Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) As he competes against a Mormon in the presidential election, President Obama has appointed the first Mormon member of his White House faith-based council. By Daniel Burke 

8 Comments

  1. Instead of appointing any new or additional member to George W. Bush’s faith-based council, Obama should have disbanded that council. Legal challenges should have been made against it, and the Supreme Court should by now have declared it unconstitutional.

    “Faith” having any special standing in our government activity is an absolute contradiction of the first clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the establishment of religion. The Framers knew their history and recognized the awful danger of mixing religion with government. Why do we ignore it?

    It is plainly untrue that there are any guidelines to ensure federal funds handed out to faith-based groups are not used for the promotion of religion, and that is the establishment of religion. Those groups proselytize with federal funding blatantly.

    This is a secular government. Churches and religious people should support their own endeavors. There is absolutely no place for them in our government. Like so much else that our federal government does, it violates our Constitution, our laws, and truth.

  2. It may be a “secular” government, but the faith communities across the country do a lot to better this country in providing aid and monetary relief to millions of people across our country and the world. The Founders of this country agreed that one religion shouldn’t get more deference than another, but they agreed that they felt inspired of God to create the United States. Why shouldn’t there be a counsel to help people of various religious beliefs better coordinate charitable efforts? As to federal dollars used, how is a group of religious people using federal dollars in a group like this any different than any other groups of people of differing beliefs spending federal dollars in any other less worthy cause? Religion is besides the point. The point is in trying to help human beings.

    That said, I don’t know why a federal group should be necessary to meet that objective. There are plenty of religious groups who come together to benefit their communities. The local level makes more sense for addressing needs of the citizens living there, not some national level. I’m all for small government and taxdollar accountability.
    Thanks for listening.
    www.conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com

  3. @ gilhow:

    You are right, churches and religious people should support their own endeavors to the same extent that secular organizations and people support their own endeavors. If the government is making funds available to private individuals and organizations for whatever purpose, whether an organization seeking those funds is secular or religious should be irrelevant, only whether it will meet the purpose that the government is trying to further. Anything else discriminates against religion. The only constitutionally sound argument generally against churches receiving government support for education and charity is that the government shouldn’t be supporting education or charity at all.

  4. Raymond Takashi Swenson

    The article says: “the advisory council is charged with: indentifying best practices for delivering social services, improving the implementation of public policies related to faith-based groups, and recommending changes to polices, programs and practices to the president.” This is not focused on transferring money to churches, but on how the Federal government interacts with churches and other religious organizations, especially charitable ones. Those are legitimate issues of concern to the citizens of the united States, because not only is the government barred from “establishing” (supporting) a religion, it is also prohibited from interfering with the “free exercise” of religion. Part of the problem of interference is that government bureaucrats can be clueless about the ways their decisions can impact religious freedom. It is a legitimate expenditure of Federal funds to pay for a lunch or two for a group of distinguished religious leaders who can point out points of friction between the government and churches. The policy about requiring employers to violate their conscience by paying for health insurance that covers contraceptives and abortion pills was totally tone deaf, and should have been vetted with this kind of panel before it was issued. Time will tell whether this is regarded by Obama as mere window dressing, or a voice that he would listen to.

  5. George Charles Jr.

    This malevolent POTUS is no different than the proletariat of the old USSR…putting a token elder of the LDS on a committee. Who’s does he think he’s kidding? Let him bow down and serve Jesus Christ publicly with all his heart, actions lined up with it, and then we’ll talk. until then, he should be in jail for fraud.

  6. I am completely right about what I am talking about every time and I believe that any individual that is a member of a fanatical cult that is actively baptizing the dead,worships the devil and validates the existence of a sub human race called the “Reptilian world”, has absolutely no business whatsoever in the U.S Capital building…

  7. Necro dunking = Baptizing the dead… The Church of LDS has determined that every single human being on earth, dead and living, must be a mormon… For what? NWO?For the proper greeting as all 1 religeon world for the predicted alien visitation, which has actually been determined to be a giant pile of Satanic BS called “project Blue Beam”?
    Lets live in the real world and deal with problems in a realistic manner without the beliefs of a book of fairy tales getting in the way of actual solutions, which means give those religeous cult members their walking papers asap..