Faith-based appeals do not lead to a faith-based initiative
By Steve Benen Tuesday Jan 22, 2008 6:41pmIn light of some of Barack Obama’s religiously-based appeals, there's been some discussion about where the line is, and whether the senator has a reasonable defense to justify more religious rhetoric than Democrats are accustomed to hearing.
How far might Obama take this approach? He’s a committed, church-going Christian. But do his appeals point to a Democrat who might be sympathetic to lowering the church-state wall and backing a policy like Bush’s faith-based initiative (a la Joe Lieberman)?
Apparently not. I was pleased to see the subject come up in an interview Obama did with BeliefNet, which suggested the senator’s view on faith-based programs seems “similar” to George W. Bush’s. Obama responded:
“No, I don’t think so, because I am much more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries.... I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn’t conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that.
“My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.
“That, by the way, is a view based not just on my concern about the state or the apparatus of the state being captured by a particular religious faith, but it’s also because I want the church protected from the state. And I don’t think that we promote the incredible richness of our religious life and our religious institutions when the government starts getting too deeply entangled in their business. That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe. Part of that has to do with the fact that, traditionally, it was an extension of the state. And so there is less experimentation, less vitality, less responsiveness to the yearnings of people. It became a rigid institution that no longer served people’s needs. Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.”
That’s a pretty good answer.
The problem with Bush’s faith-based initiative wasn’t that the government would subsidize social-service work from religious groups. The truth is, that’s been going on for years — Catholic Charities, for example, was contracting with the government for taxpayer-financed projects for years, long before Bush came onto the scene.
Rather, the problem with Bush’s approach is that he identified safeguards in the system, and eliminated them. It led to an initiative in which made it easy for religious groups to proselytize with public funds.
Obama’s approach — which I’d like to hear him emphasize a little more often — would seem to return to the model that was in place before Bush took office: faith-based groups are eligible to compete for government contracts, as they have been for years, but only while “maintaining” the separation of church and state, and while preventing ministries from proselytizing while performing a state-sponsored public service.
And in the bigger picture, Obama’s general approach to religious liberty was very much in line with what I wanted to hear. Indeed, he characterized church-state separation in a way that might appeal more to religious conservatives — arguing that the constitutional principle isn’t hostile towards the faithful, but rather, helps maintain the integrity of religious institutions by leaving them free of government interference.
To be sure, I suspect Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would probably answer the same questions in largely the same way. In this sense, it’s encouraging to know that all three Dems will respect the church-state wall that Bush has been hitting with sledgehammer for seven years.
Login or Register to post comments.
Yes. It is a pretty good answer.
Wow, another hit piece against Obama on crooksandliars.com. I have read back ten pages and did not see one sympathetic story for Obama. Yet plenty of stories in support of Hillary. It says a lot. You guys have been silent on Bill and HIllary Clinton's downright inappropriate attacks.
americanwars @ 2:
Did you read the same post I did?
How about a story about Bill Clinton blowing up at a CNN reporter today because he questioned about the Clinton machine's attacks on Obama?
i'd be interested to see what catholics think about his criticisms of religion in Europe
That is a very good answer: fair, articulate, sensible and in keeping with what this country is supposed to be about.
I wonder what the average repug would have said? A lot of circling, equivocating, stammering, a off-topic mention or two about 9/11, maybe Ronald Reagan's hair, and in the end, a whole lotta nothin'.
It'd be a pretty good answer if faith based, TAX FREE churches actually did what they should be doing. Instead of worrying about gay marriage & other hate based themes, they should be feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, & all that Jesus stuff.
fiver @ 3:
Really, what did americanwars read? If anything, the post was objective and leaned more towards "favorable", imho.
But I gotta say, I can't stand all the religious talk. If we're going to keep church and state separate, then I don't want to hear about it. No more "god bless you" at the end of speeches, no more "God Bless America." It's really quite oppressive for someone who isn't interested in all this god nonsense. Some churches and other religious organizations do good work. Great. Whatever makes you happy. But I don't think the government should pay for it at all. And is there any chance that god can be shoved down my throat a little less?
Never mind. Stupid idea. What was I thinking.
americanwars @ 4:
You mean Bill having the guts to give the lame stream media the serious kick in the ass it deserves?
americanwars @ 4:
Amazing how you Clinton-haters see & say stuff that never happened. The man answered a question & you claimed he blew-up at a reporter. I guess Mr. Present (Obama) can criticize the Clintons but they cannot criticize him. FYI - no one has the RIGHT to be president, it MUST be earned like every other candidate - black, brown, white, green or yellow - male or female.
It was a nice politician answer, but still a crock. The problem with the services he mentions is that i many cases there are strings attached in order to receive those "free" services. If you get fed by a faith based homeless shelter, you have to sit through a sermon. No sermon, no food. Just like Jesus did it......
Tax dollars should never be given to faith based organizations. PERIOD.
but..but...my email says Obama is not a Christian...
If there is ever a revolution the media must be the very first to go down. None of this would be happening if they had been doing the job they are supposed to be doing the past 7 years.
Which is reporting to the American People. Not George W Bush.
It's unbelievable that C & L is posing this question.
One of the reasons I was shocked that so many liberals are supporting Barack Obama is because I have heard him say that "I think the Faith-Based Initiative is a good program and should be extended." Mind you, the man is talking about a program Bush started to buy votes from Christians with our tax dollars and Obama thinks it should be extended.
This was early days and, of course, he was pandering to evangelicals. This guy is no liberal or even a progressive, he's conservative through and through.
No W Now @ 12:
THANK YOU !!!!!!
Boggles the mind that a presidential candidate that says he saw a UFO once, is lambasted and ridiculed, yet if you "praize da lord" and belief in an invisible God to worship, you are considered normal. What a fracked up world.
This new answer is a total flip-flop.
"Mind you, the man is talking about a program Bush started to buy votes from Christians with our tax dollars and Obama thinks it should be extended."
People, Mr. Present (Obama) is trying to BUY votes, just like criminal George did. Remember, he thinks Repugs are great thinkers & admires them.
ted @ 5:
European countries are not religious. They have state churches but hardly anyone attends and there's no mandate to attend church. Europe endured centuries of religious wars in which thousands of people were killed horribly. After so much of that it's hard to believe that religion is a good thing.
I'm not interested in standing in a Faith Based soup line just so the Church Ladys can feel like "winners".
fiver @ 3:
That's not the way I read it.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
You talking about the same media who just concluded, 5 years late, that Bush & his band of liars lied about the threat Iraq posed, to justify war?
Listen to those morons at your own risk.
This is a sort of adequate answer. Have we been so infected by the soft bigotry of low expectations (snark) that we consider this a good answer?
CriminalGeorgeW @ 23:
I haven't listened to the media since Sept 11. When all these media wimps went crying to Murdoch "oh Mr. Murdoch save me Mr. Murdoch I'll say anything!"
kaT @ 15:
So, what would you call Mrs. Bill with all her corporate sponsors, and corporate voting?
ConcernedCanuck @ 26:
I'd call her a corporatist. Like Obama, frankly.
His answer was...not terrible. I don't hate Obama - I'd vote for him if I had to in November and all - but I really wish he'd get into more detail on these things. I read that thing twice and I have no idea where he actually stands on the issue except...that he's more liberal than Bush. Well yeah, I'd expect that from a Democratic candidate for prez. He never gives a straight answer, or details - I just don't feel like I can't trust the guy, somehow.
Let's be realistic: *nobody* can go out there and say "i'll take God out of government" and then expect to win an election.
I'd love to have the invocation of God removed from our motto/money and from the pledge of allegiance, but in my wildest dreams i can't imagine somebody actually even *hinting* at such a thing.
I think this is about as "good" a position to take for a candidate who does believe in separation of church and state but who would also like to WIN (no matter *what* he/she actually believes or *would do* once elected).
If i were responsible for getting Barack elected, i'd be very happy with this particular response.
ConcernedCanuck @ 26:
Canuck, I don't think our Northern brethren can truly appreciate how vital HRC is for the U.S.A. She may be a corporate shill, but she protects us in other ways. You see, we have suffered such epidemic burning of the American flag that it has become our major national security (if not environmental) concern. Only Senator Clinton has stood up for these poor, defenseless, sacred flags. We simply must have our priorities straight. Of course, unlike Canada, our national symbol does not grow on trees (most are made in China).
You guys might want to link to this article from the London Independent. It's called 'don't be fooled by the myth of John McCain': http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-har...
It really takes him and the media fawning over him apart...
Awful answer. Tax dollars should never go to church programs. He is pretending that this nonsense is okay in principle and it's not.
Any jerk who says that a program is okay as long as he's running it, is either a fool or he thinks I am.
To call that response anything but amazingly articulate and clear just reeks of idiocy.
The only faiths I want to hear about are these:
1. How much faith do you have in our health-care system?
2. How much faith do you have in a government where corporations have more power than people?
3. How much faith do you have in a media network that is a near monopoly owned by a handful of republican corporations?
4. How much faith do you have in a system that allows a president and his vice-president to lie the world into war?
Let's talk about those faiths, candidates. I feel I know WAY too much about Obama's "faith", like when he invoked the name of Jesus during the last debate.
Religious faith is nothing but a republican distraction.
Herself @ 28:
Mr. Present tries to be slick, making accusations when it turns-out he's doing the same things, and trying to pander to all to get votes. Can't get a straight answer out of the man, press him & they claim racism.
americanwars @ 2:
Just because Obama stumbles and it gets pointed out here, doesn't mean this site is pro-Clinton. You think that less than flattering story about your guy=pro everyone else. Have you ever read the posts on Hillary Clinton threads? "Wow, another hit piece against Hillary on crooksandliars.com. You guys are so obviously pro-Obama."
I know this site isn't pro-Hillary for a fact. How? I wouldn't visit here any more if it were. If you want pro-Obama stories, go to his site. If you want pro Hillary stories go to her site. Quit whining and start your own website and call it "IlurveObama.com." You can post all the glowing reports about your man you want.
Sen. Obama, why the fuck should my tax dollars be used for prison ministries? Bad enough that churches are tax-exempt.
americanwars @ 2:
That Bill and Hillary have been the subject of unethical attacks is the republican's problem, it is not a statement of the Clinton's policy views, which by all accounts remains highly suspect and corporate-driven. C&L gets it right.
All said, it was a good statement from Obama, but those are just words, Bill Clinton said wonderful things to America, but that did not stop him from doing ill to the country.
If Obama is backing a policy like Bush’s faith-based initiative, we need to know all about his church and what their beliefs are.. The church's today are nothing like they were 50 yrs ago, let alone 2000 yrs. ago... Today there are a lot of church's that believe that God would like to see them rich and enjoying the good life while the poor try to survive by pulling themselves up by the bootstrap..
I googled Obama's church so we can see if we agree with them as their beliefs may become law...
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
I've heard that as many as three Supreme Court Judges could retire during the next presidential term, so I do find this somewhat encouraging, despite the flaws in all three.
I'm glad to read this. Silly superstition and imaginary friends are best left out of real world matters.
Gregg @ 38:
Bill was proven to be nothing but a liar. As has been shown with the Bush regime over and over, the public despises liars. However, the public seems to give Bill a pass for some strange reason as he runs for Co-President with Hillary. Economics experts are to this day, still trying to figure out just how the heck Hillary made so much money in so little time on "cattle futures" but alas, a Clinton scandal is nothing more than a smear campaign. LOL!
ted @ 5:
I'll tell you what I think. My mother is Italian, definitely Roman Catholic, and my initial response is "WTF, hasn't he ever been to Italy?" Needless to mention Greece and their deeply rooted religious culture.
Reminds me of Rumsfeld's "old Europe" slam.
Arrogant. We need to stop this kind of "ugly American" attitude that somehow, someway, America always is better than Europe.
CriminalGeorgeW @ 16:
Proselytizing with tax money would be against the current f-based initiative's office regulations (although Supreme Court law allows religious symbols to be present), but I do imagine that the beneficiaries of the support are not the most sophisticated in terms of regulatory knowledge, so there is a current policy question in terms of monitoring violations. As for prison ministries, these are an optional form of support that require a secular alternative. One would also imagine that any (D) president wouldn't overstaff the scoring appointees with evangelicals in the way Bush has and in overtly political ways like Bush did (See David Kuo's book). Obama is not making religion mandatory or pushing it to the public square or pushing theologians to the Supreme Court, he just doesn't penalize it.
Render therefore unto Cesar the things which be Cesar's; and unto God the things which be God's.
According to Jim Wallis [The Great Awakening] "The dominance of the religious right over our politics is finally finished". He went into details on The Daily Show last night. video at http://www.foxnews-follies.com
CriminalGeorgeW @ 16:
-In his interview with the Jerusalem Post, Obama professed his love for Mosaic Law and wore a yarmulke at the interview in honor of the "Chosen People."
-Reported to have spoken to the atheist centered blog, The AtheistNetwork.com, Obama praised atheists for their courage to not believe in a supernatural entity.
-At a pentecostal revival meeting, Obama preached about the Rapture and warned all present that Jesus spoke to him last night, warning that every one who didn't vote for him would not be on Jesus' 144.,440 bus.
WHAT NEXT? Is this the kind of FOOL we want in the White House? Being a constitutional law professor didn't serve him much is he would have read the "Separation of Church and State" part.
PANDER, PANDER, PANDER.
Obama's comments at Ebenezer Baptist Church in GA on MLK day were more measured as well, he mentioned "atheists who are looked down on by the religious and atheists who look down on the religious as intolerant" or something to that effect. now, obviously that suggests a relationship disproportionate to reality, but he was with a very religious crowd, so it was significant to say something that went as far as that.
SM @ 47:
Please supply links to support your statements. Those are heavy-duty. I don't want to ever repeat them unless a reputable source confirms it. I can't imagine Obama ever saying something as ridiculous as Jesus spoke to him.
FWIW, I agree that Dr. Feelgood panders, but it's not right to spread anything untrue. It always backfires.
Thank you.
Stosselitiphobic @ 44:
I worked for a company in an 'dying city' in upstate New York which was faith-based, a non-profit, during the Clinton years. It definitely received some state & federal aid for certain specific services it provided (shelter for runaway adolescent females, AIDS shelter) and some which were entirely donation-funded. it was overall a mix of grants and donations. They did very good work. I'm an atheist, I didn't really get in their faces about it, but I let them know I was a skeptic. They were so chill and nice, though. They gave free lunches to children all summer in various park service stations, ran a homeless shelter, a fairly substantial food pantry program, delivering food to the poverty-level elderly, and there are so many of them, it's horrible. I'm totally fine with organizations like that, having worked for one I know that they do a lot of good.
At the same time, they did have some aspects that were troubling. They had a hot meals program which did require that you listen to a sermon, and they did recruit for their (Methodist) church, in a pretty passive way. But there was separation between the programs of those things. The AIDS shelter didn't have any of that, for example. I learned there from a very conservative religious minister who looked a lot like Phil Lesh that the vast majority of 'welfare' money in America went to the elderly, who were for the most part getting screwed out of their gourds and not able to do shit about it. The whole 'welfare queen' image was such infuriating bullshit!
Thing is, under the Bush administration, motherfuckers can get Federal grants to build religious-themed strip malls. Anything, as long as they line up the paperwork properly. It's insanely scandalous. I do trust Obama to understand the difference between these two ways of looking at the role of religious orgs, particularly in the area of the social services. There is no doubt that his time in community organizing exposed him to many such organizations. In depressed urban and semi-urban areas on the periphery of more developed areas, they're the only orgs doing that kind of work. Almost always.
Straight Shooter @ 49:
IT WAS PURE UNADULTERATED SARCASM.
SM @ 51:
Well, that's nice, but rest assured I've read worse about all the candidates on other Internet forums, written in very serious tones. Have you heard about the Sinclair video about Obama? I won't repeat the contents, it's disgusting, but a lot of people actually think it's true.
Bottom line, when it comes to Obama and religion, he does pander. Did you see his brochure for South Carolina? It was like bush redux, prayerful poses and everything.
That Bill and Hillary have been the subject of unethical attacks is the republican's problem, it is not a statement of the Clinton's policy views, which by all accounts remains highly suspect and corporate-driven. C&L gets it right.
All said, it was a good statement from Obama, but those are just words, Bill Clinton said wonderful things to America, but that did not stop him from doing ill to the country.
"Ill to the country"? - you mean like; Balanced Budgets, Surplus instead of debt, fantastic economy which included all, and no war. Sounds like you either a Repug or have been brainwashed by their bullshit.
That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe.
That's right, Obama. Most Europeans listen to scientific answers to form government-based solutions, whereas, in the U.S. more than 75% don't accept evolutionary theory and over 90% belong to some faith based organization, i.e. religion. And, now can we talk about promoting science and math education to help our country continue its success into the future, or do we have to hear more about your version of super spirits in the sky and how change is important again.
No W Now @ 12:
you are so right. I cannot think of one scenario that would be healthy for the church or the country in this situation.
I purpose that these "churches" stop operating for profit, stop building these huge mega churches with media centers that are the envy of any major news corp., and stop embezzling from people desperate to find answers to the question "why". I purpose these churches take that money and help the people of Katrina without the expectation that the Government compensate them. I purpose these mega churches follow the tenants of the New Testament and the Beatitudes. You know, blessed are the meek,poor, hungry,persecuted, etc..
If I were running for President, as a Christian, that is what i would purpose.
Straight Shooter @ 52:
YES I SAW THAT AWFUL THING!!! "Committed Christian" was the wording on the side, OMG! And it was just so not well done, it looked like a cheap real estate/insurance brochure.
NEXT UP ON THE PANDER LIST:
-Wiccan Ladies Forum held a sit down seance with Senator Obama, tapping the spirtual energy of Dr. MLK, Jr., RFK and JFK, while the senator from Illinois praised Gaia for her blessings.
-The newsletter for the Association of Afro-Yoruban Culture in Miami reported Senator Obama's recent initiation into Santeria, as he was baptized into the Afro-Latin sincretization of West African Yoruban beliefs with Catholism by Maria Cecilia de La Cruz Perez Alvarez Rodriguez, a well known Santera and tarot reader on Calle Ocho, Little Havana.
-The Ann Arbor Michigan, weekly, "Yes, Shiva Loves You!" held a two-hour interview with Senator Obama at the Shiva Asharm, as he recited quotes from the Bhagavad Gita, impressing attendees with his "downward facing dog" pose.
PANDER, PANDER, PANDER!
It's an answer...but it needs to be flipped- The seperation of C and S is to protect the people (the state) from the Church, not the other way around. Good answer...just completely bassackwards.
fuddled @ 54:
Totally agree. It's embarassing.
Europe is a perfect example of how civilizations are destroyed by pandering to relgious dogma for imperialistic means - and it didn't work. Once they stopped that crap, the last conflict that I can remember being the Protestant/Catholic conflicts in Northern Ireland, it's flourished.
Bill Clinton started the faith-based initiatives. We seem to forget that.
SM @ 56:
LOL! Your pen is indeed a sword. There's a lot of knowledge behind those sarcastic observations. You ought to write for the Onion.
Insurance brochure, that's exactly what it was. His campaign should be prohibited access to desktop publishing.
Good night, I've got a CSI DVD waiting for me :)
gerald @ 59:
No, Newt, Dole, Lott & Co. started it, and twisted Clinton's arm to accept it.
Just a general comment:
A lot of you seem to be misreading Obama completely. Please don't fall into the trap of assuming that someone who mentions "religion" and "government" in the same sentence is a right-wing lunatic. Martin Luther King was a devout Christian. Nelson Mandela is a devout Christian. Desmond Tutu is a devout Christian. None of them are evil or dangerous to non-Christians. Jimmy Carter is a born-again Christian and has given one of the most thoughtful justifications for abortion rights that I've ever heard. Vilifying these people plays into a Republican stereotype ("We're in a culture war and they hate us for our freedoms.")
If Obama or anyone else is going to build a Democratic majority, they're going to have to do it with Christian help, since there aren't enough atheists in the country to make a majority. Simply being Christian doesn't mean anyone is wrong on an issue, even a hot button like abortion. There is a big difference between setting up a counselling service that stresses prevention and encourages adoption and picketing abortion clinics with pictures of aborted fetuses. One is helpful, the other isn't. If you read what Obama said, he was supporting the right of religious groups to organize initiatives and ask for funding if they can demonstrate results. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Also, don't underestimate the power that liberal Christian groups can exercise for causes you support. One of the reasons that gays obtained the right to marry here in Canada is that during the legal squabble a few years ago, the United Church of Canada decided to switch sides and support the right of gays to marry. That put the government in the position of having to suppress the right of an established church to decide their own policy on the matter if they wanted to ban it altogether. With the exception of Stephen Harper, nobody was willing to do that and the anti-gay movement quickly collapsed. Within a year, they were done.
Splitting Image @ 62:
You don't get it. Good results or bad result, it doesn't matter. When people feel exasperated and get no results from government, the answer is to force the government through democratic means to provide the help, not let some religious group perform government services by proxy.
As for GLBT legal discrimination, it is centered in and propagated by Judeo/Christian/Muslim texts. You still cite a religious group's pressure, though in this case one that you seem to agree with, in forming a government decision. I don't care about what religion you want to have tell you what to believe or do, just keep it to yourself. Thank you.
Splitting Image, that's true. Furthermore, Obama is a member of The United Church of Christ which is the American version of the United Church of Canada. Though Obama says he doesn't support gay marriage, his and my denomination (I am also a proud UCC member) supports full marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
Our denomination is very active in promoting peace, inclusion and social justice in our world, country, culture and society. We are very supportive of the separation of church and state though fundamentalists and far right conservatives would probably say that we are hypocritical.
I guess it all comes down to viewpoint.
#6 Bonkers Says: That is a very good answer: fair, articulate, sensible and in keeping with what this country is supposed to be about.
I wonder what the average repug would have said? A lot of circling, equivocating, stammering, a off-topic mention or two about 9/11, maybe Ronald Reagan’s hair, and in the end, a whole lotta nothin’.
Quote This Comment January 23rd, 2008 at 4:51 PM - PST
This was my reaction, as well. Can anyone in their wildest imagination envision Shrub EVER giving such an articulate and reasoned response to ANY question?
Setting aside the merits of the argument, it is like a breath of fresh air to listen to someone who is able to articulate a pov without looking at notes, mispronouncing words, losing their train of thought, fumbling , mumbling and generally acting like the pompous bufoon now occupying the White House.
Bonkers @ 6:
Eloquent diversion into how unresponsive state religions are, but he distracted you from his point that he wants to fund religious groups doing work the government should be doing. That's Obama. Eloquent effluent about change but he wants the status quo, and in this case, using our tax dollars to fund religious groups, which, of course, support him.
Thats a pretty good answer.....? Thats a fuckin good answer. I just hope every one has contacted thier officals and uged them to vote no to H. RES. 888. Im startin to like Obama.
The Realist @ 55:
I purpose that these "churches" stop operating for profit, stop building these huge mega churches with media centers that are the envy of any major news corp., and stop embezzling from people desperate to find answers to the question "why". I purpose these churches take that money and help the people of Katrina without the expectation that the Government compensate them. I purpose these mega churches follow the tenants of the New Testament and the Beatitudes. You know, blessed are the meek,poor, hungry,persecuted, etc..
If I were running for President, as a Christian, that is what i would purpose.
I am assuming that 'purpose' in some case means 'propopse' and in others it means 'suppose'?
Beam Me Up Scottie...Please! @ 67:
That's right! Please vote no for H.Res.888! I agree with Obama's stance that religious groups should continue to get funding! I've got to get my religion registered and sign up now for some sweet funding! It's a helluva lot safer than getting my ass blown up in Iraq for those easy to get gubbament dollars.
ronhohn@68:
"I am assuming that ‘purpose’ in some case means ‘propopse’..."
In some case means propopse?!
I don't know if you meant it, but i am laughing my ass off right now. :D
americanwars @ 2:
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! C&L, which I love, has a love affair going with BO. I'm hoping it's not the ad on the right side that he's been running for a long time now that has affected editorial content, but it's obvious that C&L digs BO more than they do Hillary. Biggest example: BO comes out and talks all gooey and nice about Ronnie Reagan....now go and find ONE STORY about that on here. It was mysteriously never mentioned, except by readers.
As for BO's religious freakiness, the last thing I want is another idiot with his finger on the button who believes in mythical creatures.
The faith-based initiatives would be one of the first things to go , if I had a say. It is as unConstitutional as anything could possibly be (regardless what an irredeemably corrupt Extreme Court has to say to the otherwise). Because I cannot opt out of paying taxes, I am being forced to support religion against my will. That amounts to state-imposed religion and participation in religion. If I try to avoid that forced participation by not paying taxes, I will be prosecuted and convicted for tax evasion. On conviction, my property will be forfeit and my person freedom taken from me.
The faith-based initiative shirks duties that belong solely to government, violates my constitutional protections and was never intended to be anything other than a way of currying policitcal favors and transferring more of the people's assets into private hands.
That it still stands today can be taken as but one indisputable proof of how corrupt, and how clownish in that corruption, is our Supreme Court.
Paul @ 72:
Bama is a republikan. Anyone trying to get the 'religious right' vote is the worst kind of republikan too...
Ugh. What a stupid answer. Government funds paying for church programs is pandering to god-heads. I imagine that islamic churches won't (don't) get the same kind of government funding.
obama is a LIEberDem od Dino for short. he'll go as far as it takes to bring about a Dem defeat. Just like his LIEberman advisors are telling him to.
If God is the Answer, you're asking the wrong questions.
"Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.”
Just what the hell does that doublespeak mean???
I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is!
Morons. All of them. Corrupt garbage.
Organized religion is the albatross of humanity.
It has been the cause of more wars and deaths than anything else I can think of.
bob s. @ 79:
You've obviously never heard of personal wealth.
bob s. @ 78:
That doublespeak, for some inexplicable reason, is being called great oratory skills. LOL.
Obama never says that science and math is vital, and that science has led us out of the dark ages of religious answers for all that is wrong with societies.
Religions provide palliative relief for personal problems, but never has provided equitable solutions for any country's citizens.
ronhohn @ 68:
I am assuming that 'purpose' in some case means 'propopse' and in others it means 'suppose'?
sorry, it was early. I propose ...
better.
Login or Register to post comments.