I didn't say it was unConstitutional; I said it stinks.....using housing money to fund S. Baptist charity groups......its bs.
A lot of these groups were selected because of their effectiveness and effciency. My main problem with it is that their getting involved with government may reduse both and eliminate the reason that the programs was started in the first place. As long as non-religious organizations are also allowed to compete for the funds I have no church/state seperations problems with it.
Its not my opinion..
At least for the most part Ted it is your opinion. If you want me to comment on that particular case you will have to provide a lot more information.
Some of his initiatives even ones attacked by environmentalists actually can make the air claener. For example
nationalreview.com
Not subverting that at all. Supporting and restoring it.
Tell it to C. Rice and C. Powell.
I don't see the point but if they want to come around and chat I'll be sure to mention it.
As for the law that Bush is supporting and restoring -
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (as amended)
Title 42 USC Sec. 2000d - Prohibition against exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or national origin [Title VI of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT]
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Title 42 USC Sec. 2000e-2 - Unlawful employment practices [Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHS ACT]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .
(j) Preferential treatment not to be granted on account of existing number or percentage imbalance
Nothing contained in this subchapter shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer . . . in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area...
puaf.umd.edu
Furthermore, the one ally who has been one us is the UK
That is not true.
Tim |
