The Washington Post reports that on Saturday the task forces created by the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships released their long-awaited report (full text Word doc.) on reform of the faith-based office. The task forces' 12 recommendations--explained at length in the report-- will be voted on later this week by the full Advisory Council before being sent to the President. Here are the recommendations:
1: Perform a strategic review of government-supported technical assistance and capacity building.
2: Convene and encourage learning communities of social service programs and providers.
3: Develop a strategy to partner with State, county, and city officials.
4: Strengthen constitutional and legal footing of partnerships, and improve communications regarding White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and Agency Centers.
5: Clarify prohibited uses of direct Federal financial assistance.
6: Equally emphasize separation requirements and protections for religious identity.
7: State more clearly the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" aid.
8: Increase transparency regarding federally funded partnerships.
9: Improve monitoring of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements that accompany Federal social service funds.
10: Assure the religious liberty rights of the clients and beneficiaries of federally funded programs by strengthening appropriate protections.
11: Reduce barriers to obtaining 501(c)(3) recognition.
12: Promote other means of protecting religious liberty in the delivery of government-funded social services.
.jpg)
Posts
4 comments:
Where's the recommendation to abolish Obama's faith-based program as a clear violation of the neutrality principle of the Establishment Clause -- for it undeniably shows a purpose and effect of advancement of religion and a preference for religion over nonreligion.
“The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.’” (McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968); Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947))
Consulting the Founding Fathers is a much more authentic perusal of the issue; hence they did not divide religion from the secular, but only a National Church being established.
Bob --the office is trying to navigate around the establishment clause in order to help poor churches and charities expand their unique services to poor people whom they know and serve. But there is too much restriction attached to gov't money by this list --when they say you can't require chapel attendance, e.g. --or have religious decor in the building.
It isn't fair that I have to pay for state universities that undermine religion, establish atheism in their classrooms, teach skepticism about the Bible and Christianity (out of anti-chrisitan bias and revisionist history, not real history) and allow all sorts of immoral living arrangments in dorms, removing all the chaperonage that responsible homes maintain for their kids. They also look the other way at campus drinking and date rape and frat hazing, etc. Yet, my money supports that. But what do the Religion Clause liberals worry about? Don't teach those children Bible stories on our dimes! Don't make drunken bums attend a chapel service! That means, everytime something religious is done, we have to hire another person to supervise the people who don't attend.
for their kids.
After 18 they're adults, Barb, not kids. They should be allowed to make some decisions on their morality.
They also look the other way at campus drinking and date rape and frat hazing, etc.
Who looks the other way at these things?
Post a Comment