So our only recourse is to impeach? Thank you, Judge Roberts and friends. You have made our decision a lot easier.

I've come to the conclusion the American public is ready for impeachment anyway. Who wants a bunch of incompetents at the White House wasting our money and then having their appointees in the Religious Police and the Supreme Court thumbing their nose at us.

We'll see if they are so arrogant when they lose power in 2008.

Providing that one still has faith in the faith-based community initiatives than this is a direct assault upon the separation of church and state clause of the constitution. However, in this day with the faith-based organizations more about money than faith I do not see the the real crisis. I mean, really, anybody can set up a 501 c (3) non profit organization as a faith-based organization and qualify for these coveted White House grants.

This does not mean your organization can't have religious activities. It simply means you can't use taxpayer dollars to fund them. Some faith-based organizations set up separate charitable organizations (so-called "501(c)(3) corporations") to keep programs that receive government money separate from those that engage in inherently religious activities.

This has been happening all along, but now it's happening more out in the open, without the separate entity to hide the government funds. Therefore, which is worse, now, or then?

Here is a link to show explain my position. If one is concerned that they are not going to get a federal grant because they are not a faith-based organization, then, all one has to do is set up a faith-based orgainzation and they do not need to be tightly constructed fire and brimstone entities to qualify.

Davidual, I see your point, and I think it's a clever one. But what concerns me is that the separation of church and state is part of our constitution, and one of the ideals that our nation was founded on. So to answer your question--I don't know which is worse, now or then. I feel like they are both pretty bad.

Posted by davidual on June 25, 2007 at 03:44 PM

I can see that my thoughts are not very organized on this, but go to the link in my last post and you will notice that these grants have been happening under the guise of the 501 C(3) IRS tax exempt status. All this initiative is, is a referendum that allows faith-based organizations to qualify directly for government funds without setting up a side line 501 C(3). In other words, the government has been funding faith-based organizations anyway.

david,

I see your point about transparency.

But are you suggesting that from now on anyone who wants a govenment contract might just as well set up some Church of What's Happening Now? Isn't this just encouraging a lot of fraud?

I'd rather stick with churches doing charity work not conducting government business.

Aren't we just setting up a situation where there is no separation of church and state? Why must anybody be subjected to another person's religious beliefs before they get government assistance when they need it?

If only one regligion is doling out the services in one area, we are forcing people to attend a church not of their own faith. I call that harrassment.

This whole faith-based initiative smacks of Elmer Gantry. Since the Jim Baker/pedifile priest scandals, I don't think any of these "church" people are religous or honest enough to be handling my tax dollars.

I'm not ranting at you. I just think the whole concept is based on the mendacitiy of the "religious" crooks who thought it up.

Stephanie on June 25, 2007 at 03:56 PM

Stephanie,

I agree. Why is it that faith-based organizations (FBO'S) feel they must compete for funds that normally government agencies use to provide the same services as said GA's? The fact that in the past FBO's simply set up shadow (sounds so Cheneyish) 501 C(3)'s to qualify for these government funds indicate the crassness of the fbo's anyways.

I don't like it, but it has been happening all along. I suppose it's okay as long as the fbo's do not force religion for services with government money. That is where I would draw the line.

SandyH on June 25, 2007 at 04:00 PM

When was the last time these fbo's operated as God would desire them to operate? Have you seen the going wage level for priest's, ministers, and pastor's lately? Compare that to the man that they all like to emulate. Fbo's are mendacious, and in religious terms are blasphemous. Hiding behind God to bring in more money for their organization to be able to afford their lifestyle. What was the lifestyle of Jesus? How much was Jesus paid to preach/teach the word of his father?

I know what I'm saying doesn't make it right, but it just puts this fbo controversy in the proper earthly context.

I suppose it's okay as long as the fbo's do not force religion for services with government money. That is where I would draw the line.

Posted by davidual on June 25, 2007 at 04:05 PM

Of course, with this being said where's the guarantee that these FBO's will not discriminate for religious reasons after ascertaining the governmental funds? One way to ensure that there are no prerequisites to services at these FBO's is to evaluate their programs similarly to the evaluations that governmental agencies must endure.

It also seems to me that the ones seeking the services should have the opportunity of program evaluation feedback to the evaluating entity of said FBO programs. It's not a perfect world, and if FBO's can offer services to the needy, under comparable criteria as government agencies, more effectively and efficiency, then, the tax payers get more bang for the buck.

Therefore, I must suggest that in order to make this FBO initiative credible it, too, needs oversight and accountability.

SandyH -

I love you, but talk of impeachment is a waste of time.

- There aren't enough votes in the house to impeach.

- There isn't enough time.

- The Republicans have a "poison pill" and they and the Dems know it. If impeachment proceedings start, Cheney resigns, Bush nominates his successor, and then the matter of filling that office takes priority over the impeachment. THEN, if you can actually impeach and convict in less than nine months, you face the prospects of running against a sitting Republican President.

Want that? I think not.

Think you can impeach and convict both and elevate Pelosi to the presidency? Not even remotely politically possible in this country.

For these reasons the Dem leadership will never bring articles of impeachment to the House floor, short of learning that Bush and Osama had a series of love trysts in the eighties.

Ain't going to happen.

*However* this is a very good argument to be made for electing someone other than a Republican president. We need to get religion out of our government - ENTIRELY - and we need presidents who understand that and who will also nominate USSC justices who also understand that.

And, I hasten to add, we need Democratic legislative leadership who are willing to go to the mat to fight activist Republican USSC nominees who are only too happy to endorse and promote the concept of a Christian American theocracy fashioned after the model of Middle Eastern Islamic theocracies. Not weak-kneed woosies like the seven Democrats who helped form the Gang of 14, and the other Democratic Senators who allowed them to do so. Which means we also need to elect more Democratic Senators in 08, including some who aren't willing to get their coifs mussed in a floor fight over important principles of democracy.

BaronScarpia on June 26, 2007 at 06:50 AM

Being the member of a family that has a few born-again nutballs that truly believe that their being born again means that they my dictate their "goodness" on anyone they choose, I can understand your sense.

However, the people in which I know probably have employed the loop hole of creating a shadow 501 C(3) in which to obtain precious federal funds for their "missions". I do not know this for fact as, even though my life has no door, their lives seemingly have a vaulted door.

My point is, these organizations are already skirting the regulations pertaining to federal grants, so making this illegal (again) and trying to enforce it will only slow the application process for grants to assist needy people. As long as these FBO's are not using the federal funds to expand their membership, or have prerequisites on services based on religion then there really isn't a problem.

As I stated in a post above, program evaluation is the key here. All grant applications include the organization's goals and evaluative measurability process as part of the application. If an FBO can perform a need for needy citizens more effectively and efficiently, then, that equates to more people being helped for the same amount of money that would go to a government agency to perform the same program, or similar.

Competition for this grant money should help the effectiveness of the human services field. As long as proper evaluation is concurrent throughout the life of the grant.