Mr. Science, thanks for reading my post and for your reply, but I am indeed not arguing for public funding of churches. I'm not sure where you saw that in my post.
I do support the work that some religious organizations might be doing, simply because there is a tremendous need in the real world for people who have difficulty getting needed services elsewhere. Those of us in the helping professions know how desperate is the need for assistance to the poor, the homeless, illegals, the sick and those who live on the margins of society. If some federal money can be funneled through existing programs sponsored by religious organizations, I don't have a problem with it, as long as no one is preaching or otherwise promoting their religion or restricting access due to religious scruples. And that is why Obama included Muslims and the non-religious in his speech to a Christian organization. I think groups that would rather proseytize or badger or restrict access for dogmatic reasons should rely on private funding. I realize there is potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean we cannot give it a try with proper regulation. Lots of non-religious programs funded by the government also suffer from fraud and abuse of the system, so it wouldn't be a new phenomenon.
My "personal journey" comment was in in response to neo's nasty characterisation of faith as "crap." If my personal journey is in the public sphere it is only because it is part of who I am as a person, so in that small way, if I am in the public sphere, then I guess it is too.
But I still think it's worth a try.
This initiative YOU ARE ENDORSING is a violation of church state separation. This is an expansion of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative". Like Bush, Obama has offered no clear system of accountability on how the money is spent. Bush also said that the money would not be used to proselytize and discriminate in hiring and only for secular programs. Here are a few of the abuses to date. There is no reason to expect that the public funding of churches under this program will be monitored at all by the government.If my personal journey is in the public sphere it is only because it is part of who I am as a person, so in that small way, if I am in the public sphere, then I guess it is too.This continued rationalization of yours shows how adept your mind is at shuttering away dissonant thoughts. How presumptuous, what hubris, what breath taking arrogance to say the public sphere should in any way be subject to your "personal journey" of faith that you "don't expect anyone to understand". You give yourself away, yes you are using this rationale to justify an encroachment of church state separation when you combine such faith with public programs. My argument is simply to keep it to yourself and honor church state separation. Don't assume I will simply go along with your polite Xian reassurances and calls for tolerance, you are pushing your faith into the public sphere whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
