The article highlights conflicts with "separation between church and state". It seems to me that what the people who challenge the programs mentioned want to avoid is that certain religious groups get a preferred treatment over others.

It makes sense in a way - many people feel that it is not the government's duty, nor even its right, to impose Shia Islam, or Protestant Christianity (to give just two examples) as a state religion, or even to give one of them a preferred treatment. Perhaps you think that one specific religion (or belief, whatever you call it) (for instance, Protestant Christianity) is the right one, but a government of some country may not agree with you, and try to impose another belief (for instance, Shia Islam, Buddhism, etc.) on its peoples.

On the other hand, care must be taken that the situation doesn't go to extremes of anti-religious attitudes in general. After all, religion can be a powerful force of good, although it has often been abused.

>Hi folks..
>
>A program to restore a life of many and many people:
>
>http://nytimes.feedroom.com/?fr_story=d1a2378d7e5ef98d7fa2b7a956e3738b54367475
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/business/10faith.html
>
>
>what is really our modern society is looking for?
>
>to have it own "reasons" in philosophical/ideological subjects?
>nice life for us, our family and our fellow creatures?
>Or.. What else?
>
>Just for some years ago that equation was pretty easy to solve.. By now.. Well.. almost impossible..
>
>we are becoming all sick.. losting all teeth.. and on every new day, far away from solutions..