Can Church and State Separate AND Cooperate?

The concept of the separation of church and state is as old as America.  Roger Williams talked about it in the early 1600s, Thomas Jefferson in the early 1800s, and we still talk about it today.  And for good reason.  In order for a free society to flourish, the national government cannot, and should not, discriminately endorse, support, and fund one particular religious group.  It should, in this sense, remain separate from religion.

But can religious organizations and the government still cooperate, even if they are to remain institutionally separate?  The answer to that question throughout American history has been a resounding “YES.”  From George Washington to Barack Obama, presidents have supported the idea that the government should cooperate with religious organizations, with two key provisos:  First, the religious organizations must be doing work which results in broad social good.  Second, the government must not discriminate among religious organizations, but must offer their support to any qualified religious organization which is doing the work.

In 1789, George Washington’s government worked through the War Department to fund missionaries to Indians, believing that the missionaries improved diplomatic relations with the Indians.  In 2001, George Bush established the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, an office aimed at connecting small organizations to federal funding for the community work they were doing.  In both instances, the religious organizations were doing work which benefitted the broader society, and the government aided religious organizations indiscriminately.  In both instances, church and state were able to separate, and cooperate.  Here’s hoping such separation-cooperation continues into the future.

FAITH, THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE PUBLIC SQUARE - September 26, 2013
If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to attend an event I have organized at Southern Methodist University on Thursday, September 26, 2013, entitled “Faith, the White House, and the Public Square.”  The SMU Center for Presidential History will host every Director, past and present, of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships (so renamed by President Obama).  These world-renowned experts will help us reflect on the role of the White House in matters of faith, community service, and public policy in the 21^st century.  You can register for this FREE event by clicking here, or on the image below.  I hope I’ll see you there!

When I Met President Bush

I was walking out of class at SMU when I heard someone excitedly say, "George Bush is over there!" Another student snidely remarked, "Who cares?"

I care. How often is a President only a block away? I walked in that direction and noticed a crowd of about 50 people gathered around. I closed in and saw President Bush cheerily shaking hands and smiling for cameras.

Based on the media's assessment of things I expected rioters and violence, but all I saw was groups of ladies taking turns having their pictures taken with him and men lining up to shake his hand. President Bush was charming and polite to all.

When he came my direction I extended my hand and he gladly stepped forward and took the time to shake it heartily.

"Thank you, for everything," I told him.

I meant it. I appreciate Bush for putting good people in the supreme court and for fighting terrorism. He seemed to understand how serious I was because he looked me in the eye and said, "Is it my honor. Thank you."

He meant it, too.

I didn't get any pictures with him, but I snapped this one with my phone, which turned out remarkably well for a tiny camera that usually doesn't work.


Here's the story about it at Southern Methodist University's website. [LINK]

You Were Wrong About George Bush

You said Bush would run for a third term. It's not happening.

You said Dick Cheney would run for President. He is not.

You said Bush would re-instate the draft. The last person to try to bring back the draft was a democrat, last year.

You (and Kanye) said Bush is a racist. As this article points out, Bush hired more minorities than Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, or Ronald Reagan ever did.

You said he was guilty of putting Valerie Plame's life at risk because her husband opposed invading Iraq. You were mistaken.

You said Bush was behind 9/11, but no one believes you, including Bill Clinton, the intelligent guys over at Popular Mechanics, and a conspiracy nut who believes in Chupacabra and UFO's, but not this nonsense about the government planning 9/11. (link contains profanity)

You were wrong.

Nice Guy

(This one is a little longer than normal.  I promise to keep it short the rest of the week.)

I heard President Bush on the radio, this morning.  I am always surprised at the way he works the crowd when he is being interview by the White House press corps.  He had the room full of them laughing heartily many times.  The media does not portray him as a witty guy but he really is and his speech this morning had me laughing on the way to work.

He was exceptionally polite to the reporters.  At one point he was asked to talk about the election and he nicely told the reported he wasn't interested in being a 'pundit-in-chief' and said he could ask him another question, which the reporter thought was cool.

He said that the biggest problem in today's politics was the name-calling and hatefulness in congress and that Congress needed to fix its problems.  He mentioned that he tries to stay out of the hateful name-calling habits.  And I can't remember him ever calling a politician mean names or being rude to any of them.

Bush came on the air to say that Iran appears to have halted its nuclear program and that he intended to pursue further diplomatic solutions where Iran is concerned. 

Why does everyone call him a warmonger?  Would a warmonger haev said that?  Would a warmonger have used diplomacy to liberate Liberia from Charles Taylor and then turned the rest of the process over to the U.N.?  Would he have used non-violent tactics against Kim Jong II?  In each of these situations countless people are calling for war.  I hear someone recommending invading Iran almost every day, but Bush appears to have no intention of this.

I was told that we went to Iraq for oil, but the first company to pump oil in the new Iraq was Norway.  Furthermore, the countries that were most likely to get the next oil pump contracts were China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.

This is possibly because America produces more oil than Iraq.  Why would we steal from Iraq if they don't produce as much as we?  If we were going somewhere to 'steal' oil we would want Iran...

Anyway, no one has to agree with the President.  It is normal for people to disagree with him, but why do people demonize him?   Why do people say he is evil and that he should be assassinated?  He is a nice man who controls the world's largest military force but chooses diplomacy as often as possible when faced with an enemy.  It's OK to disagree with him and even get frustrated with him. 

But why the hate?  It seems immature.