Government sponsored religion is against the Constitution. Doesn't the president swear an oath to uphold the Constitution? This alone is an impeachable offense.

A decent idea, provided that some sort of mechanism is put in place to ensure that all religious institituions, regardless of denomination, are offered the same opportunities to compete for dollars appropriated under the program. There doesn't appear to be anything of the sort in place now, which has contributed to the controversial nature of this effort. Religion does, however, have a positive role to play in society, but it is fundamentally unfair to favor one religious denomination over another in the disbursement of taxpayer dollars for these efforts.

Well it sounds great in theory that the government should support faith-based community service initiatives. But a faith can do just about anything without any independent oversight. They can discriminate on the basis of gender, skin color, sexual orientation etc. etc. They can make professing one's belief in a certain religious view a requirement for the distribution of charitable services. They can forbid access to birth control and abortions and they can even put out misleading and false information about these things without any repercussions at all. I personally don't want my tax dollars going to just any "faith-based initiative." I want to make sure my money doesn't end up fattening up religious organizations that discriminate against people or hurt people or give people misleading or false information. And if government supports some faith-based initiatives, then who is to say which will be supported and which will not? This is a direct violation of the constitution since government is actually supporting a faith here. There's just no arguing that point.

There is nothing in our constitution that precludes faith based community services from receiving funds from our government to promote public virtues for the common good. It is actually the primary goal of government to support our valued institutions through a devolved republican system and foster the traditions and virtues that allow us to self govern. Those who remark that these programs are chosing one religion over the next are clueless. Every system is inherently predicated upon a standard of ethics- nothing exists in a vacuum. What has bigotry toward those of faith gotten us in the inner cities? I ask you since the Everson decision 50 years ago what successes have been brought to us by those who portend to remove faith based inititives from the public square in favor of the secular ethics the support? Millions of abortions, higher drug use, increased out of wedlock births- what has bigotry toward faithed based community services given us?

Pretty telling to see this draw fire from both sides of the aisle, both on this forum and in the real world.

Just another tactic to divert attention away from the fact that he (BUSH) is a nincompoop!

PUBLIC schools. that's where our tax money has and should continue to go. religious and private schools are PRIVATE, hence no tax money should go there. if u care so much about sending your kid to religious, private school, then sell your home, your car, your second child as a slave, and eat your dog for food to pay for it. because I DON'T WANT TO.

I believe all parents should have the oppurtunity to send their children to Faith-based schools. We are all tax payers aren't we? If we have a faith in God and at the same time pay our fair share to the state, who are you to say that we can't ensure our children should be brought up in a Godly way?

Blair, he who would like to be on all sides of everything, is trying to commit the UK to the same initiative of faith based schools...but in this case it would also mean segregated Muslim schools independent of the British culture they live in order to teach their 'philosophy'. Can anyone see the sense in this given his 'war against terrorism' (religion based) and policies of integration? It sounds like a similar case to George's attempts at faith based schools and services even though the religion here favours Christianity...whilst you cannot remove spirituality from life, religion and state should and must remain separate. If you want to support a particular belief, you create the funds...don't expect it from the public purse.

This is a textbook example of bad policy. Viewed in the best light, it is naive to think that religious groups or churches receiving government money won't use that money to further their beliefs, especially since this program provides little oversight or mechanism for accountability. Viewed in the worst light, it intentionally undermines constitutional separation of church and state.

I don't want my tax dollars going towards increasing the funds and prestige of a particular religious group at the expense of another. Period.

I must agree-- religion itself is dead. However, a living, vibrant faith in a loving God is one of the hallmarks of a successful and purposeful life. Unlike those who merely exist to disagree, Dubya has created a program where the single most potent element of human existence (thnx, System of a Down!) faith, can and should be used to raise our country up from moral decay. Because Bush realizes the importance of Faith in everyone's daily lives (yes, even athiests have faith, they're just a little confused), he has implemented Faith based initiatives. And if I hear separation of church and state again, I'm gonna flip! This principle was established by our Founding Fathers to keep the government out of religion, not the other way around. Our country was founded on the very morals that God has instituted from day one of Creation. If you don't believe that, move to Antarctica, where anything goes.

Should be renamed for what it really is - Religious Welfare. It think we have enough stinking government programs in this country as it is. Lest we need a program that creates controversy. No way is Bush a fiscal conservative. While he slashes some programs, he increases others through the roof.

Faith based community services, while recommended by President Bush (and others before him) are separate from government. For that reason alone it's safe to say that they are run with more efficiency. There are several churches in my area that provide services for needy families ranging from decent clothes and food to holiday presents for children. People who assist faith based organizations also offer services such as auto repair at reduced rates. Faith based organizations in some areas also offer job training and job search services, GED programs, child care and transportation, shelter, and counseling. Some states, such as Texas, purchase service contracts with faith based groups and they state that any monies from these contracts may not be used for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization. The point is that even the government knows that in many cases they cannot provide services as efficiently or as effectively as faith based groups. People who pull together to help other people, regardless of the organization, are leaving their mark in their community and beyond, and they are making the world a better place for those who are struggling or in need. If an organization happens to be faith based, it means that unless a contract is purchased (which does not happen with smaller faith based groups) no government money or tax dollars are being spent in that effort because the money is generated from within. Should faith based community organizations disappear, an incalculable number of people would have a lower quality of life and many would die from starvation or lack of medicine. When President Bush was governor of Texas he created the Faith Based Task force in May of 1996, and its provisions can be found in executive order GWB 96 - 10 for those who may wish more detailed information regarding the use of partnership funds.

Helooo! Seperation of church and state, anyone?

Organized religion is nothing but the biggest scam in history and the worst disaster ever to visit mankind. Sept. 11th was a faith based initiative you know.

Long needed concept of getting local groups and communities more involved in helping our neighbors.

Another case of the ideology of Bush's bosses adversely impacting public policy, as the separation of church and state is at risk with this suspect initiative. These rightwingers supposedly champion smaller government (or, when it suits specific self-interest or their perverse and skewed version of smaller government), but have no problems with the government going into the charity business. Let's get government out of religion and religion out of government in this country. We're not living in a theocracy, although these pushy, obnoxious, self-righteous charismatics, born-agains and other self-deluding spiritual weaklings would like us to be so. One of the cornerstone aspects of the American ethos is our reaction against the political, social and cultural mores of the mother country, and as one of the biggest sore points against England by our 18th century ancestors was its establishment of a state religion, any move toward an establishment or endorsement of religion in this country is decidedly unAmerican. Those of you in favor of this retarded and perilous assault on our essential liberties should emigrate to the U.K. so that you can buy into that Tory mindset with impunity.

Failed nations of world history have one thing in common. Intolerance towards any religion. Bush's policy promotes the ability of Americans from all backgrounds to use their faith to improve human relations.

Out of George W. Bush's actions, this is one concerning me. As religion is weaved into government operations, hate and intolerance will follow. Just look at history from all over the world. Government decisions just cannot have to do with promotion of faith, as this is against the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.