Again, the legal minds of the Bush administration proves that they would likely lose a legal debate with even the most novice of high school pre-law societies. In the latest memo of the Office of Legal Counsel, their legal argument is not sound. Without arguing the merits of their reasoning, which in its untethered logic raises questions about their American political faith, we should notice how this new Executive decision was issued to the public. Despite the questionable policy, I am worried more by the sneaky, contemptuous manner of the Executive Office by circumventing proper oversight with their addictive use of Executive Orders. This is just another representation of the multitudes of other questionable acts that have gone unnoticed. As a believer in Strict Constructionism, Bush should pay more deference to the Constitution and at the least, follow the example of the Framers when they quite publicly deliberated the Bill of Rights.

     Using the administration's own argument, their decision is framed around the freedom to exercise religion; the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, a Civil Liberty, something the government has compelling interest in protecting.  With such a centerpiece, an argument deserves more public discourse than a posting to their website. You would have thought they would learn a lesson against using the Office of Legal Counsel to diffuse the political bent of their actions. When I was younger, I might have tried to cheat while playing games with my younger, naive cousin by hiding the rules of the game and then making them up as the game goes on; all the while insisting that my cousin should just trust me. By downplaying the importance of their decision's rationale, their methods are like trying to hide a rabid elephant behind sheer curtains at a party purposefully ignoring it's tangibility.

      The actions seem to be calculated and disingenuous. As a deflection, categorizing that opposition's argument as simply, politically liberal, as opposed to conservative I guess (maybe fascist or providential though), is also disingenuous to political debate. Refuting this logic, I am sure there are even the most orthodox of religious figures who see the danger in the administration's decision. Not tempted by this baited tinder and flint, you can see the repercussions from their decision to hold some historical inconsistencies. At the same time refusing diplomatic connections with certain international leaders because of extreme discriminatory acts, the Executive is now willing to give money to certain discriminating faith-based groups.  This example certainly does not hold equality, but what if one of these groups received money for an appropriate initiative while espousing the ideas of white supremacy as a doctrine?  Would this demand judgment, and identify the necessity for separation?

     Critical, legal arguments are also deflected by misappropriating the root of harm against those religious-based initiative groups. The claim is that they were denied funding because of their religion. But they were actually denied because of their public discriminatory behavior. They accept this causality fallacy of legal structure, through dissonance and mis-assigned biases.  This ignores the necessary distinction of how religious groups act both as a part of, and separate from, the public sector. Embodying and exercising ones religious beliefs emanates from an individual, transcendent relation of choice. When people's actions travel into the public sector, they need to behave appropriately around those who made a different choice. Excluding my simple, on-the-fly philosophical rambling as an example (I tend to go on-and-on with no direct), it is this type of philosophical debate the we must address if our social evolution is to progress with a sound foundation. It might be my age driven pessimism, but are we savvy enough with the necessary critical thinking skills?  Have we gone into a post-industrial dark age led by a Hollywood/Entertainment inquisition?

      It is sad to see those, who misinterpret the meaning and purpose of the separation of church and state, accept this non-expolratory ignorance about their personal, religious relationship's and deny the familial tie to essential human rights that exist in spite of human institutions. It is frustrating to see the Executive Office use their institution position to manipulate and dilute the First Amendment with a self-evident fallacy.

     Even though the most central tenant to ones personal religious identity is a part of our natural awareness, some don't see religion and  Natural Law both germinating from the same conscious thoughts.  The Independence that is personified in the ideals of Natural Law  and religious faith somehow becomes disconnected, leading to in public conflicts. Religious faith and our American faith in Natural Law should be fostered in concert. So I think it is sad when such ideas like: independence, sacred divinity, choice, under God, all men created equal, separation of church and state, and the like, act as sources of dissention.  Religious and American faith should both be a sacrosanct part of the awareness to our human existence.