tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post7882850798083860039..comments2008-07-07T15:53:24.599-04:00Bob Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-70769752005327624322008-07-07T15:53:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:53:00.000-04:00Luke,<BR/>You make an EXCELLENT point. <BR/>There definitely needs to be a clear "separation" of function for the two institutions (church and state). Churches do certain things; government does certain <I>other</I> things. When government seeks to do that which religious bodies are supposed to do, they go beyond the proper sphere of their responsibility, infringing on that of another institution's responsibility. Government must not inhibit how these religious bodies go about their business.<BR/><BR/>This is tricky when it comes to public services that religious bodies do better than the government does. Government wants to see services rendered, and it is inappropriate to favor secular institutions in rendering these services over against the religious one. <BR/><BR/>I deeply appreciate the way that <A HREF="http://www.cpjustice.org/" REL="nofollow">The Center for Public Justice</A> articulates how this should look:<BR/><BR/>"<A HREF="http://www.cpjustice.org/pluralistvision" REL="nofollow">A Christian philosophy of public justice, which advocates a strong but limited government that <B>respects the autonomy and responsibilities of civil-society institutions</B> and <B>honors equally the convictions of all citizens</B></A>...<BR/><BR/>...<A HREF="http://www.cpjustice.org/content/frequently-asked-questions-0" REL="nofollow">The new church-state standards level the playing field so that faith-based organizations, if they choose to, can compete for government funds to provide social services without first suppressing their religious identity. There is no requirement that a religious group must collaborate with the government. Still, if a faith-based organization does accept government funding, then it should take care not to become dependent on government—and it should take care not to become detached from the faith community that gave it birth...<BR/>...The new church-state rules are designed to enable government and faith-based groups to become respectful allies in serving the needy, keeping religious providers from becoming mere arms of government — acting as if they were duplicates of government agencies. Among other things, faith-based organizations, even if they receive government support, should, when necessary, advocate against officials on behalf of beneficiaries and appeal to elected officials for changes in policies."</A>Bob Robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576734261775426385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-57426261844508595472008-07-07T14:40:00.000-04:002008-07-07T14:40:00.000-04:00i think what bothers the liberals is the idea that federal money, raised through taxes, etc. would be used to underwrite religious teaching and proselytizing. frankly, i think religious organizations should be the ones most concerned about this. accepting federal dollars by virtue will make you accountable to federal regulation. we can't have our cake and eat it, too.LukeMillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15335126872595909319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-26058894772350999622008-07-06T10:27:00.000-04:002008-07-06T10:27:00.000-04:00The separation of state and sanity <BR/>thne and now, @ YouTube.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7iQRFP_e90<BR/><BR/><BR/>.Tor Hershmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03037704048671379868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110103.post-22435234177499229132008-07-06T03:58:00.000-04:002008-07-06T03:58:00.000-04:00A very thoughtful post, Bob<BR/>It deserves some discussion.RonMcKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03989126812730583009noreply@blogger.com