Just when I was thinking I could live with him he does something idiotic

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

It was wrong of Bush and it's no better under Obama.

There are some very serious differences though in the Bush approach and the Obama approach.

Obama has good experience in community organising and Bush...he had experience drinking and snorting coke.


Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.


He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

The problem is, the government cannot be giving money to religious organizations in any way shape or form. Any attempt to do so will, intentionally or unintentionally, lead to the government funding some religions over others....which I have a major problem with.

What Ailwon said, but additionally, it's illegal for the government to be involved in any way shape or form with institutions which hire and fire based on faith, and the little sidestep about only providing money to 'those portions' of the organizations isn't worth the breath spent on it or the paper such qualifications are printed on - one is still supporting financial support directly to organizations which do these things by doing so. These initiatives also have the tendency to take bread *out* of the mouths of non-sectarian social service and education agencies in favor of the 'faith based'.

His lack of understanding of *why* separation of church and state, especially in the financial sphere (and those organizations are already tax-exempt) is important is somewhat disturbing, and goes back to the 'judgement' question.

Regards,
Nydia

Just more confirmation that my write-in for Ron Paul is the right thing to do.

Just more confirmation that my write-in for Ron Paul is the right thing to do.

I think you might see quite a few others do that also...I'm very very heavily leaning that way.

I still have every intention of doing so.

While the potential misappropriation of funds is a serious issue, I think this falls more on the "courting religious groups" side of things than real policy direction. I have little doubt we'll see anything substantial from either campaign besides feel-good stuff like this for another few months before the actual teeth come out.

Just more confirmation that my write-in for Ron Paul is the right thing to do.

Ya' beat me! :D

+1 Ron Paul

I am probably the most cynical/skeptical person on this board when it comes to orginized religion and one of the staunchest defenders on seperation. but sometimes experiance is a bitch...

I have had the privelage in the last year to work closely with 2 local food banks. both run out of local churches. and in both cases these are people who while connected together by thier religious affiliations go about this work with no agenda to advance thier churches growth or influence in any way.

If obama can do it this way
Obama said his proposal will respect the separation of church and state. Under his plan, groups accepting federal grant money cannot use the funds "to proselytize to the people you help" and employees cannot be hired or fired on the basis of religion
I'm willing to take a chance on it.

Both of these orginizations already run under these principals and both are in need of help to keep the goal alive. simply make sure people don't go hungry!

The smaller of the two keeps a small stand way off to the side with a few religous articles but no one ever points it out or advertises it.
these are just good people helping others not because of the Bible but because they give a shit about other people and like overly agnostic me think anyone especially a child going hungry in this country is utter BS!!!
I have no problem with a program that skirts that seperation line to give a few tax dollars to the people that are actually making a differance and helping. I think the "good Lord" would even find this preferable to giving it to Blackwater or KRB/Haliburton.

I agree completely with Velvet, and I'm an agnostic as well.

I am usually a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state, to the point that I feel "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on our money (though it's not important enough for me to try to fight for it).

The quote from Rover makes absolute sense to me.

I will concede that if the organizations do not actively proselytize about their church while extending the charity it would make this less objectionable. But I submit these three points...

1. The simple fact that they represent a religion as they are providing the help promotes their religion to those they are helping.

2. Does anyone here have even the tiniest confidence that the government could effectively watch these groups activity well enough to ensure compliance with the programs guidelines, not proselytizing AND not discriminating when hiring based on religion.

3. Does anyone here doubt that certain religions would be favored over others.

I say, stick with secular charities for government funds...the government has enough trouble keeping tabs on them. i agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said:

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

I will concede that if the organizations do not actively proselytize about their church while extending the charity it would make this less objectionable. But I submit these three points...

1. The simple fact that they represent a religion as they are providing the help promotes their religion to those they are helping.
I think the more important thing would be that people needing help that aren't getting it now would be getting help.

2. Does anyone here have even the tiniest confidence that the government could effectively watch these groups activity well enough to ensure compliance with the programs guidelines, not proselytizing AND not discriminating when hiring based on religion.
The government can't effectively watch itself right now. They can't effectively help everyone that needs help either. I'm not saying involving church groups is the ideal solution, but it's a better solution than no solution at all.


3. Does anyone here doubt that certain religions would be favored over others.
Nope, I don't doubt this at all.

Just so I understand Taleren...and I'm really not trying strawman because I'm not sure yet if I disagree...you are saying it's ok to, violate is too strong, bend the first amendment in this case. Of course, this assumes some diligence on the government's part of ensuring there's no discrimination in hiring for these particular charitable efforts, no proselytizing and no favoritism to one religion over another. That, in effect, it's ok because the ends justify the means...i.e. it's helping people in need.

I agree morally, because then end result gets support they need. I just worry it's a good road to go down because of the abuse it could invite.

Justice Hugo Black on the subject:
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

I agree morally, because then end result gets support they need. I just worry it's a good road to go down because of the abuse it could invite.


I as well agree on the moral grounds with Vel and Tal, but I am leery of another evil not addressed. How much money will the government end up spending to fight the ACLU law suits that are bound to be brought? There is no argument that the greater good would be served by these policies, but the mere appearance of lifting that curtain between Church and State would certainly rally those who seek reasons to champion a cause; and, this would be a valid cause, much as I hate to say it.

Guy I went to highschool with is working at American's United, here's his organization's press release:

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9927&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

They 'can' do this without violating the first amendment. And in that case I think this is a good thing.

They also could trample all over the first amendment with this, and in that case, no the ends don't justify the means to me.

I think this has good potential, not necessarily that it WOULD be good.

Excellent response's all! I'm still very torn on this issue. stuck on the notion that the folks I've meet might be the rare exception and not the rule.
Funny the times i've engaged the one pastor we talked Football.
Gonna take me awhile to wrestle with this question:

When religion may be the originating motivation. at what point does the good of the compassion outwiegh the fear of explotation?

I think what it really comes down to, for me, is that I don't trust our government any more, no matter who is the president. Could they do this without violating the first amendment, probably, will they? ...probably not. I also have little confidence in the government's ability to successfully manage a project like this and not create something rife with corruption and fraud.