Obama Courts Evangelicals By Backing Faith Based Initiatives Program
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jul 01, 2008 9:45am
I'm not sure how exactly to process this news... According to the AP, this is not so much courting possible Republicans switch voters but re-affirming his long standing position after being painted as being far left over the primaries:
Speaking with reporters, Obama disputed that he is altering views.
"I get tagged as being on the left and, when I simply describe what has been my position consistently, then suddenly people act surprised," he said. "But there hasn't been substantial shifts there."
While Obama would expand Bush's efforts to give religious charities more equal footing when getting federal funding, he also would tweak what he would call the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in ways that divert from Bush's approach.
As you recall, Bush's head of the Faith Based office, David Kuo, derided the office for being over-politicized. So what kinds of tweaking would Obama do? BeliefNet thinks that it's ultimately positive for Barack, after the media scandals of Rev. Wright, to show his commitment to his faith. Obama's campaign has sent out a fact sheet that does make the following promises:
Obama's initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:
* Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.
* Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.
* Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.
* Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.
* Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding. Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not - whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.
In addition, Obama has been reaching out to evangelicals in other ways as well. Pastor Dan has more...
Login or Register to post comments.
I've bee hoping for a long time that we'd get an Athest for a chief exec, but sadly it'll never happen. The childish Americans with their sock-puppet imaginary friends must be pandered to in order for one to get elected.
bob dobbs @ 1:
Sad and frustratingly true.
I'm sure Obama is a fine, decent person. I'm sure he will be a billion times better than Bush. But this kind of stuff forces me to lose respect for Obama.
I understand Obama's call for unity, but he is walking a very thin line on this one...
This is essentially funding for grassroots community organizations. As long as he sticks to his guidelines, I think it could be very positive. Keep in mind, this would fund secular neighborhood initiatives as well as non-Christian groups. We hear "faith-based" as code for Evangelical Christian when it comes from Mr. Bush's mouth. Sen. Obama is a far cry from that, and he has been up front about everything he stands for from the beginning. This should surprise no-one, and could be really great.
Additionally, Gene Robinson on "Race for the White House" yesterday said that it's nice to hear (about faith-based programs), but he wishes that the government programs would be fixed first. He cited his experience post-Katrina where the only effective support services were coming from churches as a result of the Bush Administration's obvious incompetence. So -- following that line of thinking -- if we have a repaired government AND federally sponsored community initiatives, that would go a long way to fixing many of "society's ills", no?
bob dobbs @ 1:
As a religious person, I'd like to see a gay Native American former Muslim now traditonalist tribal believer who dresses in drag and is a pothead elected President. Unfortunately, we're a helluva long way away from that.
Dale @ 3:
Anyone that fell for the "I'm going to create a magical fairy land where rainbows blow out of our asses and war, famine, plague, and pestilence vanish into thin air," is as stupid as a black gay man voting for John McPapen.
I understand what he'd doing; a bit of jujitsu on the republic party god-boys, but I'm just dang tired of every candidate having to act all holy-rollerish to get elected.
driouxcipher @ 5:
I like what you said and how you said it. For now, I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.
General_Rennenkampf @ 7:
When did Obama say that?
Just wait. Wait until he gets elected and he bombs somebody.
Obama will not...
1. Leave Iraq
2. Make peace with Iran
3. Create a Manhattan Project for Alternative Energy
4. Legitimize gay marriage
5. Free detainees in Gitmo
6. End the war on terror
7. Get passed a meaningful healthcare plan
8. Put the interests of the American people over those of the Corporations
He will....
1. Continue the Clinton Doctrine (the US can use force to gain access to markets and resources)
2. Collabarate with the Republicans and Bluedogs to further erode or rights
3. Continue to fund the racist state of Israel and defile the Palestinians
4. Maintain Washington's business as usual
5. Weaken our already non functioning Democracy
6. Marginalize all of us
Wow... and I used think I was the cynical one.
Obama is just doing what he's always been doing... community service. Sometimes churches (in a non-secular way, believe or not) can provide great services to help the poor and disinfranchised when government programs fail.
Not all churches are bad (and I differentiate between churches and religions). There are a few good ones out there. This is a good step in the right direction... if it's managed properly and with adequate goverment oversight (not like it has been for the past seven years).
ICK!! Obama why why why?
Faith Based Initiative needs to be thrown out.
Obama's plan creates excessive entanglement between religion and government.
Check out what American United for the Separation of Church and State are saying.
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=n4la9jww23.app1b&abbr=pr...
"Rather than try to correct the defects of the Bush “faith-based” initiative, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would do better to shut it down, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State....
Lynn said he is concerned that the Obama plan apparently would allow direct tax funding of houses of worship to run social service programs. That, said Lynn, raises serious issues of entanglement between religion and government."
I'm all for reaching out, yada yada. But lets talk about A) effective cost per vote of your time and money. And B) Momentum. You can cut the lawns of the evangelicals and the amount of votes you'll gain as a pro-choice candidate is very limited. Very. Maybe its more important to work on more persuadable groups. And as to momentum, It's OK to piss on the left to show your a DLC that was pretending to be progressive, but they are the volunteers that are crucial to the outcome of the election. How smart is it to demoralize them? And how long before you get attrition in your network? Just wondering.
General_Rennenkampf @ 6:
Obama is most certainly an atheist. He is too smart to buy into the superstitious contradictory mumbo jumbo that is Christianity.
Why do religious charities need their own special office? Why can't they just work through HHS or whichever other administrative agency like non-sectarian service agencies? That's the pandering--the religious need a special office, apart from everyone else, in order to do service work, apparently.
I've been hoping forever that we can have a president that welcomes everyone to rejoice in their own beliefs and feel safe and comfortable as a resident or visitor of these United States. I think a government could farm out some of it's charity work as long as it has oversight, something that the Bush/Chaney/McClown fascism lacks.
As a Deist I wouldn't want an Atheist as president or a world leader (that's done greatly with past examples — supposedly USSR and Communist China and Saddam Hussain). Sure they'll bring some sort of semblance of stability and reasoning, but I wary of a person that doesn't connect with their spiritual life in some form or fashion.
There is no way to govern religious groups to perform secularly in a "faith based initiative"! Obama has lost me in one fell swoop. I don't know who/what I'll vote for now. First, his reluctance to speak out about FISA and now this pandering to Bush's base - and yes, that's what it is.
Did you never wonder if the right was right for once in saying we all were wearing blinders about Obama?
PS, the word atheist is not capitalized. Just like the word theist is not capitalized. Stop comparing it to a religion.
"Obama Courts Evangelicals By Backing Faith Based Initiatives Program"
"Courts"?
Ha!
The wedding is over and the marriage has been consummated!
Well, he just lost me.
What next, pandering for the unicorn vote?
Why no mention of his support of these organizations being able to hire and fire staff based on religious views? From that AP article:
"Obama proposes allowing religious institutions to hire and fire based on religion only in the non-taxpayer-funded portions of their activities — consistent with current federal, state and local laws."
MAJeff @ 16:
that's what gets the religious to vote for someone, and even though some of the US has seen the light in terms of politics, some of the US still goes to church. as good as it sounds to forego that population...he'd still be shooting himself in the foot politically if he didn't try to make "public amends" with the religious after Rev. Wright.
i say: wait and watch.
marko @ 11:
marko, why are you so optimistic?
Keep it up, Obama. I'm itching to write in "none of the above" at the general election.
well, he just lost the only shred of respect i had left for him. i may still hold my nose and vote for him, but bob barr looks more appealing every day...
There is nothing wrong with the government giving grants to organizations that provide social services, religious or secular, as long as they aren't preaching. Obama is changing the name from "Faith Based" to "Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships," revealing his intention to include secular organizations. The rules that Obama intends to enact will ensure that the most radical religious groups do not get the money and that the ones who do get money are effective (unlike the current policy of giving money based on political expediency). I think it's brilliant.
WRONG
They already have a tax exempt status. I for one don't want my taxes going to any religious org.
If they're going to get govt money, they should pay taxes. Just like the rest of us.
off to work, have a good one folks.
Nope! Cannot vote for another president who does not honor the constitutional principle of separation. No more can I tolerate giving away of public tax dollars to churches and religious institutions and permitting faith-heads to steer this nation toward theocracy. I'm voting for Ralph Nader. Besides, he has the absolute best health care proposal out there.
see, I have a problem with this:
* Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.
I'm not religious, and so I dont want my tax dollars used to pay for bullshit. That's not what taxes are for. Why not fix a fucking bridge or something?
Marko, your a fucking pimp. Nice list.
So I can continue to tithe to fairy tales through my tax dollars. I'll just keep repeating the mantra,"He's better than McSame he's better than McSame." I suspect that is still true, anyway...
Libertina @ 27:
Yes Libertina I also "think it's brilliant" and should get a five star rating from all compassionate people.
Strict oversight is excessive entanglement. If that phrase rings familiar it's because it's part of the Lemon Test which is the precedence regarding church state separation issues.
Also note that excessive entanglement creates problems for both government and the religious organizations. The idea of government intrusion on religious organizations should scare the be-Jesus out of religious folk.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson
for what it's worth:
sec·u·lar
Pronunciation:
\ˈse-kyə-lər\
Function:
adjective
1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal b: not overtly or specifically religious c: not ecclesiastical or clerical
2: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
I posted this on a previous thread, but I thought this thread particularly needs a sense of perspective...
*snip*
I am thoroughly amused at all the surprise on this forum about Obama’s “shift” to the “center”. What part of “post-partisan politics” did you not understand in the primaries? To think that somehow it meant that he would wave a magic wand and turn everybody into progressive liberals, however nice that would be, is simple lunacy. It’s not going to happen. These recent moves by Obama have just confirmed what I thought of him all along. He’s a pragmatist, and of the best kind. He’s got a vision, and he wants everyone on board. Don’t be fooled by what the headlines the MSM (even the blogs) are throwing on these excursions into the center. If you really read into the stories and pay attention to detail, you’ll see that all he’s doing is holding to the positions he's held all along. Just because most people weren't paying attention in the primaries, now they think he's B-lined for the center all of a sudden. Very puzzling.
*snip*
2.) Faith-based initiatives
I loathe the religious right as much as the next person, but no one can deny the large bloc of centrist and even left-leaning evangelicals out there who only listen to Dobson and Robertson and vote red because there’s nobody else talking to them. These are people who sympathize with many progressive platforms (income equality, humanitarian aid, the environment, health care, etc.) who have simply been brainwashed to think that we’re all a bunch of pinko atheists who want to take their churches away. Well I say it’s about time to reach out to these people, and it’s clear that Obama does too. And for those who think that Obama’s faith-based proposals will just be a continuation of GWB, why don’t you go and read the platform. The plan is aimed in areas where faith-based programs have been shown to actually make a difference, such as humanitarian aid and providing for the homeless and jobless… you know, secular goals that we all want to see obtained? Unlike the Bush programs, no money is included for the failed sex-”no”ed programs or other wedge issues. And unlike the Bush programs, Obama’s plan is open to ANY religious organization, not just essentially no-bid contracts for Christian fundamentalist organizations.
They are going to end up funding the scientologists. No way around it. And if Obama thinks referencing "jews, muslims and christians" is an inclusive statement then wtf ever. Money for monotheistic cults is just another form of establishment. Wake me when the hindus get some money. Until then it's more promotion of cults by just another brain dead cultist.
Mickxotic @ 151:
The Dude @ 128:
LOL. Hello pot, here is kettle...
Wow as an agnostic I am at least open minded enough to know and understand that not all religious people are as condescending and presumptuous as the both of you. Thank vishnu for that!
You guys have to pick your role: you can a) victimize or b) play the victim. You can not do both, religious people not play the victim when they have been the majority holding the power for eons. Also, do you care to wonder why many intellectual and liberal reasonable people have develop such a disdain for religious institutions...
BTW, Straw men arguments and silly assumptions don't help your cause that much, from a purely logic-stand point (which may not be that important to some religious people, alas...)
@ Mickxotic: I'd never deny irreligion the right to exist freely. That is a sin just as surely as anything else, and it also is wrong from a human perspective. If Christians are so insecure that the mere idea of irreligion forces them to talk about banning it, they've got other issues besides merely being religious.
@ The Dude: Here's a challenge, name one Leftist government that has shown full religious freedom. None of them do, and most of them have had a secular basis. Religion has more than enough flaws, secularism and irreligion can kindly admit that when a secular, economically Leftist government gets into power, it's not long before religious people's blood flows. The whole American system has been shifted to the right, there is no Left in this nation. I know that when people place Christianity of any sort as a governing system, brutality, bloodshed, and corruption inevitably follow. You can damn well admit that the USSR and PRC consider themselves to be atheist regimes, it's that intellectual honesty thing you types lecture us types about. If Crusaders aren't Christian, then neither is Stalinist Russia or the Khmer Rouge atheist. If Crusaders are Christian, then so is Stalinist Russia.
And no preaching allowed? Yeah, sure bud, lie to me some more. When was the last time a church program was held accountable for that? Even once? And you can't patrol the border but you'll spend sufficient money to have undercover agents sneak into church food programs to see which ones are praising jesus? Sure, what the fuck ever.
liberalAGNOSTICFRONTmoderation @ 317:
Make it 5. Churches and religious groups in general have been at the forefront of humanitarian aid since their establishment. What difference does it make if they have higher calling in their practice? Obama has set the right rules to prevent abuse.
Yeah, they cant afford a robust air marshall program but sure enough we'll have fbi agents crawling over the churches to prevent preaching... yeah, thats a real political winner, I'm sure they'll be all over the enforcement. Any day now.
I Like Pie @ 356:
I can only agree...though, I've been hearing and reading that the "fundies" are already starting to shift from the gays and guns to caring for the poor and homeless on their own, this is just an extra nudge in the right direction...
You guys listening to Randi Rhodes - she is totally pumping this idea to its fullest.
Segment after segment on how right Obama is on this issue.
harley @ 366:
oy
ugh
oof
I don't care if they do community work or not. Under no circumstances should religious organizations get federal funds.period.
If they want to help people that's fine. Ask the parishioners for more money. I have no problem with donating what I can to those in need. But I would prefer my tax dollars go to something else, like education for the young. Funding the necessary projects for the elderly. I know that some of these churches do some very good things. So it shouldn't be a problem getting the parishioners to did a little deeper. There are so many charitable organizations, the govt shouldn't step in. No, I'm sorry, you'll never convince me otherwise. I firmly believe in Separation of Church and State.
AndrewK @ 363:
Excellent. Actually, you make it about 7 or 8 now. :)
mudshark @ 368:
i'm with you 100%
AndrewK @ 363:
Have any of ya taken a history class on religion --- come on fellas --- you are being dumb here. For example in the 1830s Southern Baptists formed their own sect using the Bible to defend slavery --- and to this day this group and those like-wise minded use their christian religion to bash gays and women. So if a person says: THAT IS VERY CHRISTIAN OF YOU, I for one have nothing but questions --- and what group you belong to makes all the difference how christians treat you. THE INQUISITION (catholics killing non-catholics and jews)for example; or how Native Americans were treated or Catholics supressed by protestants --- or how Jews were badly treated by most christian groups. You certainly can find do-gooders and well-meaning folk out there do their best to be christians and good people. good luck to them all ---- but keep your and my tax dollars away from their projects --- way too much bad history and mojo as far as I am concerned. Here in Oklahoma chuches grow fat and rich with massive property holdings --- all tax free. What else do they need?
liberalAGNOSTICFRONTmoderation @ 369:
Make it 9 or 10.
General_Rennenkampf @ 372:
11 or 12
I'm leaning towards trust but verify on this issue with Obama at the helm, a Reich Winger? Hell naw
douglas in oklahoma @ 371:
Or, for the nonchristian examples of religious slaughter, one could point to Muslims in India, Japan in the 1930s and 40s, the chaos that led to the creation of today's India and Pakistan, or the endless human sacrifices of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. I mean, it's not like killing someone because they're of the "wrong" religion is uniquely Christian, or even Abrahamic.
pissed off patricia @ 87:
That's ridiculous. Maybe some people are actually pissed off (Patricia) that Obama is caving on so many things we thought he'd stand up for. Separation of church and state was a fundamental part of the formation of this country. When you support a candidate you do so because you believe he/she will represent you and your interests. That being said, I'm voting for Ralph Nader. The consequences be damned. I'm voting for the one I think is the most representative of me. If enough people voted for the candidate they really really thought was best maybe we could finally dispense with the 2 party system.
As someone said earlier in this post, church's get federal funding when they pay taxes. And a CHARITY, religious or not should get it's funding from CHARITIBLE contributions from the good citizens of the US not the government.
general_rennenkampf, you are correct and slavery is not uniquely American -- but we did condone slavery in the United States -- and largely with christians. A blind eye is what christians have about their past that most amazes me. When I came home from college one christmas, I told my grandmother of all the awful stories of what happened in the Inquisition that I'd learned about in college---- and she said: OH HONEY THOSE WERE'T CHRISTIANS -- THOSE WERE CATHOLICS...she was baptist and did not see pope lovers as legit. so one course in logic, reading Voltaire and Greek philosophy --- and I left my Father's religion as a young man, and I am so glad I got there early. So here's to respecting all folks and their different beliefs --- but keep chruch and state apart.....obama is flat out wrong on this.
douglas in oklahoma @ 376:
You are equating every day Christians in America with murderous power hungry governments and power hungry who did things in the name of God. I'm not so sure I'd be calling that tolerance or respect. Perhaps we should stop donating to socialist organizations since Stalin and Mao slaughtered millions in it's name.
To Paraphrase John F. Kennedy:
Frank O'Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall--and then they had no choice but to follow them.
This Nation has tossed its cap over it's own wall, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against. With the vital help of these initiatives, with the help of all those who labor in them, with the help and support of all Americans, we will climb this wall with safety and with speed-and we shall then explore the wonders on the other side.
YouCantHandleDaTruth @ 373:
While I will continue to support Obama and my faith I too want to get a good look at his faith based initiatives program not because I don't trust Obama but because I know he won't be President forever.
Obama AND McCain fail the Lemon test.
douglas in oklahoma @ 371:
I can't stand when someone says "That's very Christian of you" to me. I am a Christian, but why does any good work have to be classified as "Christian"? When I say or do something that brings that comment I'm not doing it to be a good Christian - I'm doing it because that is what a decent person of any (or no) belief would do.
Any Christian who would treat you differently because you belong (or do not belong) to a specific group or belief is no Christian in my opinion. If they practiced what they say they believe in they would treat all people well and equally well regardless.
As far as churches growing rich and fat, that may be more common in OK than it is in my neighborhood. We do have some that are affiliated with a couple of the mega-churches, but also a lot of small, independent and rather poor congregations as well. I do view any charity out of the most public mega-churches with suspicion. Others that are trying to do good in their communities struggle, especially when they are poor and rural. Where are they going to get their contributions? In those areas there is more need than potential donors and they certainly are not going to waste money on advertising to ask.
I'm a sceptic on the faith-based initiative because I'm worried about the separation of church and state. After watching this thread today I've decided I'm going to keep a close eye on what Obama will do and how effective the oversight will be before I make any sort of decision. I'll just remain watchful but worried.
Left&Left @ 289:
Gee, what a substantive critique!
Sorry, but America is already too much of a theocracy for my tastes. I refuse to vote for someone who will make it even more so. That Obama doesn't see a problem with this crap makes it clear he doesn't really respect the Constitution, which he's already sworn to uphold.
He's just another lying, crooked pol. He just happens to be able to make speeches.
Feh.
Fanon @ 267:
"Stop confusing small community church groups involved with their communities with whitewashed mega evangelical churches."
Really? I'm confused?
I don't see anything in Obama's "plan" that differentiates the small and mega churches. In fact it sez right up there "...whether they are large or small, well-established or new
I'm not interested in supporting religious entities whatever their "good work" is. If you are...Give away.
Pass the plate. Not my taxes.
I see a lot of people engaging in revisionist history here. Actually, Obama's proposal simply re-instates the same regulations that have been used to fund religious organizations and entities doing community work for several decades. Whether you like it or not, "faith-based" non-profit entities have been getting federal money for their work waaaay before even the first Bush took office (see Monsma's book "When Sacred and Secular Mix" for some good historical background on this issue). All that Obama has done is to return things to the way they were, insuring that tax money is not used to proselytize or simply back the public missions of one particular faith community (i.e. conservative evangelicals under Bush II).
Again, whether you like it or not, Obama himself is not doing anything that hasn't been done for many years. You may prefer a stricter separation between church and state than programs such as these allow, but the boundary between church and state has always been fuzzy in this country.
Dale @ 9:
Not all churches and Christians are bad. We can't label them all as crazy Evengelicals. Many do a lot of good. I think of neighbourhood churhces in my home town: they are not involved in politics, and do a lot of good work. They are my neighbours. They don't go around talking about god and Bush all the time. You'd never know they were Christians if you didn't ask.
As an Atheist, it's not for me. I can't fault them for what they do behind closed doors. Their doors are always open to those in need. Religion keeps some people "together".
Spiritualism is craved by many, whatever that may be. I tend to like the Eastern religions. If I were to be religious it would be Buddhism.
The problem with religion is a few always see it as a vehicle for power. (But not all do.)
bob dobbs @ 8:
Then you have to leave America. That's where you live.
marko @ 11:
What will McSame do?
Daniel W. @ 384:
I see that rationale over and over (and over) here...on FISA, NAFTA and now this.
Paraphrasing the rationale: "Obama is just returning things to the way they were before the Bushies. He'll "watch over" the warrant-less wiretaps, he'll "talk" to Mexico and Canada about the "labor and environmental issues" of the current incarnation of NAFTA, he'll return federal spending on churches to the good ol' days when they kept it secular."
Shorter Obama: "Trust me cuz I'm not Bush".
Uh....Not.
BAC @ 348:
Honestly. you all live in America, but do you know it? At this point you'll get Obama or McSame. Who would you prefer? It's really that simple. No one will get everything they want. No unless you are tinpot dictator. It's always been about the lesser of two evils, but you always get blinded with flags.
Obama could always be relied upon to do the right thing no matter how popular or unpopular. This is a violation of the establishment clause and it stinks. I'm very disappointed. Obviously he's still the best man for the job.
Edwin Hussein @ 390:
Have you noticed lately that about once a week a thread that smacks a bit of religion will go out past 300 posts... yet something concerning real issues barely gets 100?
Are we getting distracted by trolls throwing shiny quarters?
Edwin Hussein @ 390:
Satan or the Devil??....Hmmmmm, lets see. I'm stumped.
Johnny2Bad @ 393:
And he's off chasing quarters.
como odendin @ 30:
Sometimes churches help fix "broken people". That's better than bridges. I can think of all the AA meetings held in churches; no charge. They let all kinds of 12-step programmes use their halls. They open their doors to feed homeless people. They donate to local charities. Our church (back when I was forced to go as a kid) sponsored poor children in Pakistan, we sent them letters and "care" packages, and donated money. It made us kids realize others are in need of our help: it took us out of ourselves: it opened our eyes. We delighted in receiving letters from those kids in Pakistan thanking us for our help. None of it was bad.
signed, an Atheist
It's funny to see all the I won't vote for Obama now lines. What? And you think McSame is going to be any different than dumbya & Darth? No!
I'll still vote for Barack, but it's clear he's trying to show himself not beholding to me. Do I like that? No, but I'll still vote for him 'cause he's a gazillion times better than the Republithugs.
Seems like some of you all forgot about Nader & 2000. I haven't.
PS - How many evangelicals does Obama's people think they will get to vote for him? Enough to peel off 1 state? I don't think so.
As an atheist I find this disturbing. The government should never, ever give money to churches for any reason. In fact, we should redefine churches as what they are: businesses! And as such they should be taxed! Anyway, the Dobson's of this world and their mythologies have done more damage to our Earth by spreading hate. If Obama is doing this to pander then I'm disappointed. I am very tired of the religious dictating to others how to live and try to legislate and legitimize bigotry. The truly religious claim they speak to God; why do we not diagnose these people as schizophrenic?
"The Office of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, The Bearded Man in the Clouds and other Faith Based Initiatives"
Wow,
Can it be clearer that Obama is not a machine Democrat? That he is not like the standard Operating Procedure liberal? He may have been pandering to the non existent center on the Death Penalty ruling but this sounds more like someone truly interested in helping people. He was a community activist in Chicago. Noone knows more about the necessity of American Churches for getting services to people who really need it. This isn't pandering it is just smart. Relax. What encourages me most about obama is that he really doesn't do alot of pandering to his base. For instance us. If he is as good a president as I hope he will be he will do things entirely differently from the way I would like him to. Give me half a chance and I would put everyone in the present administration in jail, socialize all medical procedures, make all family planning free including abortions, require all kids in High school to have a minimum of 2 years sex ed/diversity tolerance classes and outlaw all internal combustion engines by 2012. I would be a god awful president. Most likely most of you wouldn't do much better. thank god no one in this country would vote for me. Seems to me we have someone that, on paper at least, couldn't possibly get elected president of this country who will in all likelihood be elected president. Sorry all, but I remain really excited about this election and the Democratic candidate for president. Does that put me off the reservation? Come on all. Can we stop freaking out everytime he does something that we disagree with? Can we stop all the crap about how we picked the wrong horse in the first furlong of the race? As soon as he gets in the White House we can start freaking out again and go back to our comfortable position of getting apoplectic about every screw-up the president makes. I can't wait.
I think the first mistake is judging any reference Obama makes to 'faith-based' programs in terms of what George W. Bush did. I expect as much from the media, because they can't be arsed to report facts anymore.
I do believe that there is a role for the diverse spiritual and religious communities within America. Unfortunately, when we talk of faith, we are far too often reduced to discussing mental midgets like Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson and their narrow, hate-filled interpretation of the Bible.
Faith has become a wedge issue. I'm willing to believe that when Obama talks faith, he ain't singing the same tune as Bobby 'The Exorcist' Jindal.
Yes, I'm ticked that Obama signed on to this 'compromise' bullcrap about FISA. But I'm certainly not going to take the 'media experts' pronouncement that Obama's done for because he's turning centrist. It wasn't so long ago that these same experts were predicting Hillary's demise, Hillary's triumph, Hillary as part of a dream ticket, and so on.
posted too quickly on that last one.. but it seems that sometimes secular and non-secular get mixed up.. i've found that when in debate with otherwise intelligent people the word gets swapped for it's negative, i.e.:
"i hate all those non-seculars trying to preach their religious crap..."
not quite right...
but it's easy to confuse when sectarian is also floating around in the vocabulary. :)
ThunderMonkey @ 12:
After being hit by a hurricane, I would feel much better depending on a church or local group for help than I would depending on FEMA.
driouxcipher @ 5:
I agree with you, but I'm not quite so optimistic. Some groups proselytize in manners that are not completely obvious. The groups that have been getting Bush money for HIV/AIDS education and preach abstinence instead of distributing condoms is the best example.
I'm all for religious groups getting their noses out of stuff like the gay marriage debate and actually doing some good in their communities, but they should be doing that already on their own. Why does it take the lure of government money to get these groups into action?
He has thrown so many people under the bus, Rev. Wright, his church, his grandmother, Samantha Powers, Bob Johnston, Wes Clark, Move On, and that's all I can remember right now. It makes one wonder if he should maybe reconsider matching funds. I, for one, will not be contributing anymore. I will vote the straight Dem. ticket in Nov. Lesser of two evils. End of story.
Shame on you Barack Obama.
Just as a contrast. When McCain was the winner of the republican primaries the right wing was harping on him and McCain has taken a pretty big turn to the right (more than usual). Now Obama, when pressured, takes a turn towards the "center". Why do democrats not play to their base? WHy does Obama marginalize people like me, so called "secular left"? Why is this standard? Why is this expected? Anyway the Change(TM) I am looking for in a candidate is the one who leaves his religion at the door when he enters the political arena. I won't insist on an atheist but I do insist on someone who doesn't wear their faith on their sleeve.
/rant off...just very disappointed although not surprised in the slightest.
Churches should be eligible to receive government funding when they start paying taxes.
Johnny2Bad @ 393:
Whatever. Those are your choices. Unless you plan to change history in 4 short months.
Edwin Hussein @ 385:
douglas in oklahoma @ 376:
@ Douglas in Oklahoma: You won't find much argument from me on much of what you said. As a mostly Christian society, the US turned to Christianity to justify slavery. Had it been a mostly Jewish society, Judaism would have justified slavery. Had it been a mostly Muslim society, Islam would have justified slavery. Had it been a more secular society in practice as opposed to theory, racism alone would have justified slavery. As to Christians not seeing other sects as Christians, for most of Christianity's history, Christianity was Christianity's own worst enemy. And for an example of Protestant atrocities, try telling grandma about what Ollie Cromwell did to the Irish, or that the KKK justified their existence in the 1920s with anti-Catholicism as well. History in general is fucked up, and religion takes a large share of the blame prior to about 1917, when secular ideologies joined in on the fun (note: I don't count fascism and Nazism as secular ideologies.)
@ Edwin Hussein: In other words you'd think about converting to a faith that demands you give up your humanity and just might, if you do it perfectly, get out of the endless re-incarnations (presumably including re-incarnation as deep-sea thermophiles. How that would end as a re-incarnation, I dunno.), in one life time, if you're straight. If you're gay and you want Nirvana in one lifetime, you're SOL. Buddhism's not that nice of a faith once it's explained. Of course, Abrahamicism's just as bad, and hardly more perfect as a belief system, so don't get me wrong there.
Obama Support For Expansion Of 'Faith-Based' Program Is Disappointing, Says Americans United - http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=pkqbxd7kh4.app7b&abbr=pr...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Rather than try to correct the defects of the Bush “faith-based” initiative, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would do better to shut it down, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
“I am disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded.”
Wait, they don't get taxed and we have to give them money!!!!!
LanceThruster @ 398:
So?
Did you expect him to say something different?
AndrewK @ 377:
NO I DID NOT .... reread my points ... first, I meat to be ironic and bring a simle to your face, but as I have seen for years --- many christians are humor-less when it comes to THEIR religion. And as I have lived my life -- all I have ever met is everyday christians --- some in high levels of leadership, most not so much. I have not had the pleasure to meet murderous-power hungry governments ---- tell me, what was it like when you did? Tolerance --- ah there is the rub --- christains have made pronouncements right and left saying they are right 'cause it says so right here in the bible --- and YOU are wrong and a sinner and going to hell or you have no right to exist cause you are gay or Jewish. And when the christain position is questioned by fair minded people ---- the christains yell INTOLERANCE ...I say horseouss to that. And last point --- donate all ya want to whomever --- just not my and you tax dollars......and no babyjesus on the courthouse lawn --- neither.
General_Rennenkampf @ 397:
@ Edwin Hussein: In other words you'd think about converting to a faith that demands you give up your humanity and just might, if you do it perfectly, get out of the endless re-incarnations (presumably including re-incarnation as deep-sea thermophiles. How that would end as a re-incarnation, I dunno.), in one life time, if you're straight. If you're gay and you want Nirvana in one lifetime, you're SOL. Buddhism's not that nice of a faith once it's explained. Of course, Abrahamicism's just as bad, and hardly more perfect as a belief system, so don't get me wrong there.
No. I'm one of those "shopping cart" types. I pick little bits out of many religions, that I like, and put them in my "spiritual basket". Perhaps that annoys some, but as an Atheist, it works for me. I see good and bad in all of them. I take a philosophical approach. I realize there is something beyond just me, but don't embrace anyone's explanation for what it is. I don't follow anyone's road map. I don't care about "salvation" or any "next world". I try to live in peace now. Who knows, these 24 hours could be your last?
The last point I'll make here is, my Atheism has not morphed into hatred of Christians, or other religions. They're just not for me. Hatred of anyone (except neo-cons perhaps) would be anithetical to my lifestyle and mindset.
General_Rennenkampf @ 397:
General...
Being the history buff that you are you should also include the genocidal movements of secular political movements that have also killed millions... Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il too.
So unless you're a total anarchist atheistic governments have managed to wrack up quite a score on the old "kill card" too!
Man's inhumanity to man knows no boundaries when it comes to justifications for atrocities, any pretext can be used and has been. The primary prerequisite is that "they are different" than the group that is doing the killing whether it is theistic or secular orientation.
Many on this thread have pointed to the fact that in our history the white southern Baptist church used Christianity to justify slavery and condemn religion on that basis. This of course ignores the fact the civil rights movement of Dr. Martin Luther King was born out of the church and the white churches supported him in a national movement. So is the church a source of evil or a source of good?
It would seem that secular governments can be as blood thirsty as theocracies and they can also be sources of noble humane endeavors as well. Personally I think the jury is out on us as a species and we are at the turning point now with global food riots, multiple outbreaks of genocide, and the planet in peril.
All the wonderful people we Democrats could
have picked & we end up with this turncoat
Obama. Balls. :-(
Ratface @ 405:
Obama isn't a turncoat.
Didn't you ever read about his working for Church's interfaith community service programs?
Johnny2Bad @ 388:
I see your point here, Johnny, but I'm not trying to make that argument for/about Obama. What I was trying to get across (maybe I didn't do a good job?) was that there has been a lot of nostalgic talk on this thread about "the way things used to be" - i.e. when there was some sort of clearly demarcated, non-porous boundary between church and state in the U.S. That time simply didn't exist, and Obama is not doing anything radically new here except reversing the Bush intervention into the faith-based funding situation and dressing it up with a lot of "change" and "faith" rhetoric. In short, he's doing a lot of "not much" and making it seem like a "big deal." And many people, whatever their position on this issue, seem to be buying into that narrative - i.e. that this is something other than business as usual with regard to funding theistic non-profit groups.
As for "trusting" Senator Obama because he's not Bush...well, I don't really trust politicians any farther than I can throw 'em. But, honestly, people are getting hyped up over this story when, in reality, it's "business as usual." The only people who would be surprised/aghast at this are those who sincerely thought Obama was going to be the progressive messiah. I've never seen any evidence to support that conclusion. But I'm still voting for him...and, yes, mostly because he's not McSame.
Edwin Hussein @ 402:
Edwin Hussein...
You seem to have grasped the fundamental essence of the situation and Mahatma Gandhi would be proud. He talked about his own "church" in his hometown and how members of all religions met there and "they would go from one religious text to another as if they were seamlessly from one book."
As he was later to say...
http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/gandhiquotes.htm
From his remarks it is apparent that the General, while an excellent historian, is lacking in the knowledge of comparative religion since Buddhism makes no demand to "give up your humanity" or that you must be of a certain sexual orientation.
Having studied with both Tibetan Vajrayana masters and Soto Zen Roshis for the last twenty years some odd years I can say that with certainty. In fact Buddha is not seen as a God, but only as a man so in that light it can not be really even cast as a religion at all, but a philosophy and a meditation practice. That is a subject for another thread however and going off topic.
liberalAGNOSTICFRONTmoderation @ 315:
You are correct. Sort of. I have you Gore trolls mixed up. This was an agrument betweemn me and kindness. So butt out!
At this juncture, my post will be but a drip in the pond. Nonetheless, I want to grab every single liberally-minded American who is outraged by Barack Obama's recent pandering to right-wing Americans and shake them violently.
In short, stop acting surprised that a centrist politician is adopting centrist views. Barack Obama never claimed that he was going to be the champion of the left; in fact, the entire theme of his campaign has been about unity. It should come as no surprise then that a man who longs to transcend party lines would occasionally adopt views that aren't all that left-wing. He's trying to engage conservative Americans in a way that isn't patronizing or worse. So, no, liberal Americans aren't going to like everything he does and conservative Americans aren't going to like everything he does.
Isn't that the very essence of compromise?
Oops. Meant to close that bold tag.
Cal @ 406:
Obama's being perfectly consistent and it isn't pandering.
After he left Law school he didn't join one of the top firms as he could have but went to work as a union organizer in the streets of Chicago. It was here that as he worked to help workers and their families that he encountered the church charities and saw the significant work that these grassroots organization did. That led him to join Trinity church.
This is more common on the Democratic side of the street if you will. John and Elizabeth Edwards were active with the Urban Ministries program, which helps the poorest of the poor, long before they ever got interested in politics.
President Carter and his work with "Habitat for Humanity" is another example of this. As a Christian he walks the talk.
The point being that there is a tremendous strength in these grassroots efforts that should be supported, but given the conditions that he has so clearly stated:
* Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.
* Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.
* Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.
* Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.
* Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding. Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not - whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.
This means that the funds can only be used for one purpose... to help people and I see that as a good thing.
Rasputin @ 408:
Cool stuff Rasputin. Actually I am a yogi and yoga teacher (as well as an English teacher). Not "fad", get-slim, be-cool yoga, but the ancient style, based on ancient texts. I usually don't talk about it, because there is no reason to, and I would most likely be misunderstood anyway. I know when I listen to Aum there is something beyond me. Yoga teaches us to be good people ourselves, and then we hope it rubs off on those around us, but I never preach. People say I look younger these days and my face is fresh and bright. I have light in my eyes.
Well, this program is better than Chimpy's faith based initiatives program which we all know was nothing but a boondoggle to Bush's allies. I do wonder, would you Obama supporters see the political expedience of this program if Hillary were the nominee and this were her idea.
Amen to all of that.
ghostrider @ 414:
I would have supported Hillary were she to have won the nomination. To me, it's do you want a Democrat or a Republican in the White Hose-- full stop. I know the Dems aren't exactly shining beacons of democracy either, but 4 more years of GOP policies will destroy the universe.
"Courts Evangelicals?"
Bullshit. He IS an evangelical.
Separate church from state. I will not pay taxes to religious groups. I already subsidize them with tax-free status, which is unconstitutional as hell.
Congratulations, Barack, you just created a brand new tax protester.
Daniel W. @ 407:
Yep. "Business as usual". I get that. But he didn't run on that (at least in the primary).
He ran on a few simple words...."change" and "hope" and "believe"...etc., ad nauseum.
Being a policy wonk, I didn't buy it but a lot of young, eager first timers did. Now their education begins on what politics are really about.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”- Goebbels
Skimming this thread was so incredibly depressing and frustrating. Why, why WHY are so many people surprised by this? It sadly only reaffirms my suspicions that there were a lot of people rooting blindly for Obama without ever really looking into him. Obama has always been for faith based initiatives - it was one of the things that made me wary of him in the very beginning. In fact, I always thought that he was more conservative than Clinton in a lot of ways, and wondered why liberals seemed to love him and hate her - now I know. Because no one was doing their actual homework, and now we get to be shocked by his nonchange in postion. If crooksandliars was ever really concerned about his position on faith based initiaves, why not report on it way back when he first mentioned it???
When Clinton lost I thought "Well, it's what the people want, so I'm okay with it. The important thing is getting a Democrat into the white house." So I shrugged it off, supported your candidate. And now we have people throwing their hands up and saying they can't vote for Obama either. Y'all are just WAY too picky....nothing is ever good enough until it's entirely unelectable. Frustrating.
Cal @ 400:
I expect Barry Lynn to assess the situation accurately and fairly, which he did. He is not against religiousness in a knee-jerk fashion, just when it impinges on church/state separation.
Edwin Hussein @ 413:
Edwin...
One thing that I have found to be true is that every religion or spiritual tradition has an exoteric wing (fundamentalist) and an esoteric wing that has an introspective contemplative practice at its core. The fundamentalist can almost always find reasons to see the differences between people and the contemplatives usually find reasons to see the similarities.
It doesn't matter whether you read the writings of the Trappist Monk, Thomas Merton or Brother David-Stendl Rast, or the Zen Monk Thich Nhat Hahn, or the writings of Mahatma Gandhi... they found themselves on a path and felt love for those of other traditions. As to the message of the faith... "they get it" in a really big way.
Good luck on your path.
LanceThruster @ 420:
"I expect Barry Lynn to assess the situation accurately and fairly"
Uh huh and what is the name of the organization that he's the head of?
421 Rasputin "Good luck on your path."
As well, you. I have a very laid back approach. I'm not in a rush, or seeking, I just observe things. That's when I learn the most.
Coming here and commenting is a contradiction to my lifestyle, but it's my hobby. I want, foremost, to see the end of the most vile period of American history ever. Hence, it does affect me: it affects all of us.
As far as I'm concerned, anything to get rid of the neo-cons, forever, is justified. We'll sort out the details later. So I remain a keen supporter of Barack Obama, even if some recent tacks are not to my liking.
Edwin Hussein @ 423:
Yes to all of the above and I share your concerns. I was really quite sincere in my remarks above to the General when I said that the jury is out on the human species. Not in my life time have I seen the "great experiment" of our Republic so twisted, economic conditions so horrible, the plight of so many so dire, and the planet itself in such immediate peril. I don't honestly know if we are at the "tipping point" or the "turning point"... only time will tell.
Namaste
Jersey Jay @ 89:
I don't mean to rain on Obama people's parade but if you looked even a little there were lots of signs he would be like this.
By like this I mean a politician.
The world needs a leader. America needs a leader. Waiting 8 more years in the hopes that we will get one next time round is not a good thing. Not while we are headed over a cliff.
I wish people would take a deep breath and let cooler heads prevail.
First, Bush has created a need for social services that is bigger than ever. There is no way the government can do it alone. Obama was a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER. I trust his bona fides in this area and his respect for the Constitution. And the media needs to stop saying he is expanding Bush's faith-based program. He changing it dramatically.
CHILL!
Paul @ 275:
The thought of my hard earned tax money going to religious organizations whom I despise is making me crazy.
That's why I stay out of churches. That's why I stay away from those people who have wrapped themselves in their religion because I feel their beady eyes boring into me in that reptilian way. Can I be turned and made to empty my pockets? sorry, veered off there for a second.
Let him pander to the Christians, he most likely won't get their vote but he surely will lose mine.
crazylikeafox @ 427:
Let him pander to the Christians?
You make it sound like Christians are 3% of the population.
But go ahead don't vote for him you'll make everyone who likes Pat Robertson happy.
Christians who aren't hypocrites? Yeah, I would put it at around 3% of the population.
crazylikeafox @ 429:
You're not helping yourself by insulting most of America.
Eris23 @ 342:
I am feeling generous today, so I'll say it one more time for you, since you obviously lack any form of intelligent substance. You post like a troll. You have been plucked, plundered and exposed, yet you are so stupid, you can't figure it out. Feel free to continue your mindless trolling, I shall waste no more time on an imbecile of your magnitude. Your repeated posting of idiotic rhetoric with NO substance is really quite boring! Can't we get some better troll's?
ok...those guidelines, I can live with. BUT I'd feel a damn sight better if they received NO FEDERAL FUNDING at all...
I trust religious leaders less than politicians!
Gretchen@43
I'm with you!
ThunderMonkey @ 18:
Because belief in fairy tales makes one a better person.
I don't like this any more than anyone else...but his guidelines give me hope that it won't be a total loss. We had to expect that he was going to do some things to piss us off at some point. No politician is perfect. Remember the Patriot Act? Yeah, he voted for that too. Doesn't mean I'm going to NOT vote for him in November and help elect McSame.
My advice to anyone with buyer's remorse re: Obama:
Vote for him in November, hope that his momentum will help elect more progressive dems to Congress (i.e. cementing veto proof majorities etc) and we can try to undo anything Obama does that we don't like through Congress, which might actually be possible with a Democratic president and congress. This is how our government works. Obama has to be the President of everyone, unlike Bushie boy, and so he's going to do something things to cater to other ideologies in this country, he simply has to.
I don't like it either, for the record, but part of living in a Democracy is accepting some of the things you don't like in order to accomplish more important goals.
We need leadership NOT shameless pandering.
JFC this is starting to really disturb me.
I took a big box of canned and boxed food to a local food pantry for the poor last weekend. The pantry is run by a local church. Does that make me religious? Nope, I'm not at all. That pantry is one of the very few places around here where poor people can go to get food. I don't know what those poor people would do right now were it not for the pantry.
pissed off patricia @ 42:
Don't forget Patricia, that was Bush's FEMA that "took care of you". There can't be a strong government program in place when your entire MO is based on undermining it and stacking it with incompetent cronies.
As many atheists as are on here, I'm surprised how many are viewing him as the Messiah. He's not.
But he's a darn sight better than anything we have now, or any of the other options before us.
Let's be sensible here and not throw out the baby with the holy water.
drewsker @ 26:
Do you have any idea who Bob Barr even is? I mean, I get what you're saying. Oh, he's the Libertarian candidate, so he's gotta be a good guy, right? WRONG. All you need to do is a little digging to figure out that he's a total xenophobe, and isn't even very popular among most Libertarians.
But I digress. It seems that most of the people railing on Obama for this seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Obama's proposal for these initiatives, which are part of Obama's larger plan to address poverty and urban issues. I would suggest reading the full platform and deciding for before you choke on your spoon-fed talking points. Geez, it's sounding almost as bad as a conservative blog in here.
GET INFORMED, PEOPLE!!!
Chris @ 22:
I'd interpret this as keeping a very clear deliniation between those activities that are 'church' and those which are 'state'. If you want federal funding, you have to observe federal, state, and local laws, and you cannot discriminate on the basis of faith in hiring. That's basic employment law.
But those activities which are internal to the religious institution itself would be exempt - that the Catholic Church receives federal funds doesn't mean we get a say in choosing the next pope.
BigTallMatt
Same goes for Ron Paul. On the Constitution I'm with him all the way. Unfortunately, the man also happens to be quite the xenophobe/racist as well...just look it up.
Considering the Supreme Court is on the verge of going theocratic the candidates views on the separation of church and state is, for me, the biggest issue in this election. Obama in this regard has been bad. Granted he hasn't said (like McCain has) that he'd appoint judges in the mold of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito but all his pandering and religious talk is no reassurance that he's going to appoint and nominate proper judges.
I used to work for a community organization run by the Catholic Church that provided affordable housing for purchase and/or rent, in addition to providing jobs to the community in the development and construction of such housing. It was completely secular in how it functioned.
Thus, I truly don't have an issue with "faith based" organizations getting funds to provide social services. However, I've been entirely disappointed with how Bush used this simply to pander. I don't believe there should be public money set aside for "faith based organizations." Like any other RFP involving social services, the group or company that should win the bid should be the one that has the most experience, is best suited to meet the goals and needs set out by the RFP, and can do it for the cheapest price.
The fact that Bush was slashing funds to federal programs that provided the same services that so many of these "faith based organizations" were providing, all while increasing the "faith based" set aside funds, was just another example of Bush putting money in the pockets of his friends. Moreover, I fail to see how it is the slightest bit Constitutional or legal to be giving federal money to organizations that still practice discrimination in their hiring practics for offices where the federal funds are used. This simply hasn't been monitored by the federal government under the Bush admin. In fact, very little of the Faith Based Initiative has been monitored by his administration at all.
If Obama fixes the problems I listed there, I have no issues with it really.
ThunderMonkey @ 18:
Yes, we do so much better with the people who "connect with their spiritual life." People like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Santorum, Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Sun Moon, Reagan, GW Bush, Hitler, etc. Do you also agree with GHW Bush that, "an atheist cannot be a good citizen of the USA." It would be terrible to have an atheis leader such as Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, Bertrand Russell, Samuel Clemens etc
I don't understand why some on the left (of which I am part) are so upset over this. Lets see...if people of faith do things that are say...actually in the bible, torah, koran, or whatever-like feed the hungry, cloth the naked, protect the earth, and generally BE their brother's keepers- then they won't spend so much time perserverating over things like abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc. Maybe with the zeal and faith that they are "doing God's work" pointed in the direction of helping overcome some of the most important social problems of our time-they will feel empowered enough to actually be part of the solution instead of just biotching about the problems.
And personally, I don't need someone to be a carbon copy of my beliefs to support them, such as the recent FISA, gun control and death penalty issues that Obama has chosen to speak out on. But I do want them to have a good solid, based in logic, reason for doing something (unlike the Bush administration who thinks "just cuz" is reason enough). I've listened to Obama and he actually has a some very good reasons for doing what he's done. I don't completely agree with him but I think his reasoning is sound, I can see why he has made the choices he has, and I trust that he's going to make thoughtful decisions. I won't always agree with him but I'm confident in his ability to make sound choices instead of rash one.
he's apparently backing that up. maybe he has to buy them back from the republicans. shameful.
We might as well subsidize the tooth fairy.
If run properly, a program that treats all charities doing good social work (as defined by us, not by the charity) should be able to compete for federal funds. If they weren't pandering by seeming to put the religious charities on a higher plane by putting faith-based in the name, there probably wouldn't be too many complaints.
bush third term vs bush third term.
We are screwed 08.
Rusty Bombshell Video Shackleford @ 47:
hear, hear!
If they want to keep our taxes out of their churches, then they should keep their churches out of tax-paid institutions.
What would Zeus do? @ 64:
I agree, but do you see too many other non-government organizations aside from churches doing such charitable work? I sure don't.
I was all for Obama until this one. Faith-based initiatives were the first sign that the Bushies were crooks. Now Obama is continuing this ridiculous giveaway? Go back to the way it was before...any organization that does community work can get funding as long as they don't proselytize while they're doing it.
I'd like to see everyone in the country working together for a change.
Atheists & Evangelicals, for instance.
Secular Humanists and Sermon-On-The-Mount Christians hold essentially the same ethical beliefs and SHOULD be able to work together.
We did it during the Civil Rights Movement.
We did it during the Vietnam era Anti-War movement.
I've chaired a Community Association that brought together Christians, Atheists, Klan members, American "Patriots" (ala Timothy McVey), police, drug dealers, business people and the homeless.
The only people in the community who wouldn't join were the corrupt cops, the business owners who were paying them off and the "Liberals" in the neighborhood who refused to work together with people not like them.
Quite an experience.
“Obama proposes allowing religious institutions to hire and fire based on religion only in the non-taxpayer-funded portions of their activities — consistent with current federal, state and local laws.”
If you get federal money, you get federal regulation. Period. It is functionally impossible to separate non-taxpayer-funded operations from tax-payer-funded ones. Money is fungible. It mixes and blends...There is NO WAY that hiring and firing 'on the basis of religion' is NOT unconstitutional...
Steveo @ 68:
Ugh...
This is exactly what Obama is proposing to do!
Come on people, READ! Don't just sit there and give knee-jerk reactions to hot-button words.
(Paraphrasing of most posters on this thread): "Faith bad. Troll smash!"
Old Billy Hussein @ 345:
Eris doesn't hate America! He just doesn't know what the hell he's talking about! He never explains anything. Just makes excuses, and then blames other people for being "clueless," because they are fed up with the dem leadership.
Then he falls back on the old troll favorite; always demanding a dissertation to all his idiotic questions, even though he offers nothing but the rhetoric of fools who peddle excuses. A real bore, and not very bright either!
marko @ 15:
ROTFLMFAO.
Oh, bama, shameful and shameless.
cliff @ 434:
Yes Obama is shameless in his attempts to help the poor.
I always wondered exactly how funneling grants and low interest loans and contracts to Tony Rezko counted as "community organizing"? And now, gonna EXPAND the "faith based" payoff scam. Gee, how long before the Rev. NAW,NAW,NAW, GAWD DAMN ameriKKKa Wright (HEY, that multi million house costs LOTS to maintain)and Minister Farrakhan get their initiative?
Support for the spaghetti monster holds no weight for me; on the contrary it makes me dismiss the supporter. Where is the no confidence Jessie Ventura block to check?
Rasputin @ 408:
Buddhism refers to humanity as "desire," and the Buddhism I've studied has been the Theravada branch, the branch closest to the teachings of the original Siddhartha Gautama (assuming he existed.) Theravada denies sexuality. Period. At least if you're a monk, it probably had more to do with Gautama (assuming he existed) wanting his Sangha to be impeccable, but the Kathoeys of Thailand are getting into more and more trouble from the Bhikkus there. It seems that Buddhism of the Theravada school is definitely not gay-friendly. You're right though, this is off-topic, and Edwin Hussein, good luck on the path you pursue.
Login or Register to post comments.