>First, understand that I am not a religious person. I detest religious fundamentalists of any flavor, and would be extremely concerned if the US started drifting into a theocracy.
>
>That said, I think your interpretation of what you listed as proving we have a "faith-based government" is highly questionable.

I said "I see it" - didn't say I had iron-clad evidence. Just an observation.

>>- faith based charities were handed a lot of money during Katrina relief, while Red Cross wasn't allowed into the city
>
>Faith-based charities did a lot of work to help the victims of Katrina, and now a lot of them are suffering for it as the government won't reimburse them.

However, some Pat Robertson's charity got a load of FEMA money right away. So some are equal, some are more equal.

>The Red Cross didn't go into NO until local authorities declared it safe to do so. Not a federal decision.

I don't really care at which level is the separation between church and government breached.

>>- the dispute about "under God" or not
>
>That's been going on since the phrase was first included, in the 1950's, when the USSR was taking a very anti-religious stance.

USSR is gone, but some of the consequences are tough to eradicate, aren't they?

>>- "in God we trust" on the money has replaced the "e pluribus unum"
>
>Since when? "In God We Trust" has been on American money for as long as I can remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

>>- ten commandments in public places dispute
>
>Totally bogus. The pro-commandment people - and they are usually local- or state-level people - regularly loose.

Again, to me it doesn't matter at which level it happens.

>>- creationism introduced into public schools, evolution on its way out
>
>Evolution on it's way out? Not that I see. This fight's going all the way to the Supreme Court, which has already ruled that creationism cannot be included in public school texts.

Kansas.

>>- the stem cell research decision based on religious motives
>
>I'll give you that one. But that will change.

What I actually fear is that the law means there won't be any federal funding of the research, but then I don't remember any prohibition for corporations to do so. In that case, you may find your medications under an NDA, copyright, IP protection, patent or whatever, and very expensive. Or owned by a foreign corporation, maybe even more expensive.

>>- marriage laws dispute influenced by religious groups
>
>Yes, it absolutely is. Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid, but that's just me.

Me two.

>>- what are the chances of anyone non-religious being elected to any high position?
>
>Clinton wasn't particularly religious, was he? Politicians of all stripes have to play to a wide audience.

Did he ever say "I am not a member of any church" in public? One must at least go through the motions or else their chances are worse than slim, aren't they?