Replies

Interestingly enough I don't ever recall AP calling Clinton EO's "divisive" and by "fiat".....

It was a lib/dem (LBJ) who signed 11246 which required government to discriminate on race. Now we have GWB signing an EO to eliminate discrimination on faith.

Hoping to involve churches and religious organizations more deeply in government efforts to address social ills.

Or is it the other way around?,
hoping to involve government in churches and religious organizations
in order to (________) (fill in the blank)

Since 9/11 President Bush has not publicly uttered the name of Jesus Christ once.

Never any testimony, no statement of specific faith, zero, nada.

Anyway, this faith based malarchy sounds like the U.N. priority of human rights,
i.e. a Trojan Horse.

Interestingly enough I don't ever recall AP calling Clinton EO's "divisive" and by "fiat".....

It was a lib/dem (LBJ) who signed 11246 which required government to discriminate on race. Now we have GWB signing an EO to eliminate discrimination on faith.

You're absolutely right about the first point - "divisive" has no place in a news article except in quotes.

I disagree with your second point. Bush's plan is a mixed bag. There are sensible ideas like this one: "the Federal Emergency Management Agency will now allow religious nonprofits such as schools and soup kitchens to get federal aid after natural disasters." And certainly it's a good idea to correct the examples cited.

But what about this? "By far the most contentious of the changes is Bush's executive order informing federal agencies that religious organizations refusing to hire people of any faith can still win contracts." How is that not discrimination?