Religious Groups Granted Millions for Pet Projects - New York Times

This sort of thing infuriates me.

Our consititution demands a government and set of laws that are secular in nature.

There's really nothing more that needs saying.

Please re-read the First Amendment. It forbids establishment of a state religion. It says nothing of any impenetrable wall between religion and the state.

While I am not in any way in favor of mixing religion and government, let us not create non-existent clauses in the Constitution.

Making a law based upon the religious views of one group is most definitely respecting an establishment of religion.

If it was that simple, there wouldn't be such controversy over it.

If you're going to allow preferential treatment of a religion, which this interpretation would allow, then where does it stop? Can the United States have a de facto established church as long as they don't make it official? I don't think the founding fathers intended for that to happen, but a 'minimalist' interpretation allows it.

Either way, mixing of church and state is a bad idea. There are always winners and losers when that happens, and it's never fair on the losers.

Non-sequitur. The fact that a law is supported by any particular religious group does not mean that any other religion would not also support it. Support by a religious group is not sufficient reason to either pass or not pass a law.

You'll have to come up with a better argument. Sorry.

So, please explain the following:

A. Abortion is only opposed by the Religious Right. They are responsible for the "Right to Life" movement. We have attempted legislature considered every year about banning abortion.

B. Many people are trying to outright ban civil unions and/or gay marriage. While the institution of 'separate, but equal' was struck down many years ago, we continue to have many try to push it for those of another sexual preference. Again, the Religious Right are responsible for this attempted legislation.


If such legislation is guided by ANYTHING other than religion, then I'm the Queen of England.

I think you've hit the nail on the head without even realizing it here.

The support of religious groups should not affect the passage of a law either way. Sadly, this is not adhered to, and conservative religious groups currently have an undue influence on US politics. How is that fair to moderate and liberal religious groups? There should be a law against that...

Up until the early part of the 20th century, it was generally interpreted that gov't should favor no religion over another, rather than favor no religion over any religion. This was, in large part, precipitated by the followers of Thomas Dewey who were in favor of a state-supported and controlled education system vs. the mixed parochial/public system that was in place previously (a system very similar to the voucher systems, where the money follows the child, being put in place in many states.) This was the genesis of the wall between church and state, which somehow did not exist for the ~150 years of the country's history before that.

The bastard child of this wall is the US public education system. Fine thing that turned out to be.

However, agendas that are only pushed as a result of religion are surely based upon the religious beliefs themselves, and creating laws based upon those beliefs would be specifically condoning the beliefs of such a religion above others.

Giving money to religious groups is a clear violation of the Amendment and the intent as is obvious from reading the writing of the various writers of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers and similar.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Tripoli (1796/1797) declared that "the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

Wrong. Abortion is opposed by many different groups (Roman Catholics, who are often quite liberal, also oppose abortion). The religious right are merely the loudest and best-covered of these.

Wrong. See above. If you wish to check voting records, you will find that many members of the Democratic Party voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (or whatever it was called).

You have never heard of politics, Your Majesty?

Define "undue influence". How was it arrived at? Who said it had to be fair? Fair according to whom?

Citation?

And your point?

Have you never read, for instance, Jefferson? I am not your American History teacher, you can do a little googling.

A bit. Your point?

The Roman Catholic laity may be fairly liberal, but that's only because they don't pay any attention to what the Pope says.

Besides, I think you'll find Catholicism is still a religion. You've not stated any non-religious groups here.

Democrats can't be influenced by religion now?

I would define 'undue influence' as any influence. Some other religious group has to suffer when one side gets to pass laws based on nothing but their own dogma. To ensure no one takes more of a beating than anyone else, laws should have a secular basis to them.

Fair according to the principles of constitutional democracy that the United States is founded upon. If you want a country where politics don't have to be fair, you can move to China. In the western world, we strive to be as fair and reasonable to all sides as possible.

I thought we had agreed that support by any religion, per se does not disqualify a piece of legislation. Maybe it was just me. Whatever.

One can gain influence by having people vote for them. Is that to be considered "undue"?

And laws have only to be rational. Whether their genesis is religious or secular is kinda beside the point

To my reading, the word "fair" is not in the Constitution. Besides, the word is necessarily relative, never a good basis for policy.

I view the state showing prejudice, based on faith, in the law as a breech between the separation of Church and State.

One of Bush's faith based initiatives in Texas is an example of a breech between the separation of church and state. Basically Bush allowed faith based residential teen/child facilities to avoid state licensing and regulations by allowing them to get a license with an "out of state licensing body". This body was made up by the owners of these facilities so they basically oversaw themselves. The Roloff Homes were one such facility in Texas, with a history of abuse, that welcomed this exemption as they vowed to never submit to state licensing. The exemption basically reversed a lot of hard work done to end the abuse in the Roloff Homes, such as court rulings that said get a licensed or shutdown.

In 2001 the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services received(yet again) complaints of physical abuse at several of the Roloff Homes and pursued criminal charges. The Roloff Home administrators were found guilty and by the end of 01, after many more allegations of abuse at the Roloff Homes and other facilities, Texas undid the licensing exemption.

I call this a textbook example breech of the separation of church and state because the state allowed exemptions in the law based solely on "faith". No legal reason was given to justify these exemptions and children suffered for it. However it would also be a breech of the separation of church and state if the state negatively showed prejudice in the law based solely on faith. An example could be outlawing the Muslim Veil in schools while allowing everyone else to were masks or garments like a Nuns habit. Another example could be giving state money to Christian organizations but not other religious organizations.

I guess to me it's all about preference and prejudice....