Quote :

" ZANESVILLE, Ohio - Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican. Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was "tagged as being on the left." In recent days, with the Democratic nomination in hand and the general election battle with Republican John McCain ahead, Obama has been sounding centrist themes with comments on guns, government surveillance and capital punishment. He's even quoted Ronald Reagan. On Tuesday, touring Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, the Democratic senator said he would get religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty efforts if elected. He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be "a critical part of my administration," a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort. ..."

hear that whooshing sound? that's the wind being let out of my sails.

Quote :

" ... And while Bush supports allowing all religious groups to make any employment decisions based on faith, 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. "That makes perfect sense," he said. Where there are state or local laws prohibiting hiring choices based on sexual orientation in the federally funded portion of the programs, he said he would support those being applied. This position would make his proposal "dead on arrival" for many evangelicals and small churches, said Jim Towey, a former head of Bush's faith-based office. That's because telling a small organization to keep employees hired with federal funds separate from others "is unmanageable — and besides those folks want to hire people who share their vision and mission," Towey said. ..."

so now he's going to compete for religious right. but this is where he's going to fail.

because McCain has been meekly kowtowing to the religious right, apologizing for his past transgressions, for some time already.

how is Obama going to compete against McCain here? Fundamentalist bible thumpers are going to look at this and say, "Look here, Obama's gonna make us hire witches and lesbians"

so not only is this not gonna work, he's gonna lose some of his base.

Quote :

"... Even as Obama courts the right, his support for a signature Bush program could invite protest from others. "This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. --http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith "

finally. someone who has their head on straight.






[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2008 7:18:14 PM

a democrat pushing for money to religious groups certainly is CHANGE

7/1/2008 7:26:29 PM

I don't see him losing his base - I would guess that this is typically a lower priority for most Democrats as compared to Republicans.

Pat Robertson isn't going to come out and support him on this, but that's not the point. Independents and blue dogs from states like North Carolina will for the most part give him +1 for supporting religious charities.

The stronghold may not be too happy, but who else is Massachusetts or Oregon going to vote for?

7/1/2008 7:47:50 PM

7/1/2008 7:48:39 PM

I don't see a problem with faith based charities vying for federal money along with secular charities, provided of course that no preferential treatment is given. Similarly it's perfectly reasonable to ask that if they accept federal money that their hiring practices be regulated by federal standards.

Now as far as any federal money going to private charities in the first place, well that's another topic for another thread.

7/1/2008 7:51:40 PM

I don't see any problem with allowing religious groups to hire and fire based on religion, AS LONG as it's a certified religious group (like a church or missions/charity group) and not a business with religious owners (Chick-fil-a).

Seems to be not that different from the clause that allows the entertainment industry to discriminate (if they are looking for extras for an American Revolution film, they aren't going to hire any Asians).

7/1/2008 8:27:29 PM

I have a huge problem with faith based organizations not paying taxes and receiving government funding. Although, I generally have a problem with this for any organization, not just religious.

7/1/2008 8:48:03 PM

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/01/faith/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

Quote :

"On the faith-based initiative, Obama's way isn't Bush's way The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry and the rights of those who receive the benefits. The safeguards were just common sense, and helped make these partnerships legal. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted. So what happened? George W. Bush decided he wanted to rewrite the rules. His White House identified those safeguards and renamed them "barriers." To protect the First Amendment and the interests of taxpayers, the president said, was to stand in the way of churches helping families in need. The safeguards, Bush insisted, had to be eliminated. I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So when I saw this Associated Press feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair. "Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy -- support their ability to hire and fire based on faith." Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it's being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind. I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush's approach. In fact, it's largely the opposite. "Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea -- so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work." Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and wants to strengthen them, not abandon them. By all appearances, Obama's vision is consistent with what Bush's plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need and the integrity of religious institutions. From Obama's speech: "You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck. I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together -- Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike -- to meet the challenges of the 21st century." There's simply nothing wrong with this. If Obama honors church-state separation and keeps the safeguards in place, as he clearly said he would, there's no reason the government can't partner with ministries willing to provide a secular social service. "

I think he takes separation of church and state seriously, and recognizes the dangers and benefits of such an association.

As someone pointed out on a blog I read, if Obama's campaign is really about people coming together that means he'll reach out to groups you might strongly disagree with.

[Edited on July 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM. Reason : /]

7/1/2008 8:54:23 PM

^ good point with your last sentence

7/1/2008 9:10:30 PM

I'm generally against this as it's generally stuff that the federal government has no business being involved with or throwing taxpayer money at. The organizations that they funnel it through don't make a lot of difference if you don't think they should be funneling it to begin with.

7/1/2008 9:44:38 PM

Quote :

"I'm generally against this as it's generally stuff that the federal government has no business being involved with or throwing taxpayer money at."

Yes.

7/1/2008 9:47:50 PM

one of my coworkers was like "its sad we cant say prayer in school anymore"...i didnt say anything but that made me feel uncomfortable

7/1/2008 10:20:54 PM

while I agree joe, this is a HUGE shift from the left. Seperation of church and state is almost up there with prochoice with dems... but this wont make a difference. His base are yellow dog dems. They might not like it, but it wont hurt him among the base. No worries joe.

While I tend to go conservative, I have little stomach for federal money going to church groups. As if the tax free donations werent enough, now they get federal tax dollars too? Our govt needs to be cutting spending by massive amounts.. but this is just more of the same. Just promising another group of voters someone elses money. Sad

7/1/2008 10:31:55 PM

^ I would rather the gov. ignore religion too but in Obama's program, the religious groups are only supposed to use it for secular programs:

Quote :

"First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them -- or against the people you hire -- on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.""

7/1/2008 11:21:14 PM

read what his statement actually says, and not what all the articles say about it

http://i.usatoday.net/news/mmemmottpdf/obama-faith-fact-sheet-july-1-2008.pdf

Quote :

" 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. "

7/1/2008 11:22:39 PM

Quote :

" how is Obama going to compete against McCain here? Fundamentalist bible thumpers are going to look at this and say, "Look here, Obama's gonna make us hire witches and lesbians""

lots of religious publications have been writing about obama, lots are recognizing him as a person of genuine faith. i think you are going to be surprised, which is expected the way you misuse "fundamentalist"

7/6/2008 4:19:55 PM

joe_schmoe: hear that whooshing sound? that's the wind being let out of my sails wind blowing between my ears.

7/6/2008 4:50:47 PM

i feel bad for obama, because i agree with pretty much everything he's done lately, and i see a lot of his followers appearing to question his judgment because he's not as far on the left as they thought previously. i think it's great to have a leader who does not always follow [what i'd consider in this case to be] party lines. i'm a lifelong agnostic, and i see no problem with what he's doing here.

7/6/2008 5:07:22 PM

^Obama can be described as one of the two below:

1) Hes extremely left, and is acting like a moderate to get votes in the general election

2) Hes actually a moderate, but campaigned to the extreme left to get the party nomination.

I think its 1 from his past record as the most liberal senator.

7/6/2008 5:53:14 PM

Like the attack ad that claimed Kerry was the 'Most Liberal Senator' in 2004?

7/6/2008 6:47:47 PM

but he also has a track record of making comprimises and working across party lines going back to his days in Illinois

7/6/2008 7:11:35 PM

The Democrats are too hungry for the White House; they'll most likely give Obama a pass on this just so they can get their man into the Presidency.

7/7/2008 9:33:46 AM

^^^^ How are you rating him as the most liberal senator. He's been a senator for 2 years. I don't count the last year because he's spent so much time running for president.

7/8/2008 12:21:06 PM

Quote :

"Like the attack ad that claimed Kerry was the 'Most Liberal Senator' in 2004?"

Republicans will say and do anything to win.

7/8/2008 12:29:34 PM

^^ hes been US senator for 4 years.

Illinois state senator for 12 years before that.

7/8/2008 12:56:03 PM

When you're running for president, you can't make every vote.

Therefore you show up on the contentious ones-- i.e. the ones that split liberals and conservatives.

When you only show up for those contentious votes, you'll be skewed to the extreme, one way or another.


But from what I've observed, thinkin' ain't bigun's strong suit.

7/8/2008 1:01:15 PM