http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&p...i6ht5701.app13a

Obama Support For Expansion Of 'Faith-Based' Program Is Disappointing, Says Americans United

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.

Obama today announced a proposal to expand faith-based funding during a speech in Zanesville, Ohio.

Didnt see that coming.

It sounds like Obama will change to the program to Faith-based from what it is now, Christian Only-based. Of course, the best thing would be to eliminate the program all together.

Obama is a GLOBALIST. Weakening the Constitution through funding church based organizations.

It's also Bush's strategy to PAY MINISTERS to mind control their congregations to spy on fellow Americans, to offer up their guns, get on the damn trains...and off to the new Labor Camps.

If you Dems permit him to sign the WTO contract/agreement in December 2009..that will be the final blow. And, so far, it looks like he will.

So, say buh bye to the USA, DAMNIT. I'm fucking going to vote for Cynthia McKinney.

Fuck Obama and McCain. They all work for the banks...and the banks are taking US down.

Sounds like more knee jerk reactions.

It's about resources - not using them for political purposes or to push a Christian right agenda.

Plus it's not a new position of his

Not pushing a Christian right agenda? Oh really?
So Obama is just pandering to the Christian right, I guess.

Another move to the center for Obama.

Or perhaps Obama is helping Trinity Church.

So much for hoping for a return of separation of church and State.

wowzers you all worry a lot.

I think it's new to people who never asked his real position during the primaries.
That's why you hear a universal groan of disappointment out there.

More cowbell and louder...

Really? I'm not groaning so it's haardly universal....still mad about Hillary?

I won't ever support this. This is government sanctioned religious descrimination. This program will have to be shut down because there is no fixing it, plain and simple. Bit tight, heels dug in...I'm not budging.

Why is it not worrisome when Obama says the same thing as Bush, but when Bush pushed Faith-based initatives, everyone on the left condemed it as merging church and State.

And interesting enough, Obama has yet to visit a mosque and still threats any mention of him and Islam as a "smear".
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/us/polit...xprod=permalink



Obama expanding on Bush's initiatives? I was hoping he was going to get rid of them all. But that doesn't look like it works for Centrist Obama.

You aren't the universe.

Yeah, drown out the truth.
Bang, bang, bang, bang.....

Exactly

[quote name='MiniYaYa' date='Jul 1 2008, 03:12 PM' post='60886']
Or perhaps Obama is helping Trinity Church.

Any community organization has the advantage that they are the direct implementors of the services that people who need help contact. So, the less "middle men" the better, because a higher percent of the funds go to the needy, not the admins.

In this respect, you also have to consider a sizable portion of the community organizations in this country, which is church groups. You cannot bias against funding them if their care is non-religious and is meted out in a non-biased fashion. That's just silly.

It wasn't that the Bush admin advocated faith based care, it was that it was a fallacy. The person who was asked to run it came out and even said that the Bushies let him and the churches down, that it was purely a political stance but he never backed it up.

I am not a religious person, but if they will do the work for less and do it compassionately, I could care less what their propensities are. It just has to be done right, and not necessarily religious based. Religion just shouldn't matter, if the organization is there and willing and able, why not?

Not mad - BITTER - or something like that.

Traumatized by 2004 nov 13th.

It was like a second 9-11 to a lot of people.

Nope, but will certainly repeat, and propell the talking points - Obama is this, or that. Whatever.

I'm not a religious person, but certainly spiritual and believe God is in all of us. We certainly need something to lift up people's lives. I have no doubt, Obama will not utilize the right wing idiots like Dobson.

I'm a devout atheist who suspects religion is a disease - and even *I* don't have a problem with Obama's stance.

The whole "liberal crusade against religion" thing is a right-wing myth.

I have a problem with faith-based initiatives -- regardless of who supports them. BTW, yes, I knew this was not a new stance of Obama's, he said he supported F-BI's back in 2007. The weird thing is, people criticized Hillary for her support of them. But not a peep about Obama's support of them.

I have the same problem with them Thomas Jefferson did -- break down the wall of separation between religion and government and you endanger the institutions on both sides of the wall. Religion becomes politicized, a tool for vote-getting; and politics becomes theocratized, a tool for pushing sectarian agendas.

Florida is going to try and break down this wall in November with an amendment pushed by none other than Jeb Bush.

http://schoolsmatter.blogspot.com/2008/06/...ida-battle.html

Amendment 7 would strike current constitutional language that forbids the use of any public funds “directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.” In place of those words, Article I, Section 3 would assert, “An individual or entity may not be barred from participating in any public program because of religion.”

Amendment 9 would eviscerate the constitution’s strong language requiring, as a “paramount duty of the state,” the provision of a “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.” The amendment revises Article IX, Section 1 to state that “this duty shall be fulfilled, at a minimum and not exclusively” through public schools.

[snip]

It's an attack on public education, and on the state's separation of church and state, so I'm voting no.

I have no problem with religious charities or parochial schools. Let them be funded by coreligionists or others who choose to fund them. Not by the taxpayer dollars of a religiously diverse nation.

Dude, I am a Christian, I have an interactive relationship with the maker, You are honest, that is a plus in this day and age. The religious right have found a way to push lies through without thought. I would rather the White House be athiests at this point rather than this religious right that is trying to end the world to bring in the 1000 years of peace, this is nuts.

AU's problems with faith-based initiatives

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename...hure_faithbased

[snip]

While houses of worship have played an important role in this country since its founding, these institutions have thrived on voluntary contributions. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize religion they may not believe in is no different from forcing them to put money in the collection plates of churches, synagogues, temples and mosques.

Another controversy raised by charitable choice is the specter of federally funded employment discrimination. Under Bush's proposal, for example, churches would be legally permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring, despite receiving a massive infusion of public dollars. A Bob Jones-style religious group, for example, could receive tax aid to hire people to perform social services and hang up a sign that says "Jews And Catholics Need Not Apply." That's not "compassionate conservatism," that's outrageous bigotry.

In addition, under charitable choice, religious institutions would receive taxpayer support while seeking to convert people seeking assistance. The religious freedom of beneficiaries would therefore be seriously threatened, because disadvantaged Americans could face religious coercion while seeking the food, shelter or other critical benefits. Placing people in need in this position is wrong.

Moreover, religious institutions face a series of unintended, and very unappealing, consequences as a result of feeding from the hand of government. For example, the government always regulates what it finances. This occurs because public officials are obligated to make certain that taxpayer funds are properly spent. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom will be placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.

Houses of worship that have flourished as private institutions may suddenly have their books audited or face regular spot checks by federal inspectors in order to ensure appropriate "accountability."

In addition, millions of Americans are active with their local houses of worship, making special contributions as a way to strengthen their ties to their faith traditions and increase personal piety. Once religious institutions are working in tandem with the government and receiving tax dollars to provide services, members may be less inclined to "dig a little deeper" to help with expenses. Making religious institutions dependent on the government for money will only harm these congregations and their vitality.

The faith-based initiative also threatens interfaith peace by pitting faith groups against each other in competition for public funds. Since the founding of the nation, all religious groups have stood equal in the eyes of the law. With a separation between church and state, government has been neutral on religious issues, and no specific faith tradition received favoritism or support. In contrast, Bush's charitable choice plan calls for competition between religious groups. For the first time in American history, religious groups will be asked, indeed encouraged, to battle it out for a slice of the government pie.

[snip]

Bush opened a Pandora's Box with his OoF-BI, and I'm sorry, Barack should close it, not try and "fix" it. You can't fix what's unconstitutional, and a constitutional law professor should know that.

I really respect your opinion, but I do want to posit a question to you.......

If the Federal government wants to commit a certain amount of money to aid communities in need, for whatever reason and for whatever purpose, certain community groups may receive funding that are not federal employees.

If that community group, who can provide a service to the whole community regardless of religious orientation, why would it matter that they organized this out of a church or a Lion's club hall?

It just seems to me that in a sense, you are not giving them money strictly by where they base their work out of, not what their work does.

Government should separate church and state, I am avid about that, but does that mean that even if a service is related but not impacted by a religious group they should be excluded from funding? I don't know, it seems a little extreme.

How about block grants meted by a sectarian organization? What if one of their allocations were to a group with a religious affiliation? That group didn't apply to the feds for the money, do they deserve a piece of the pie or are they banned as a prerequisite for the block grant?

It is true, Obama is a man, he is not the massiah, so he will make some mistakes, but they will be honest. It wont be something we cant fix, and he will have our situation in heart. That will be a big differance from the last 30 damn years.

SHIT! THIS PISSES ME OFF....I WAS HOPING HE WOULD GET RID OF THESE "FAITH BASED" ORGANIZATIONS...
I DON'T SEE HOW THEY DO ANYONE ANY GOOD!

Have faith

Here's the problem. Read what AU has written about this.

Yes, even in the past, all throughout this century, it is true, the government has given money to charitable organizations with religious backing, but NOT religious charities. There's a difference.

In the past, religious organizations set up autonomous charity organizations that, while receiving church funds, operated autonomously. The point being, they did not proselytize, they did not discriminate in hiring (non-coreligionists, gays, etc.), they did not operate per se under the umbrella of the church, therefore they did not have to follow religious doctrine in how they acted and distributed aid.

I have no problem with groups like that receiving funding.

The problem is, the OoF-BIs gives money to groups that do proselytize the people they help, are discriminatory, and determine who is "worthy" of assistance based on their sectarian religious tenets.

And I cannot support that, and won't.

Jefferson would not have, either.

absolutely not, and I cant imagine how any liberal could.

I am not saying it is a deal breaker for me, Obama gets my vote over McCain unless he starts frothing at the mouth, even then....

but this is pandering and the truth is it is a sign of more centrist shit to come, exactly what I have said at least 50 times now, that I was afraid of...I saw this coming, I hoped it wouldnt...

the next deal will be will he pretend like the past 8 yrs didnt happen? the roves and so on of the administration will all walk away as if nothing ever happened and that will piss me off

Go to any inner city or poor rural town and check out the schools.

Wasn't aware of that.

Interesting.

While I agree it's wrong. It still doesn't seem like a priority to me right now.

Incorrect. It's not "universal" at all. I don't know where people got this idea he's some "leftist" -- even going back to the infamous speech, that was deliberately centrist.

This is a bad move on his part.

Of course I dont believe anything he says, but congratulations to Obama for at least admitting that Bush's faith based program is the best way to go.

Is that what he said? I don't think so...

I totally agree with you on this point, but I think the MSM is having a bit of fun with us. Look at this article:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_to_exp...based_0701.html

From what I have read here, Obama is looking to fulfill all your criteria, except perhaps for the autonomous portion. Didn't see anything about that. but in the segment of the charity that receives federal funding there are no hiring criteria based on faith and it is explicit in that the service needs to be sectarian in nature.

This seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

It isn't. I consider doing something the Founding Fathers of this country warned against repeatedly, and which this country has avoided doing for 200 years precisely because of the importance of Jefferson's wall, more than just a teacup.

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-br-why.html

As president, James Madison also put his separationist philosophy into action. He vetoed two bills he believed would violate church-state separation. The first was an act incorporating the Episcopal Church in the District of Columbia that gave the church the authority to care for the poor. The second was a proposed land grant to a Baptist church in Mississippi. Had Madison, the father of the Constitution, believed that all the First Amendment was intended to do was bar setting up a state church, he would have approved these bills. Instead, he vetoed both, and in his veto messages to Congress explicitly stated that he was rejecting the bills because they violated the First Amendment.

[snip]

Jefferson and Madison believed strongly in no governmental aid to religious organizations, even those aiding the poor.

The wall had to be maintained.

It's not just a teacup, Obama is trying to put a bandaid over a wound in the 1st amendment, and that's what the OoF-BIs is.

Bear in mind that Obama MIGHT politicize the office less than the Bushies did. Fine enough. But there will be other administrations. The temptation to politicize such an office is too great, and that is why it should be abolished.

Yeah, you're right about that....I only said that out of my own frustration....I mean, I don't want Obama to be like any other politician, with all of the pandering that they do....I want him to be strong, and to stand up for his own beliefs....that's all....

Yeah.....very funny....hee hee....

The question is... what exactly does Obama believe in?
Of late, there has been alot of flip-flopping and moving away from more progressive liberal agendas to appease the right and center.

And can we trust what he says today is what he'll say tomorrow?

I'm just saying...

but one that has been used successfully for the last 3 decades. Obama has taken this argument off the table, removing this oft-used method for defining the Democrats.

It is a brilliant move especially considering McCain's weakness as it relates to the religious. This could attract some of the more progressive evangelicals, depress the enthusiasm of some of the more conservative evangelicals, and counterract the meme of Obama is a Muslim or Atheist.

Not to mention the fact that the church as Obama found out as an organizer is the center of a lot of the most devastated communities. A lot of these neighborhoods are avoided by traditional "progressives."

Totally knee jerk.

Actually he has not really flip-flopped on anything. Except maybe the telecom immunity issue. However people are still not really immunized since they could still face criminal prosecution.

Churches already have tax-exempt status...can I have that, too, Barack? You can funnel funds through me for stuff, and I'll promise it won't go to things for me, it'll just go to things for people I like!

This saddens me a little bit. It doesn't make me crazypissed off, but I do feel that churches are by no means a minority group, but that some churches do have access and reach to those who may not be politically involved...but so do other organizations that are not directly religious.

No more moves to the center, damn it. I'm working for those who are on the fence, you just keep working to be President, ok?

That would be golden. Arrest and charge the entire board of directors for those same telecom companies.

AU is trying to put the best spin they can on this, but what we have here is a violation of the Constitution or at best a perfect situation where a violation or multiple violations can occur, plain and simple.

It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to regulate the process to assure there is no violation, therefore it shouldn't exist in the first place.

Religious people want govt money and govt backing, Christian religious people that is, and they want it for a reason, and we all know what that is.

If you could just trust institutional religion, but you can't. Churches have a long history of using "good works" as a cover proselytizing and pushing their political agendas. The fact that government has been in bed with religious organizations for years and years is no argument for allowing it to continue.