(no subject)

[arethinn]

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security.

(a) The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall establish within the Department of Homeland Security (Department) a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center).

[...]

(i) a comprehensive analysis of the barriers to the full participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the delivery of social and community services identified pursuant to section 3(a) of this order and the proposed strategies to eliminate those barriers..."

Soo... the DHS is supposed to help get rid of "barriers" to "faith-based organizations"? In other words, it's somehow a matter of national defense that such organizations be allowed to do what they want? And what about that pesky "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" thing? (Sure, it doesn't say "there shall be no executive orders..., now does it?) I'm seeing government support of religious activity here. Tell me I've misread this, please.

Comments

[winterredwood.livejournal.com]

I was trying to think of an intelligent response to this, but all I came up with was:

WTF?!

Nope

[hyldemoerwitch.livejournal.com]

He's a scumsucking leach that gives no hope for civil rights of any kind. There is an act in congress that stipulates that a President in a time of war, can be voted into another term by congress....

Re: Nope

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

Sorry. They can introduce all the bills they want, but they can't do something like this by an act of Congress. They'd have to amend the Constitution (in two different places), and that's not easy to do.

Re: Nope

[hyldemoerwitch.livejournal.com]

Its already a provision in the Constitution, that during a time of war (which the US is currently in) a sitting President can stay in office if voted so by the congress. There would be no change in the Constitution, and the House and Senate are pretty much Rethugs...

Re: Nope

[johnnybrainwash.livejournal.com]

Cite, please. I don't recall that being in the Constitution, and I don't see it in the copy I have in front of me.

There may be a law regarding catastrophic emergencies (which would have been written with a nuclear war in mind), but it wouldn't pass the most basic constitutional scrutiny unless there really wasn't much left beyond a pile of smoking rubble. At which point, of course, the Constitution wouldn't be anyone's top priority.

Re: Nope

[hyldemoerwitch.livejournal.com]

sorry I was not more clear in my initial reply.

I would say you've misinterpreted it...

[dionysusdevotee.livejournal.com]

First of all, I agree with you re the DHS. I have no idea why this is part of homeland security. However " "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Does not mean that the government cannot support religious groups.
"Establishment of a religion" means that the government is forbidden from establishing an official religion, which is a completely different subject.

For example, I could start a Pagan charity group and recieve the same entitlements from the government as a simmilar Christian charity group. How would this 'establish a religion'? Further, there are no laws being made here.

The government has always had a role in supporting religious institutions, and many of the people who wrote the constitution were strong advocates of religions role in American society, in fact some of them described religion as central to the sucess of the country.

Why the DHS? I can't imagine.

Re: I would say you've misinterpreted it...

[starlightforest.livejournal.com]

For example, I could start a Pagan charity group and recieve the same entitlements from the government as a simmilar Christian charity group.

Well, theoretically you could. Whether you would be able to convince the Powers that Be that you qualify as "faith-based" (i.e., that Paganism is a legitimate religious group or tradition for this purpose) is something else again.

Re: I would say you've misinterpreted it...

[dionysusdevotee.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think there would be a problem with that, first of all there is a precident of pagan non-profit charities. Besides, the powers that be would get sued. The ACLU would love that one. The government has already recognised both Wicca and Paganism as religions. There are Wiccan chaplins in the military, for example. And CAW is a federally recognised Pagan Church with non-profit subsidiaries such as 'forever forests'
Regretably the serious problem with creating Pagan charities is simply that Pagan religion doesn't focus much on charity (comparatively).

My personal experience with religion and the law is that the fed. doesn't care if you worship Elvis as long as you fill out the paperwork and pay your taxes.

Just for clarity

[dionysusdevotee.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty much at the point where I'm suspicious of anything Bush proposes, and as you point out, the fact this is DHS is alarming. I just don't think that Paganism is relevant enough to discriminate against, from thier perspective anyway. This is probably about assisting Christian activist groups through programs that help their NPO arms. My initial point was that this act was not covered by the 'no establishment' clause as long as its not discriminitory, and as long as the act serves Bushs interests, it won't be.