Last Friday night I tried in vain to alleviate a friend's deep pessimism about the inclination or ability of Americans to counter the unabashed campaigns to have religion dominate our public life. He came to the U.S. in order to escape a society that imposed religious dogma on its individuals. His dejection was triggered by the October 10 segment of NOW with Bill Moyers, which reported on the blatantly evangelical nature of the "Faith-Based Initiatives" that our President launched via the first two Executive Orders of his Presidency. The first established...

...a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President that will have lead responsibility in the executive branch to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Federal Government's comprehensive effort to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations to the extent permitted by law.

The second established Executive Department Centers for the Faith-Based and Community Centers, whose purpose would be...

...to coordinate department efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social services.

Earlier this evening I caught the rebroadcast of the program and understood why my friend was upset. As I watched it, I clung to two things to steady myself as I got agitated. One was the very fact that a respected TV show was making sure that we knew and understood this. The other was hearing a man of faith, Rev. C. Welton Gaddy of The Interfaith Alliance, share my allegiance to the American principle of the separation of church and state. When I went to the PBS website after watching the program, I voted out of curiosity in the obviously non-scientific poll that asked, "Should church and state be separate?" The answer choices were "Yes," "No," "Yes and no, it's complicated" and "Not an issue for me." Of the approximately 72,900 responses, the answer with the highest percentage (32%) was "Not an issue for me." As I said, I realize that the poll isn't scientific but, even so, seeing this was a major bummer.

In practice these initiatives aren't just leveraging the positive results that any religious organization might effect in the lives of their believers who seek their help. The new Office created under the aegis of the Executive branch of our government is problematic in many ways. Among them is its discretion over the choice of the organizations that are granted the federal tax-dollars. This effectively puts our government officials in the business of evaluating the validity of the faith behind an applicant organization; if the problem with that is not obvious then, well, I don't know what to say...

So far, according to what NOW... reports, this evaluation has apparently been pretty straightforward. Not only have these funds gone only to Christian organizations but the majority of them are of the evangelical kind whose faith is what our President has so often and so fervently extolled.

I took this Freedom of Religion quiz and learned a couple of things. Perhaps my friend and I are still too new to this country and that is why we take this Constitution thing too seriously. If that's the case then please, someone, do set us straight so that the next time this comes up we can get drunk and contemplate where to emigrate next.

--aslam

9:02:06 PM  

In November 2000 The Economist endorsed Dubya over Gore citing its preference of Dubya's "small government, pro-business philosophy." This despite its acknowledgement that Dubya was "self-evidently a neophyte" in foreign affairs and diplomacy, while Gore was considerably more experienced and its appreciation for the need for the President to be more than merely the "advisee-in-chief" on foreign policy issues. Their biggest beef with Gore was that he was "cosy" with trade unions and other nefarious groups who might rain on the free-trade parade with their frivolous demands for decent labor and environmental standards. Unfettered Capitalism, it would seem, had to be saved at all costs, even if it meant that the world's only superpower would be led by an inexperienced man with no discernible interest in the rest of the world.

The Economist went on to loyally support its candidate in his Presidency when he unilaterally waged war to oust Saddam Hussein despite the lack of convincing evidence of the existence of Iraqi WMD, the purported reason for waging the war. Now that the falsehood of the American claims of imminent danger from the WMD has become clear, The Economist has had to fault its darling Dubya for his apparent deception but it does that while sticking to its case for the war.

I guess I could support the war too if I could convince myself that my President and the people who have his ear sincerely set out to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the clutches of their brutal despot. Perhaps Dubya and company are shrewd enough to know that people like me don't trust them to "do the right thing" and decided to manufacture the imminent threat so that fear would cloud our judgement and drive us to support their desert adventure without question.

I take no comfort in having my mistrust in the Bush Administration shown to be justified and valid. Nor do I feel any glee in not being among the majority of Americans who expressed their will to wage this war that is now killing and maiming our soldiers and countless Iraqis with no possibility of peace in sight. I'd like to think that I'm not being delusional by expecting my fellow Americans to keep their government honest and ensure that it does right by the people whose war-ravaged lives we now dominate.

--aslam

4:45:37 AM