When George W. Bush became President of the United States many conservative evangelists rejoiced. Bush opened up the door between the government and religious groups and eventually the line between church and state was blurred. He set up funding groups so that conservative christian religious charities and organizations could receive millions of dollars in grants, while . This angered many of the secular groups who were starting to feel the loss of the money that was usually sanctioned off for them. It also brought to the public's attention that although the Christian groups were being funded, many of the people who were counselors and in high positions were not qualified. This angered many people because they wanted to make sure that if these programs were being funded by the government that the people in charge were people who were qualified. However, in most cases the counselors were not qualified. “Religious drug treatment counselors wouldn't be forced to undergo training or to obtain regular state licenses.” (Goldberg, pg 114) The only training that they needed was the be a Christian and belong to a church. Religion is personal and should not be entered in the government's rules and regulations.
This kind of blurring of the lines between Church and State is something that should never had have happened. I was raised in a Catholic and extremely conservative home. This has made it difficult for me at first to understand why there was a nee for the separation of church and state. However, as I have seen firsthand, the government should not force religious views on the American public. Issues such as gay marriage are among the top of the list because no ones rights should be taken away, even if everyone does not agree with it. We are all created equal, and no one should have to ability to enforce religious views and morals upon the ones who are not of that religion.
Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. Print.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems that on some level this type of social spending that JumpingOjacks writes about is strangely and ironically admirable. I mean, if you stop and think about it, the usual rule of thumb for social spending and government... strike that... with spending and government, is to pay 4X as much for twice the amount, so that as a model of efficiency, this type of social programming is rather inventive. Not only does it throttle spending to secular programs that help the needy, but it doubles the bang for its buck by then funneling that $ into its dichotomy as sectarian cause.
ReplyDelete