Evidently extremely hard to understand since that's NOT what Obama is touting.  Read the actual articles instead of reacting to headlines.  In the speech and the quotes, Obama goes to great lengths to say he is for sep of Church and State and these will remain sep of church and state.  The money goes to SECULAR groups... Not the religious groups.  THE SAME SECULAR GROUPS THAT WORK TO FEED THE POOR AND HELP THE LESS FORTUNATE!!!  But yeah, tax payer money to help the poor and that sort of thing is bad if the well meaning people working the group happen to believe in an organized religion.  

Stop pretending the world and these issues are black and white.  The world is a complicated matter of gray.  

Please explain how this constitutes supporting religion.

Giving money to certain programs in the public interest doesn't "support religion," unless its done with prejudice.

No... because what Jeb would propose and what Obama proposes are two extremely different things.

You are arguing against a policy based on the worst outcome of a variation on it.

That's like arguing against the EPA's existance because it hasn't been a strong environmental enforcer in some areas.

Thank you for responding to the merits of my statements. Attacks like this are sometimes signs that people can't respond on the merits.

Also, a minor quibble - the pebbles fro MI and FL did get to vote (with the assurance that it wouldn't matter). I think you're trying to point out that the votes weren't fully counted.

No - I'm asking you to describe what problems with the Bush program would continue with Obama.

For example, evangelical churches have gotten a huge and disproportionate chunk of the Bush money. Do you expect that problem to continue?

The Civil Rights office of the Justice Department was gutted by those who oppose civil rights legislation, if I remember correctly. That doesn't mean that problem will continue under Obama, right?

Why should religious groups lose tax exemption if they receive federal money to do work in their neighborhood, when secular non-profits would not?  How would that not be discrimination?

Funding for religious programs, even as basic as allowing a religious group to utilize public property (school) for congregating/meetings and other such commingling has been going on since this country was formed and there are numerous state and federal cases that argue and address this facially black and white issue but ends up being in the grey due mainly to the fact that in the effort to have no commingling, religious groups end up getting discriminated against.  

I agree with you Kevin, I do not like and I fear instruments of power endorsed/supported/in the name of any religion as it has been wielded for the most atrocious wars,deaths, and inhumane treatment the world has ever seen, but there are levels of invovlement, levels of "commingling" that may or may not pass the scrutiny of constitutional analysis that would require separation.  

What about churches that rebuild homes for the poor vs. habitat for humanity?  Should there be a difference in how each is treated by the gvt so long as both programs start and stop at the reconstruction (as in no mandatory praying for benefactors, said benefactors were not chosen by any affiliation, etc.)?

This doesn't "toss out" the Constitution. Giving money for a secular program under a Religious umbrealla doesn't "establish" a faith.

sometimes have non-profit sub corporations. Sometimes non profits have for profit arms. Tax laws guide a lot of the discussion here. What I would like to see if a description of how this initiative has actually been abused by specific groups. Got any links?

I really, really doubt he does... and the implication that I am somehow in league with him because I support a reasonable federal program is incredibly insulting.

If you truly believe that no federal money should go to religious organizations, please show a PDF of the letter you've sent to Sen. Obama demanding that he rescind all government research grants from Duke, Harvard, and Notre Dame when he becomes president.

Jay Sekulow? WTF!!!!

OK, show me where Obama is reaching out to that loathsome dwarf, maybe I have been too harsh on the PUMA crowd?

This makes no sense, given how much work was done by churches in the 50s, including mine. It sounds like you want to keep religion in a box, out of any sort of public life or involvement.

As Obama learned while community organizing, churches have a social function beyond shared worship. They can be used to do good, and such programs do not automatically go toward theocracy.

My church has been kicked out of numerous Conservative church organizations, and provides a substance abuse home/recovery that many of our members work at.

Your argument is akin to saying a Non-Profit that gets grants from a corporation will automatically default to pushing that corporation's products on whoever is being helped.

"All--absolutely all--faith based social services providers drift towards theocracy."

Really?  Care to substantiate that wildly speculative claim?  

Having a church down the street doesn't violate any of your rights. Giving it money to run summer classes doesn't violate your rights either, if such groups can't discriminate in their hring or help-providing.

This isn't aid as imagined by Bush - do you really think Obama, a former CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, would do that?

That is a completely legitimate argument - my suspicion is that even with this money, all-secular non-profits still have much more money available. Not sure - we need to check this.

Your anti-religiousity is quite dogmatic.  I believe one of the key attributes of a progressive is the ability to think flexibly.  Giving money towards an organization serving a vital public need, if in exchange the organization is required to accept certain rules, is not a terrible breach of church/state.  It is a pragmatic approach to improving people's lives.  This is, I believe, a goal of the progressive movement- to make people's lives better.  Now, I think debate over this is very important- people may disagree, but this absolutely is appropriate for a progressive blog.

I am as liberal as they come, am not particularly religious (lean Buddhist) and work in social services.  I support ideas that help people.  Not every religious group is Focus on the Family.  

no they cannot, it is a completely separate account, a 501c i believe and there is oversight.