This leads to the following paradox.

Fact: One of the first acts the new president was to stop aid for
organizations which perform or support abortions in the third world.  Even
if these monies were targeted for parts of the organizations that did not
have anything to do with abortions.  The logic being that this would free
up money to be spent for abortion related activities.  Presidents Bushes
exact words as reported by the NY Times.

  ``It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should
    not be used to pay for abortions or advocate
    or actively promote abortion, either here or
    abroad,'' Mr. Bush said in his executive order.

Conclusion: Funding of religious social organizations allow that religion
to spend freed up money on religious activities.  Thus the federal
government would be directly supporting religions.  I believe this would be
in direct conflict of the constitution.

Another proof that logic and politics does not work.

Andy


At 12:54 PM 2/2/01 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't think organization requesting funds will make
>a bit of difference.  I think the more important item
>considered to the government bean counter will be
>what the money is used for.
>
>To use Nick's example below, any Wiccan organization
>couldn't just ask for funds.  The money has to be
>"used" for something.  Like the "Wiccan Benevolent
>Organization for Unwed Mothers" or something like
>that.
>
>Tracy Johnson
>MSI Schaevitz Sensors
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Nick Demos [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:35 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: OT: Church and State
>
>
> > There was a letter to the editor in today's (?) L.A. Times newpaper
>wondering
> > how the President's new office of faith-based charities will react if a
>group
> > of Wiccans should apply for government funds.  My guess is that some
>religions
> > will be considered more eligible than others with respect to this funding,
>that
> > the government will be designating some religions "good" and other
>religions
> > "bad" (I seem to recall hearing about "good" religions and "bad" religions
>in
> > Salem).
> >
> > Do we really want government bureaucracy determining which religions are
>"good"
> > and which are "bad"?  A strong church/state firewall prevents this from
> > happening.
> > --
>I disagree.  It is done now.  For example there are qualifications for a
>non-profit organization
>which most churches apply for.  I have no problem with qualifying churches
>as long as
>it is done on a non-idealogical basis.  Qualifications might be:
>
>1.  Non-profit as above.
>2.  Financially stable.
>3.  Open to anyone.
>
>Regards,
>
>Nick D.