[Egregious Philbin]

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?

[anniegetyourgun]

So you're in the same camp as those who want to force the (private organization) BSA to take hire women as camp counselors? I think that one has been settled, as has the question of religious organizations not being forced to hire those who do not agree with their religious tenets. It's like suggesting that no contracts can be awarded to Catholic charities because they don't allow men to become nuns.

Mind you, if we lived in a perfect world, there would be no need for government involvement in anything even remotely resembling charity, welfare, etc. However, as long as we don't the government is going to award contracts, and it's just as wrong to discriminate against certain bidders on the basis of their faith as it would be for certain bidders to be rejected on the basis of their color. Unless, it is up to government to pick and choose WHICH factors they will discriminate upon.