Here is a “separatist” point of view forwarded by someone whom the Christian Right believes is the political answer and dream-come-true of the American Christian, George Dubbya Bush.

Faith-based groups received $2 billion in ’04, Bush says – (BP)

One of the tests of character for America, the president said, is how the nation treats its weakest citizens, and part of the test is to understand the limitations of government.

“When I think about government, I think about law and justice. I really don’t think about love,” Bush said. “Government has got to find ways to empower those whose mission is based upon love in order to help those who need love find love in society.”

What a nice, clean break from responsibility. NO, of course government isn’t going to be associated with LOVE, but then I ask, “isn’t that sort of implied in more secular ideals such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Isn’t it implied there that government has something to do with ensuring that the needs of a society as a whole are weighed against the desires of certain segments, to keep one group’s desires/wants (and “professed beliefs”) from creating unjust inequities? Doesn’t it ultimately come down to “we’re in this together”?

Yeah, government has limitations, but it doesn’t seem so when it comes to the advantages and windfalls going to the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations. So when we appeal to the “limitations of government”, shouldn’t this also, as a matter of justice, also apply to those who are much better equipped to “brave the market”; whose existence originated and has progressed by their role as a “market player” and apparent vixtor in that market, while the poorest and most vulnerable are shoved further into debt, disadvantage, and more desperate vulnerability?

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, attended the conference and was one of about a dozen religious leaders who met with Bush at the hotel before the speech.

Who was this “dozen”, aside from Land?

Also,

Land was also pleased that Bush made clear no American would be obligated to turn to a faith-based organization for help — a secular choice would still be available.

And yet, these “secular choices” are somehow drastically cut in Bush’s new budget. You see, this is what this man does, and his staff carry out the deceptions: they talk up some nice sounding stuff chock full of choice terms that appeal to their most gullible audience, and then , realizing that 99.9% of these people don’t pay any mind to actual implementations (or lack thereof) of these policy “promises” like, say, MONEY to fund such statements.

Like Jim Wallis says, Budgets are MORAL DOCUMENTS, and the Bush administration is bankrupt on that score.

Now here’s a good one:

During his speech, Bush set forth four steps his administration will take to continue building a culture of compassion in the United States.

A “Culture of Compassion”? Bush supporters seem anything but compassionate. The arguments are almost exclusively AGAINST nearly any and all compassion programs, and how these programs “actually hurt the people they are designed to help”, and then proceed to DO NOTHING as an alternative, nothing but Slice and Dice existing supports, and continue to effectively funnel that money into corporate coffers and continued expanding of windfalls and loopholes that the rich have wanted all along.