"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques"

How about social workers overloaded with welfare cases, police, nurses and support staff in hospitals and clinics, emergency response people responding to all sorts of disasters and food shelf volunteers? I would say these people are closer to the people because they assist based on need, regardless of which congressional district you are from, your sexual orientation, race, or religion. They do not seek to change your views on theology or religion, but seek to keep you safe, healthy, and your rights protected.

Senator Obama, riding high on a swing back to the Democratic leanings for the nation in response to years of Republican dominated governing, made a speech on July 1 which angered many an atheist.

First, some background. While atheists are not alone in their support for the separation of church and state, some Baptist groups strongly support separation as well, they are the most vocal. This often leads people to believe that separation of church and state is anti-religious, or proposes to remove all elements of religion from the country by the secular left. Perhaps atheist organizations, and the people which make up their membership, are more sensitive to issues concerning the entanglement of religion and government. I can see how one's point of view would be different if attending a liberal congregation which prides itself in responsible use of Federal money to fund secular projects to help the community. If that were the case, Faith-Based Initiatives would be seen as a good thing. It was started by President Clinton, after all.

As with most things, without stronger oversight, and control, abuse becomes rampant. Let's say you're the Salvation Army, and you are receiving Federal money to fund a program, and you're busy hiring staff. Let's say one of your prospective staff, interviewing for a Psychologist position is Jewish and you find out during the interview, and refuse to hire based on his religion. That's discrimination. However, courts have upheld the rights of religious groups to discriminate. But, when you're being funded by the public, you need to play by the public's rules.

Not For Profit Organizations are required to keep report on income, while religious groups do not. Without this transparency, that $200,000 grant to fund school presentations on the dangers of drugs could become attractive when the roof leaks in the church's gym. Since there is no oversight of accounting, that temptation can be quite strong, after all, it's all in the service of God? Right? To atheists, it is serious, and exposes the problem which arise when government and religion become entangled.

Currently, programs for Faith-Based Initiatives are not evaluated for effectiveness. What this means, is that Federal money which would go to the Boys and Girls Clubs would go to a church run camp, even one run by Pat Robertson's church. This is also a concern when states choose to fund abstinence only religious based sex education over comprehensive reason based sex education, without looking at the dangers of not providing students with education which can help prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy.

Senator Obama has spoken strongly about the separation of church and state. I think ending discrimination in hiring practices, and providing better controls and oversight are better then not. However, before Charitable Choice and Faith-Based Initiates, religious groups and secular groups were on an even playing field, able to compete fairly for the same grants. Now there is a bias towards supporting Christian organizations over others, and both parties are guilty of throwing money at overtly religious programs and churches which use money to proselytize unwilling recipients of programs, discriminate based on religion, sex, and sexual orientation, and may not provide better services then secular counterparts.

Reform is good, but others are not satisfied. Americans United, and the Secular Coalition of America both have positions that the Faith-Based Initiatives program be ended by the next President, as the program is created by the Executive branch. The concern is that a religious group, such as a church, would receive funding for a program, which may be secular, however, allows the church to spend it's budget on religious activities, rather then on the secular program. Providing charitable works can increase visibility of the organization, and potentially increase membership and donation to the church, and can be viewed as endorsing a particular religion by funding an important part of the organization.

I'm in the middle on this issue. I do like the reforms, but I do not like the bias towards religious groups as being inherently good and ethical. I think that Federal money should be given to programs which seek to help the public in a nondiscriminatory way, but I don't see a need to allow religious groups to participate in Federal programs while maintaining the religious nature in their services. While there are abuses of the current system, especially in supporting religious organizations in certain districts for political purposes, most of the recipients are not abusing the program, and are using money responsibly, and within the law.

Should the program be scrapped. I think so. I don't think there is a good reason for it. If a religious organization doesn't have the funds to run a charitable operation, why should I fund it? Is it my fault they can't get enough donations to be self sufficient? Maybe they need to work on marketing themselves better, or the charitable organization needs to be separate and secular in purpose and operation. This is keeping in mind that secular does not mean anti-religion, but neutral to religion.

UPDATE:

As Mr. Metha reports, atheist groups have been weighing in on the issue since yesterday when the speech happened. Some have been very harsh, others pleased that the Religious Right isn't happy about church's having to allow atheists to be hired. The tone has softened a bit since the Fox News article about expanding Faith-Based Initiatives was released, because some groups see the move as rather clever. It's a way to appear supportive of the program, while introducing elements which seek to keep the separation of church and state present.

I do agree with the position of the Secular Coalition of America:
Direct federal funding of houses of worship, regardless of how the funds are used, is a violation of the separation of church and state.

But, Constitution, Somstitution, right? It's just written on paper, and paper can be erased, right?

Most Americans Think The Founders Wanted to Create A Christian State

The First Amendment Center released the results of a new survey on American's views of freedom of religion, speech, and press.

Highlights:

28% believe the freedom to worship granted by the Constitution does not apply to fringe or extreme groups.
65% agreed the founders intended the United States to be a Christian nation.
55% agree that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation.
58% believe teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public school, down from a high of 65% in 1999.
80% agree the Bible should be allowed as a form of literature in English class, up from 75% in 2000.
88% agree the Bible should be allowed as a text in comparative religion class, up from 85% in 2000.
50% believe the Bible should be used as a factual text in a history or social studies class, down from 56% in 2000.
18% believe public school programs in December should be secular, rather then hosting Nativity reenactments or featuring music from the Christian tradition.
60% believe that people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend religious groups, up from 46% in 2000.
41% believe people should be allowed to say things in public which may offend racial groups, up from 23% in 1997.
25% believe the First Amendment goes too far in granting rights, that is down from 39% in 2001.

Generally, respondents believed that rights granted by the First Amendment were essential dropped by 10% between 2002 and 2007.
Attitudes on the media, including reporting false stories, or reporting without bias have changed little between 2004 and 2007.

74% believe that students should not be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a message others might find offensive.
50% agree students who post entries in social networking sites while off-campus, like myspace.com, which may be disruptive to school classes should be disciplined by school officials.
15% of respondents get their news mostly from the internet, with declining numbers in radio and newspapers, but an increase in television, since 1997.
38% would approve of an amendment prohibiting burning or desecrating the flag.
The responsibility of keeping inappropriate material on television has shifted from parents to broadcasters since 2004, with an 87% to 74% drop in respondents holding parents responsible, and an increase from 10% to 19% on broadcasters.
40% of respondents want a specified amount of "positive" news in return for licenses.

You can see the paper here. The sample size is 1003, margin of error is plus or minus 3.2 percent, and the survey was conducted between August 16, and August 26.

Secularism is evil

Are atheists and secularists as dangerous as the Taliban? Is questioning unreason placing you on the same plane as a religious fundamentalist? Fundamentalism implies dogmatism. Atheists reject dogma. While there may be a new breed of atheist coming out of high schools who are ecstatic about their new way of thinking, thanks to books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, they shouldn't hold them up like bibles for atheism. Sure, Richard Dawkins' explanation of how morality developed over time, and that's why we are generally nice to one another, sounds convincing, but you should go study it for yourself. Prove him wrong, test his theory. Find exceptions to his rule, and learn from that.

You can't have fascinating conversations with everyone nodding their head in agreement. I think the vocal atheists, the Angry Atheists, as I'll call them, do have a feeling of religious extremism. The only unifying element of atheists, is the lack of belief in a supernatural god. There is nothing else that goes with it. There are no rituals, no chanting of words, or strapping boxes on foreheads, no rules about who is clean and unclean, who to marry, rights of women, who to have sex with, when, and why, and no threat of punishment if you get any of it wrong. Atheism stands to change with the presentation of new evidence. By studying science, it's easy to see how wrong people were in the past about elemental things, things we take for granted. Part of atheism is always being ready to accept what you believe now, may be proven wrong in the future based on new evidence.

This article, regarding one author's view of secularists, paints a bleak picture. One where secularists shut down conservative talk radio, "under the guise of hate speech." It also groups animal rights, and environmental groups with secularists. Just because a group does not advertise itself as religious, does not mean its an atheist group, or that its members are not religious. These groups do not act to end religion by any means. Citing examples of violence, like the destruction of a virus-resistant sweet potato crop, the bombing of a plant genetics lab, and attempts to harm staff who perform experiments on primates, the author attempts to counter the humanist argument that religion has spurred many wars, and caused many deaths. This argument is weak. That's all the author could come up with, damage to a few labs, by groups who aren't humanist, secular, or atheist, but labeling these groups under one umbrella, and creating a religion out of these very separate groups is misleading. While animal right extremists who commit violent crimes and threaten scientists is not something most people would condone, it isn't one of the priorities of the FBI, as the author claims.