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.
You may not but our laws do.....there is good reason for separation of church and state and I don't like it when the president flouts those laws. Interesting how he doesn't like the favoring of one race over another but he doesn't seem to have a problem favoring religion over no religion.
In addition, the funds they used were approved by Congress for housing and not something else.
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.
Its not my opinion; its the law.
Some of his initiatives even ones attacked by environmentalists actually can make the air claener. For example
nationalreview.com
It would seem so if you treat each environmental law as a separate entity. However, the environment is not broken down into separate parts.......its one cohesive unit. So that when you encourage the replacement of existing facilities rather than upgrading them, you encourage more trees to be cut down, more sand and limestone to be mined, more land to be stripped and developed, more sprawl etc. Essentially, encourage what this country is famous for....use it and then throw it away.
Clearly, Mr. Bush has little interest or understanding of the environment, and so there is little forethought in his revision of environmental laws.
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.
I think they would see the point and they might get that point across to you better than I.
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.
Sorry, but I don't think Mr. Bush is doing anything to support this law.
ted |
