How do you feel about this?

I think your question will be pulled for being too vague.

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you say it.

I would prefer a clearer line than is currently politic in the U.S.

I don’t believe there was ever an intent to stop church freedoms in the US. God is mentioned numerous times by our founding fathers. Today people have gone out of the way to stop people from practicing their religion. Outlawing prayer in public places is in direct contrast to what our founding fathers fought for.

I agree with you, @tinyfaery.

At the same time I do think the churches have a power to influence and organize that is lacking in most institutions.

@gooch, not giving a special advantage to something that calls itself a church in no way stops people from practicing their religion. Nothing has been done to stop anyone from practicing his or her religion. As long as people can peaceably assemble in the name of whatever it is that they believe, freedom of religion is not being threatened.

Jeruba where I live prayer is not allowed at school or any functions for that matter.ie football games.

And where I live, they still teach Bible in high school (but it is no longer required to graduate).

Not providing public opportunities to display your religious beliefs is hardly the same thing as preventing you from practicing your religion unless your religion specifically involves school football games. Can you go to church freely? Can you worship as you see fit? Can you pray to the god or gods that you believe in? Are you free from persecution as you do those things and as you follow your religious practices in your own home? Then you are practicing your religion. Football games have nothing to do with it, have they?

@gooch A history brush-up is in order. The founding fathers absolutely meant to keep church and state separate. Many early groups came to this country, because they were minority religions who had been persecuted for their faith. The founding fathers wanted all faith to be a private matters, and all Americans to worship as they chose uninterfered with by the state.

By the way, anyone can pray at any time at a school event today. What is banned is institutionally sponsored prayer, which clearly tramples on the rights of those of minority faiths.

I’m with you, tiny. That sucks.

Ditto. Nuff sed.

I’m not clear what it is. What I’ve read (e.g. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/rel_obama_faith_based) indicates it will assist both religious and secular non-profit community organizations. So it seems like a misnomer to call it “faith-based”. I’d prefer it to be called what it seems to be, a “Department of (Faith-Irrelevant) Community Support”, or something.

Oh, I don’t like the exemption of churches from employment discrimination laws. That just has so much potential for abuse. If you can’t follow the laws that every other employer has to follow then you shouldn’t be getting federal funding.

@Marina google George Washingtons farewell adress. He tells the people to never loose sight of God. I know he is only one man but he is the father of our country. He is not the only one who felt that way. What you say is true but today I feel our country has distorted the seperation of church and state to mean they should not be allowed to intermingle. I think it means the church should not run the state like the church of England once did.

I don’t have a problem with it as long as it doesn’t go too far.

Funilly enough, the US is the only country where state-cut coins have the inscription “in God we trust”. Which reminds me of a recent Money vs God question here on fluther.

America is still a long way of becoming the Vatican, or even Iran. Therefore I don’t see the harm in allowing religious organisations to function as they wish.

@Jack79 They are free to function as they wish. The question is, should they receive federal funds and be allowed to legally discriminate in their hiring practices. I say you can’t have it both ways.

I know, I got that. And apparently it is more of a philosophical debate on the church/state division rather than a practical one. But on the practical side, can you really hire even a secretary for the local Zaratustran temple that is not at least familiar with the practices of the religion? For example, what if they have to talk to the Hight Priestess? When is a good time? Would they remember to take their shoes off when they enter the Sacred Chamber? And so on. Might be different of course if you’re just hiring a chauffeur who will not really have to do anything religious (except remember that he’s not allowed to eat a snake sandwhich on the Sabbath).

Funding is a completely different issue altogether, and should not be attached to whether they discriminate or not. Though I do understand the logic of the two being connected (funding means you are endorsed, and if you are endorsed you have to play by certain rules). But I think they should be tackled separately.

@gooch

This country was hardly founded on Washington’s ethics or spirituality. While he definitely served an important role as general and president, to my knowledge he had no personal involvement with drafting the content of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He was certainly entitled to his own views, religious or not, but they are his, not his country’s.

Washington also held strongly that our nation should stay out of world affairs (which didn’t last to long in our national policy). And he expressed abolitionist sympathies, though while in the White House he rotated the White House slaves in and out of the state to avoid a state law that would free slaves in residence six months or more. In all fairness he was the only founding father to free his slaves, but not until after he and his wife no longer needed them, ie after they both died.

So yes, agree with George whenever you do, but know that his opinions were no more sacred or fundamentally true than they were synonymous with the values of this country.

I think we’ve gotten a bit far from the actual words used in the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For this to have been breached, our government would have to be establishing a religion, or prohibiting people’s ability to exercise that religion.

This is in no way accomplished by the offer to help fund programs.

Just a point of curiosity – I’ve always read “an establishment of religion” to mean “a religious establishment”, not the establishing of one (i.e. “establishment” in this context is a noun, not a verb). Wouldn’t it have read “the establishment of religion” to refer to “establishment” in it’s verb form? Or am I just misreading the Constitution?

That’s a great question, I always thought it was a direct response to the establishment of the Anglican Church (which led to the repression of religion that the first settlers were escaping from).

I checked wiki though i don’t necessarily think that wiki is the end all be all reference.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Read “establishment” as “establishing” here.

It means both.

The first Amendment

But the government has definitely been diddling with religion.

I’m still not sure what the problem is here. Is it because Obama decided not to make an immediate decision on the rules currently in place?

Is there more bad than good being served here by not changing one thing without reviewing its legality? It sounds like he is going about the faith based initiatives in a way that does not promote one religion over another:

”Obama’s faith-based partnerships will be advised by an outside panel that includes Jewish, Muslim, mainline Protestant, and Catholic members, along with representatives of secular organizations.”

Isn’t a step in the right direction better than deadlock?

The delay doesn’t necessarily seem like a bad thing to me. I don’t know if I’ll agree his choices are the right ones, but he has publicly said that he isn’t going to pay lip service to religion, which is unprecedented for a president in the US.

@fundevogel: That’s unprecedented in a recent US president. :^>

I’m not saying every president was religious, but I’m pretty sure none of them had actually came out and said something that so clearly defined religion’s lack of relevance to the government.

If you’re aware of other presidential speeches or documents that undercut the importance of religion in terms of the government or our nation I would love to see them. Privately stated remarks would also be interesting, but there is a big difference between saying something to a friend at your home and saying it publicly to your constituents.