as the words say and neither establish a state religion, or prohibit the exercising of varying religions
Most of the founding fathers established Christianity as the religion in every state, but PA, an RI. Check out my blog and see the info.
I don't believe we should find issue with our tax money going to faith based organization that is well run but only hires those of their own faith and beliefs.>
I agree. When I give a gift, I don't mandate how the recipient should spend or use it.