http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith


Not that religious charities can't and don't do good. There are many food pantries for example across this country that are run by churches and I say G-d bless them for it. But we all know that this Bush program was a way to buy religious votes. I'm very unhappy right now.

The problem with the "faith based initiative" is the same problem that the Bush admin has had with just about every other "initiative" (ie. the Justice department, FEMA). They operate more focused on partisan politics and favoring approved interests than effective delivery of services. As a result not only have they failed to effectively administer programs, but they have (even more) seriously eroded public confidence in the ability to assist the public.

So it's not that I don't think a religious organization can effectively provide services without string (it is often done.) It's that when I see only conservative Christian groups get funding from the Office of Faith Based Initiatives, that some very seroius questions are raised. Frankly, I don't think you'd see the same, even in that office, from an Obama administration.

According to David Kuo, it was worse than that. Not only did the office of F-BIs (love the acronym) barely get any funding, but in fact didn't get a significant increase in funding until 2004. And where did the additional money go? To black churches and their charity programs in political districts considered "critical" for the Republicans to win in 2004. After 2005 ... the funding went down again.

This is exactly what Jefferson warned. Government aid to religious groups becomes a political leash. The reality is while I agree Obama might not politicize the office to that extent ... it's inevitable that it will be politicized. That's the main argument against it.

P.S. Hillary would have been no different -- she supports faith-based initiatives, too.

Is this any different from how they are administering so may departments?

Wasn't it Madison whose first veto was opposing funding to/or through an religious organization.

Where's original intent?

Here's where he stands on major issues


http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

all the more reason to work for a veto proof majority in congress. What bothers me most besides the obvious separation of church and state, is the fact that most faith based charities run out of money before the middle of the month. There is something not right about that.

Obama has run so far to the right, I have withdrawn
my monetary support from his campaign.

These aren't new positions for him he's always supported faith based initiatives, when he was an organizer, he worked with Churches for God's sake

Relax everybody

doesn't matter to me whether it's a new postion or one that he's always held. I don't think it's a good one.

ditto

I don't know what to think about this. I'm very apprehensive, but I'm also considering his open-mindedness to other religions/faiths knowing the background of his mother(atheist) and father(Muslim converted to atheist).
I hope that he is only on a mission of unification and humanitarianism.

I'm not quite ready to raise a warning flag, especially considering how Bush funded churches without hesitation.

''The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

link

Points well made. Have we been duped by Obama?
If he's not careful, he'll lose some votes for a third party candidate.

This is what i think too. Plus, any money that goes toward religious charities potentially frees up funds for proselytizing and political action by the sponsoring church even in the unlikely event that the charity itself is not engaged in that kind of stuff. Religious charities should be supported by private individuals and like-minded private organizations only.

Having said that, I'm still voting against Bush, sorry, McCain. That would mean a vote for Obama

Well if this is the worst he does, it's lightyears ahead of what we're used to. I say let him get the votes now and we can sue him later.

I want to see a list.

I know of many "non-theist" (yet very spiritual) charities that could use these funds as well.

My fingers are crossed, my eyes are opened, and my ears are to the ground.

I hope is that its' ONLY intention is to help the needy. I won't love it, but if this "initiative" helps the poverty-stricken, I'll learn to adjust....like we really a choice anyway.

Funding social needs, through religious related organizations goes back at least a hundred years in the US. When not used for religous practices, and funds not distributed on a sectarian basis, it generally goes unchallenged and the work is usually good. I'm not talking about the Salvation Army, I'm talking about, for example, immigrant services.

Maybe, or maybe not, does it free up money for proselytizing. Tax exempt, religious or not, are not supposed to be involved in poltical action... of course they easily find a way around that.

Did you really think that by ourselves, we progressives could win the presidency. We make up only about 30-35% of the voring population, if that. Where did you think Barack was going to get the rest of the votes to win? And if he's going to get those votes, just how do you think he's going to get them?

Answer: compromise and moderation. Don't worry, that doesn't mean it's not a new "politics", it is. And the newness is that Barack is a person of integrity and won't be unduly swayed by "special interests". The realization is, that means you and me also.

Don't give up, he's still on our side. Change must sometimes be incremental. He's got a whole country to pull away from the conservatives, and it's not going to happen overnight. Barack is no Kuchinich or Nader (both are personal heroes) - he's better and will actually win the presidency!

I'm not very happy either, but one must always consider the alternative. I don't hear McSame claiming that he is going to cut these programs.

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right and in order to get elected and not scare off the skittish and largely mythical in my view "Middle" Obama has to pull a few punches and move to the center. What happens when he gets elected? Are we going to hear more of the same justifications and rationalizations for not actively pursuing a progressive agenda and doing what needs to be done to turn our country around? I'm afraid that we're going to end of with a government made up of Pelosis and Reids with a few true Democrats like Dodd and Kucinich marginalized and forced to do what they can from the fringes. In other words, just like it is now, but on a larger scale.