>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.

while the discussion runs over "preferred treatment", we (the human kind) are all loosing the focus.. The opportunity..

Shia Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Popeye, Maradona, Bush, etc.. Are all only names/denominations compared with the value of the human life.. The value of a restored father that comes back to his family..
>
>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,<snip>

>although it has often been abused.
>
If followers of Bahay faith decide to help a life of a single man and need a government support.. All that we have to say is: Aleluiah!! Here is my point.. The "life" should be the first priority before ALL of the things..

Otherwise, empty religion only..