) ....Which, btw, is something that must be removed from the Federal guv'mint.
Why?
Unless they equally fund faith-based initiatives from Satanists, Wiccans, other pagans, etc... And from atheists as well (though I can't figure out how an atheist could come up with a "faith-based" initiative )
I agree, Scott. If a Wiccan coven wanted to get funding to do a project equivalent to a Christian faith-based project, I would have no problem with it. The point of the faith-based initiatives is to support helpful and community-enriching ventures without being tied down by separation between church and state issues--purely religious things, in my opinion, should not be supported.
Yes, but what do you think my chances of getting a "faith-based" initiative through, if I claimed to be a Satanist?
Vulcan Hint to the answer: the odds of a sphere consisting of small frozen water crystals continuing to exist in a very hot place referenced in Christian mythology.
Hmm. I think we now have some idea of how the next season will go. This is gonan be exciting. Normally, when a show changes casts in such a way (like Law & Order or ER) there usually isn't such a huge lead up (the death of Mark Greene excluded).
Probably not much, Scott, but that doesn't mean that the program is wrong inherently.
Seperation of chruch and state for the preservation of both.
I understand that, but if done PROPERLY, faith-based initiatives in my opinion do not infringe on the "separation of church and state" as defined in the First Amendment.
Okay, we've gotten this out. Now, PM. ;)
And Mike: The Constitution says nothing of the sort; that's an interpretation. The FA says that "government shall not infringe upon freedom of religion."
And I agree with Webber.
I just can't believe Josh just up and left! 
Quote:(though I can't figure out how an atheist could come up with a "faith-based" initiative)
And faith-based initiatives are not infringing on freedom of religion, IMHO.
But they are "respecting an establishment thereof".
By your interpretation. What exactly does it mean "respecting an establishment thereof"? I take it to mean regulating what a church can and cannot do or promoting a state religion in some way. I do not necessarily see a faith-based initiative as doing that.
Note: It could easily do that and in some cases might be doing it now, I am referring to the general concept.
I understand your point of view. Maybe mine is different because I don't belong to the "majority" religion in this country.
Please try the following Thought experiment.
Christians are a minority in the US, and [INSERT RELIGION HERE] is the majority. Congress keeps wanting to pass laws banning [INSERT BEHAVIOR HERE] because [INSERT HOLY TEXT HERE] claims that [BEHAVIOR] is a sin. Yet, your Christian religion believes that there is absolutely nothing wrong with [BEHAVIOR].
Or the following:
You are a Christian. [INSERT RELIGION HERE] is the majority religion in the US. Congress allows funds [RELIGION]-based initiative to do [SOMETHING]. Said initiative is the only federally funded thing doing [SOMETHING]. You are poor, and you need [SOMETHING], yet to get access to it, you must obey the dictates of [RELIGION] to get it.
Let's take each thought experiment differently.
a. This doesn't quite relate to faith-based initiatives, but I see where you are going. I am very wary of Christianity expressing itself through laws that restrict other, non-Christians. I am generally in favor of free expression of non harmful behavior (note: I consider abortion harmful), provided that Christians can express themselves as well.
b. This is a good point. I would respond to it by saying that faith-based initiatives should not be intrinsically "obey to obtain" things. For instance, a Christian faith-based initiative may witness and attempt conversion, but should not require conversion to obtain food/shelter/etc. I also would suggest that the government attempt to be fair in spreading its faith-based initiatives to various religions.
Back to the show for a minute:
Man, this is going to be interesting. I never saw Hoynes' hand in all this. And Donna vs. Josh? Wow!
I forgot - I LOVE Annabeth!
I still can't believe Hoynes was behind that.
And I'm still in shock over Donna leaving Josh. Especially considering how it's so obvious they have the hots for each other.
Josh didn't just up and leave Hannah. It's obvious that he struggled with it. I think when the new season starts (if they decide to) continue, I think we'll only see a few holdovers from the current cast, and I think Bradley Whitford will be one of them.
Yeah, you're right.
So... I totally missed why the Senator stripped the bill off of the budget. When the scene with him and Bartlet ended, they seemed to be at an impasse, then the bill is suddenly gone. WTF?
Sparrow, I felt the same way. Bad editing?
Assuming that Smits wins, Josh would probably be the only cast member still around. I would hate to see the other cast members go, however. Will could fit in a Santos White House, and so could Toby.
Annabeth could also stay. I hope so! I loved the scenes where she snuck up on CJ and CJ coudln't believe that they were the same species.
So what will happen with Josh and Donna? Is anyone a little surprised that she is working for Russell? I don't recall her showing any special love for him. Or is she doing it to get back at Josh? I think he didn't fully utilize her as she is definitely more capable of doing things than just answering phones.
I also have to admit I would love to see a Lumburgh Presidency. And I won't watch a fictional Republican Presidency, as much as I like Hawkeye. I don't even want to watch a real Republican Presidency.
Harvey: Well, a SURreal one anyway. ;-)
Yeah Brian, you are right.