Expanding faith-based programs? Eeghads!
1 July 2008 by Stardust
I know, I know, here I go again! (and I do not speak for all of our moderators or everyone at GifS), but this pisses me off. I thought we would see LESS of this crap in government if the Dems regain control, and NEVER expected to see more of this bullshit.
I am disappointed and disillusioned.
Obama to expand Bush’s faith based programs
ZANESVILLE, Ohio - Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for expanding President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — supported some ability to hire and fire based on faith
I am a registered Independent, have been since I first registered more than three decades ago. This term, I am writing in my vote for someone.
1 July 2008, on 2:33 pm
I called it last week in the comments thread to that other post about faith based initiatives:
Barack Obama shut it down? I doubt that. He will use it for his political purposes.
1 July 2008, on 2:52 pm
Yes, you did call it, Tommy. Sadly you were correct.
1 July 2008, on 2:53 pm
There is some question whether the AP’s story on this was correct. I am not an Obama apologist at all, just someone who threw a fit about it a couple hours ago and was sent this from a friend:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/01/1177379.aspx
1 July 2008, on 3:00 pm
Robin, that link your friend sent you was just concerning one part of the story. Just allowing the program to continue pisses me off.
Obama promised to bring about “Change”, not more of the same…especially no more of the same of Bush administration programs.
1 July 2008, on 3:33 pm
It definitely sucks. Still, Obama or McCain, no contest. Voting for anyone but Obama will not help anyone BUT McCain. I think sending a huge number of separate e-mails to the Obama campaign will have an effect if it’s done now.
Whether it does or not. I still can’t throw a vote away when it might mean letting McCain, who is, beyond any doubt, a complete scumbag, win by default.
1 July 2008, on 3:38 pm
democommie, what do you think that Obama is going to be able to do that is different? What “changes” do you anticipate? Do you really think things are going to be better? Do you really think it will be that much different than McCain and why? Trying to figure this out.
1 July 2008, on 3:39 pm
oh, and the huge numbers of separate emails is a great idea. I am off to find out where to send one now.
1 July 2008, on 3:39 pm
I take back all the nice things I said about Obama. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I really wanted to believe his promises and stay positive about him, but the recent choices that he’s been making (FISA, and now this) have been making it hard for me to do that.
Now that he has the nomination, it seems to me that he’s doing these things to try to win over people who are more to the right. Which is pretty damned stupid, because the religious freaks and the people who are obsessed with stopping terrorism would never vote for him anyway! I hope he knocks this crap off.
1 July 2008, on 3:55 pm
Sarah, that is the problem I am having. What else is he going to change his mind about as the election goes on. What does he really think? Where does he really stand on anything? Is he just telling people on either side what they want to hear? I am having a difficult time trusting anything he says anymore.
I would LOVE to be able to vote for him but am not going to do so simply for the sake of the party…a party that has been so wishy-washy and wimpy and cannot even stand up to the Bush administration. I will not vote for McCain who is definitely for more of the same.
And voting for someone else is not throwing my vote away. I will be voting my conscience. I am not loyal to any party. Our two-party system is totally fucked up.
1 July 2008, on 3:59 pm
You think not voting for Obama does anything but help McCain win? Really?
You think McCain is possibly acceptable for the godless?
Explain, please, the enlightened self-interest at work here?
1 July 2008, on 4:13 pm
I’m with Stardust.
But I still can’t help but laugh at how Obama supporters rationalize away everything he does. If McCain had said this (and I bet he has), we’d be hearing Obama supporters screaming bloody murder.
I don’t want McCain to win as much as the next guy, but I’m not about to cover my eyes and ears and pretend everything Obama does it okay.
1 July 2008, on 4:33 pm
I told you so. Hah! Why don’t we just get off our asses and do something about it? I am pretty sure that I am not going to vote. No one should have to pick between the lesser of two evils. Hell, the electoral college and two party system should go too. But, I forgot, I live in America. People say that they want change but bitch if it is inconvenient for them. Things will get worse before they get any better.
Yeah, I can hear it now that I don’t know what I am talking because I am young. GET your head out of your ass! Such arrogance would only lead to a detriment for everyone.
1 July 2008, on 4:57 pm
So much for the separation of church and state.
The video
1 July 2008, on 6:07 pm
Just when I begin to think that we have a candidate who isn’t going to pander to that nonsensical faith based crowd. He goes and does this. Let the anal supplication begin.
In my younger years we used to call ass kissers “Smoochy” and when we saw them we would make loud kissing noises.
1 July 2008, on 6:16 pm
I’m no fan of free money for churches, but, once I calm down a little, it occurs to me that Obama’s position here is good because it takes advantage of these organizations and makes them do some actual, non-self-serving good. I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of church resources for the things they like to claim they want to do. You know, helping the needy instead of helping themselves.
Obama’s proposal offers more money, but adds conditions: no proselytizing, and no discrimination in employment for your federally funded projects (based on state discrimination laws, which can include sexual orientation). Will the churches bite? More money for all your goodwill to men… if you can separate goodwill from Good Book, and if you can truly love thy neighbor, even if she’s a black gay muslim communist.
This could become a useful hammer, in fact. Oh, your workers were trying to get homeless people to join your fascist megachurch along with the free soup? Guess you don’t need those federal dollars then.
Enforcement will be key, of course.
1 July 2008, on 6:53 pm
I’m forcibly reminded of someone I heard somewhere else recently:
“It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. Doing something you know is ______ because, in a perfect world, it wouldn’t be _______, is damned stupid.”
Now, in the original context, the blanks were filled with “dangerous”, and the topic was how much responsibility a victim carries for disregarding common sense when it comes to their own safety. Things like sleeping the the doors unlocked, letting strangers in, etc.
In this case, I think the word “useless” should go in the blank. Voting for a third party because in a perfect world you “shouldn’t have to chose between the lesser of two evils”, despite the fact that we currently operate in a two-party system and to do so is to basically throw away your vote, is damned stupid.
1 July 2008, on 6:57 pm
I see nothing wrong with taking advantage of church resources for the things they like to claim they want to do.
But we do see something wrong with it when Rethuglicans want to. That’s what many people have bitched about since this whole “faith-based” bullcrap in government got started. It seems that because it’s a Dem now, people are going to lighten up about it because it’s a Democrat wanting to tweak and continue one of Dubya’s pet programs. That’s not any “change” that I can “believe in.”
1 July 2008, on 7:02 pm
Julie, I feel I am throwing my vote away this time if I vote for either one of the two main parties. I am not going to blindly follow one party just because it labels itself liberal in name.
As far as “stupid” and “useless”…if enough of us would not just settle and vote third party in a big enough protest, it would be a big enough voice to get the attention that so many of us voted third party and made some sort of statement.
It is useless and stupid to vote for a candidate who is lying to you and is not going to change one damn thing. He hasn’t said what he is going to change, he hasn’t changed anything in his whole time as Senator. He speaks pretty rhetoric, like church pastors do. He flip flops like any other politician does.
Perhaps someone can explain to me what exactly he is going to change to make a major difference? And can you tell me what he is going to flip flop on again, perhaps? I would love nothing better than change to the status quo. But I never thought I would see the day when Dems would go this far to suck up to the conservative religious right. Maybe that is the “change” that has been so poorly defined so far?
1 July 2008, on 7:33 pm
I’m with K.. The more you look into this- as disagreeable as anything called “faith-based” is, it begins to seem like not so bad an idea. I mean, really, what’d you expect him to do, close all the churches? Seriously, did you expect him to make an announcement of the opposite action? “Hey, y’all, I’m 86ing that faith-based nonsense.” Yeah, that’d go over like a lead balloon. Come on, the guy has to get elected first and, like it or not, that eighty-something percent of believers in this country isn’t all Repugnantklans- just the really nasty ones
The reality of this particular populace is that these relatively moderate godbotherers on the Democratic side of the aisle represent a much larger and much more influential chunk of votes available than do we in the secular- I hesitate to say “community” because we’re about as organized as a herd of inbred cats.
Back to this plan of his. The more money they get, should they so choose, the easier it is to mandate at least some kind of tolerance on their part. And, quite frankly, no one is in a better position, with boots already on the ground, to help those in need than the churches. I wish it wasn’t so. I wish the number of secular charitable organizations was such that this money would be better spent there but, well, Medecins Sans Frontieres doesn’t do much work here in the States.
It strikes me as odd that neither Gore or Kerry were put under such scrutiny by the godless once they got the nominations. And that troubles me. At places like Kos and TPM, there was discussion of how the campaigns were being run, ersatz focus groups working on streamlining the party’s platform, a little disagreement over nitpicky things, but an overall unity against the opposition. I just want to slap former Hillary supporters who say they’re weighing a vote for McCain- sore loser much?- and stick people’s heads in the toilet who want to take their toys and go home to the black hole tantrum of a third party vote. The latter are like a McCain People’s Front crack suicide squad.
Fuck, man, Obama’s not perfect. Obama is a politician engaged in a national election at a time when that pursuit has become a beauty contest more than a substantive discussion of the issues. He has to do certain things and he can’t do others, he has to say certain things and keep his mouth shut on some topics, and he has to fucking sing and dance for the bulk of the populace and their six second attention spans just to get the damn job!
And, when he gets there, it isn’t going to be Camelot all over again- or, more accurately, FDR for sheer cojones and change. He’s gonna have to work within the system, hopefully helped by a larger Dem majority in Congress but, and this is very important, unlike McCain- or Clinton for that matter, he actually wants to change things. The other two had- and have- too much of a vested interest in the status quo, D.C. style.
Oh, for fuck’s sake, Star. He’s not sucking up to the Religious Right, he’s appealing to the- small “r”- religious in our party. The RR wouldn’t piss on him if he were on fire unless they’d been drinking gasoline. If you want to start your third party, it’s got to be local. Once it becomes viable in your town, your district, your school board, then you take it up to the next level. Lather, rinse, repeat, and so on and so on, etc. Until a third party on the national stage can do something besides hand the election to the worst possible choice, it is unequivocably useless. I really worry about you, sometimes…
1 July 2008, on 7:41 pm
Voting for a third party or Nader is a vote of dissatisfaction with Obama and McCain.
Neither candidate will change anything.
The more Obama speaks the more he is just a regular politician.
What everyone here does not know is that Obama is a CHICAGO politician.
Back room deals, following party doctrine are part of what got him into office.
McCain is one of the most conservative politicians ,based off of his voting record.
Neither one of these two will have any positive impact on our country.
Voting a third party will show our dissatisfaction with what we are presented.
I do not want a politician who I can have a beer with and as I predicted will run this country into the ground. GWB
I do not want a conservative who sucks up to the biblical nut jobs.
I do not want a 20 year member of a Black Separatist church. Rev Wrights message was change America, think Obama heard that message? What change is Obama proposing?
Not voting is not an option. Not voting allows the fringe to gain control.
If everyone voted and there was a choice of “none of the above”, none of the above would win and we would have to go thru this process again.
No governmont, State government, this country needs something that will work for the people not for the politicians who are seeking donations.
1 July 2008, on 7:49 pm
Oh, for fuck’s sake, Star. He’s not sucking up to the Religious Right
If you look above, I am not the only one here who thinks so.
Seriously, did you expect him to make an announcement of the opposite action? “Hey, y’all, I’m 86ing that faith-based nonsense.”
I didn’t expect him to so thoroughly embrace it, adopt it and make it his own.
he actually wants to change things.
I keep asking people what exactly he wants to change, and how. Not getting any answers. Any also answers to why he has changed his mind so drastically on several things that have been reported on recently. RDZ you have worked for his campaign, right? Why are you worried about me because I am asking questions because I am skeptical? I voted for him for senator, btw. He is a Senator of the state I live in. I would love to support him, but tell me exactly what he is going to change. How can you be so certain he is going to make things so much better? I am not the enemy here. I am simply doing what we do and not going on blind faith.
1 July 2008, on 7:58 pm
The difference- and it’s a major one, between Bush’s handouts to the fundies and Obama’s proposal is perfectly described in K.’s comment above. No, it’s not perfect. This isn’t a perfect world. He isn’t an atheist. Neither are the majority of Democratic voters. I don’t know if you’re still stuck on Hillary, Star- or if you’ve got a real problem with Obama, personally. The campaign hasn’t even begun yet. He hasn’t needed to be specific in the primaries because he and Clinton were essentially on the same page. The changes mostly involve stopping corporate welfare, getting money and the influence of lobbyists out of Washington, strengthening our ties with our allies and actually talking with those either already our enemies or on the verge of becoming so, getting the troops out of Iraq, upgrading veteran care to the 21st century, universal healthcare. Jeebus, how many do you need? The specifics will be spelled out at and after the convention. And a great deal of his first term, I would imagine, would have to go to undoing the damage of the preceding two.
1 July 2008, on 8:05 pm
I tend to go with the opinion that Obama’s trying to appeal to as many people who might otherwise vote for McInsane, not that I think he should have to do it, nor that he might do a complete turnaround once he’s in office and say, “Surprise! I’m really an atheist, so guess who’s not getting any federal funding?” He’s still the better option to vote for, and proper enforcement (we hope) of the conditions for faith-based initiatives to receive this money is quite definitely key. It’s an area where we as the people should if anything increase our watchdogging activities and keep our magnifying glasses trained on religious recipients of federal funding - until we can completely draw their teeth or practically eliminate them…
In terms of policies and movements, I support a big push toward changing the system: eliminating the Electoral College, taking private and corporate donations out of campaigning, breaking the stranglehold of the bipartisan system, etc. However, all of them take time, effort, and persistence, and we probably won’t see any of them make hugely significant headway during Obama’s presidency. It doesn’t mean we should let up on those fronts, though.
OK, that ^ now sounds a little rambling to me… S:-/
1 July 2008, on 8:10 pm
Good post Bob did on the subject of “faith-based” and the threat of theocracy on November 8, 2006…
And Speaking of Theocracy . . .
It saddens me that the liberal party has now climbed aboard the faith-based, Jeebus-lovin’ bandwagon. (They really aren’t so bad you now say?
)
1 July 2008, on 8:15 pm
It’s an area where we as the people should if anything increase our watchdogging activities and keep our magnifying glasses trained on religious recipients of federal funding
Eve, most definitely.
1 July 2008, on 8:42 pm
RDZ, we will have to see what unfolds in the next several months.
I think many people would feel better if he would have remained a “different” candidate for real change. People were/are yearning for it. He doesn’t need to play politics like they have always been played. People are very sick of Bush, and many, many people are putting great hopes in Obama. He doesn’t have to pander to anyone if his intentions are true about changing the course for the better. He has had some great ideas while he has been Senator in Illinois, BUT he has done very little.
My problems with Obama are not personal, they are purely political. I don’t care what race, sex or whatever. Like I said, I voted for him for Senator and rode around with Obama signs on my car. But what I have seen during his term as Senator has not been so “inspiring”. I haven’t seen him succeed in changing much of anything or even trying that hard.
I want someone who is honest, who isn’t going to keep changing his mind like the wind on so many things he once stood for that people admired him for…and I would love a candidate that didn’t feel like he had to have his head up the ass of the religious right.
I don’t know if you’re still stuck on Hillary,
No, Hillary is over with. I wasn’t 100% enthused about her even though I voted for her in the Primary. Even then I had wished we could just scrap the bunch of them and start over.
1 July 2008, on 9:12 pm
I’m a committed atheist and a devoted fan of church/state separate, and my initial reaction to this news was to be deeply pissed off. Then I went and read the actual news article, and I did a 180.
The point that’s being missed is in the fine print. Obama would be happy with continuing and even expanding the (forgive the awful term) “faith-based initiatives” program, so long as the recipient organizations adhere to federal employment non-discrimination laws, just like every other recipient of federal funds must. That means that if you’re a church using federal funds toward the operation of your homeless shelter, the shelter can not discriminate against the people in hires or services on the basis of any federally recognized civil rights criteria - race, color, RELIGION, national origin, age, gender, marital status or political affiliation.
The political affiliation, marital status, race and gender equality requirements would be enough to chase off the lion’s share of the most odious religious organizations. Can you imagine the stereotype Southern Baptist organization signing up to a federal program which requires them to hire and serve women and democrats equally? How about a Catholic charity being told it can’t turn fire a single woman for getting knocked up? Jewish charities having to give Muslims equal employment footing? ANY of the above being required to hire qualified atheists? Oh, and by the way, their federally funded programs can no longer be used to proselytize. None of the recipient organizations will want anything to do with a program that carries those kinds of restrictions; I expect the vast majority of them would make a big show to their members of rejecting the federal funds “on principle”.
What Senator Obama proposes is a radical expansion of the constitutionally questionable faith-based-initiative/aid-to-religions problem. With strings attached. Strings that will send most of the religious groups running in the other direction. In other words, he’s planning to use fairness and THE LAW to made this weed wither from the inside out. I may have to apologize to some purists here, but I support this approach.
1 July 2008, on 9:16 pm
As an atheist who spent a week in New Orleans for Habitat for Humanity (religiously-based), I think Obama is buffering federal assistance with religious groups. He’s giving a hat-tip to those who wouldn’t otherwise pitch in to help if they didn’t believe in God (I know it’s messed up, but it’s true).
1 July 2008, on 9:33 pm
Cthulhu / Dagon ‘08
Why choose the lesser evil?
1 July 2008, on 9:38 pm
Steve:
They already are required to adhere to those laws, that’w why those laws are called laws, rather than, say, suggestions.
So unless Obama is actually proposing to create an oversight committee to enforce them, his statement is just so much empty rhetoric.
1 July 2008, on 9:39 pm
Go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid, Obamaphiles, and keep making convoluted justifications for his every new betrayal. I can’t wait to hear how you will rationalize his support for Intelligent Design being taught in public schools along with evolution, when he inevitably comes out for that.
Said it before, say it again: Obama is 4 Suckers.
1 July 2008, on 10:02 pm
gkruz, what on earth makes you extrapolate an innocuous charitable suggestion to teaching creo-crap in science classrooms. Panic much?
1 July 2008, on 10:51 pm
John Marley,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It applies to any employer with 15 or more employees, but it exempts religious organizations (a broader category than churches) from the ban on religious discrimination.
Recipients of federal dollars OUTSIDE of the current administration’s faith-based initiatives program must agree to an even higher standard of equal employment opportunity. That’s why public school lunch programs must advertise that they provide services to all students regardless of age, race, color, religion, handicap, et cetera. They also must publish the information on how to file a complaint for non-compliance; if caught (for example) denying subsidized school lunches to muslim students, they’re likely to lose their federal funding.
As you might imagine, the current administration has been less than eager to demand such requirements of their faith-based funding recipients. My point is simlpy that strict enforcement of normal federal standards - requiring religious organization to waive their exemption as a condition of getting the money - would poison the well and make the entire program unpalatable to most of the current beneficiaries.
1 July 2008, on 11:04 pm
“Go ahead and drink the Kool-Aid, Obamaphiles…”
Hee! You’re so cute! You sound just like the puffed up little 19-year-old, purple-haired, Hot Topic, unique little snowflake in my atheist club that proclaims anyone who attends an Obama rally to be “sheep”.
1 July 2008, on 11:11 pm
My point is simlpy that strict enforcement of normal federal standards - requiring religious organization to waive their exemption as a condition of getting the money - would poison the well and make the entire program unpalatable to most of the current beneficiaries.
Who is going to do the monitoring and making sure normal federal standards are enforced?
(gkruz - I would not go so far to say that Obama is a cretinist. I am just questioning how effective of a president he will be, considering past experience or lack thereof and his recent flip-flopping in his attempt to win votes.)
1 July 2008, on 11:49 pm
Stardust:
What Obama believes regarding creationism or evolution is irrelevant. What he actually believes about anything is irrelevant, because he has proven that the only thing he really believes in is getting elected president, and he’ll promise and pander to anyone to get there. As you correctly apprehend, he is the least qualified and experienced candidate, and has shown us exactly how he will act as President. Seeing this behavior, anyone with a modicum of sense should be alarmed by the thought of an Obama administration.
For all the immature Obamazombies who can’t think past the leader’s newest spin, faith-based initiatives are unconstitutional, period. If you can swallow the concept coming from Obama, why did you object to it under Bush? And if Obama can ride the faith-based hobby horse on this issue, he can ride the ID Trojan horse on creationism in the schools as well.
Btw, Julie, I take heart to learn that there is a “little 19-year-old, purple-haired, Hot Topic, unique little snowflake” in your atheist club. I had assumed they had all changed their middle names to Hussein by this point. There’s hope yet, but Obama is still 4 suckers.
2 July 2008, on 12:21 am
Soooo, dear GifSters…after all is said and done, and we atheists are finally done battling and arguing amongst each other… the bottom line remains:
begins to come over me.
We have two rather limited choices; Obama or McLame.
A third party is not in any way a practical option; at least at this particular moment in our history. To me, as a somewhat pragmatic atheist, the biggest factor to ‘practically’ consider, is which candidate…adding in, as well, the combination of all the other Senatorial and House candidates who will also be up for election… will more likely guarantee that the Supreme Court does not tip more to the right than it already has.
That factor alone, as well, of course, as ending the Iraq war, etc., leads me, personally, to conclude that Obama… flawed as he may be… is the only rational choice in the upcoming election.
Even the building of a viable, EFFECTIVE third party…indeed, one more completely satisfactory to us atheists… as RDZ alluded to, would probably take years to accomplish. Of course, if it WERE completely satisfactory to us atheists… barring some total ‘miraculous rational awakening ‘ of the American public… it wouldn’t stand a chance in any national election.
I get as pissed off as any of you about the whole situation. But after thinking about it for awhile and cooling off a bit; a calmer mood of (long practiced) practical resignation begins to take hold. Even though my mind is still…in ever lessening ‘waves’..stubbornly ranting an unspoken: “FUCK!”… a nicer…calmer…even a trifle selfish…as well as possibly childish and almost pathetic…
“BOO-HOO!” (sniff)
Yeah…I guess it’s thumb sucking time…again!
“OooOH NO YA DON’T…GOB-DAMMIT!…
FUCK, FUCK, FUCK, FUCK, FUCK, FUCK, DOUBLE-FUCK, FUCK…SHIT…MOTHERFUCKING S.O.B…”
(ad infintum w. Low voice pitch (Vocoder), Large Hall echo, chorus, and extreme reverb effects?)!!!
2 July 2008, on 1:11 am
I’ve had some practical experience within a “faith-based” program from back in my Christy days. It was totally privately funded from within the small rural fundamentalist church that I attended. We called it the “food program” and it was where low-income families could come and get free food once a month. No god-bothering or jesus-jabbering ever went on for simple, pragmatic reasons. We were too busy carrying boxes of food, sorting grocery items, etc to proselytize. It was actually a good program.
Can we generalize a whole plethora from a single example? Certainly not. But I’d wager many “wishful-thinking based” programs are similar in that the faith plays a bigger part in the planning and has a diminished role in the execution.
Do I think Obama’s idea is good? Absolutely not. But I don’t think it’s necessarily bad either.
2 July 2008, on 8:13 am
The problem here is that he is allowing these organizations that get federal funding to also discriminate for hiring/firing based on religious belief, no? I can’t see Bush’s “faith based initiatives” ever being undone, but why make it worse now?
2 July 2008, on 9:27 am
I can’t see Bush’s “faith based initiatives” ever being undone, but why make it worse now?
Robin, this isn’t all that bothers me. Obama also supported new electronic surveillance rules for the government’s eavesdropping program, saying “an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue,” after opposing a similar bill last year. That’s a big deal. And now he is dragging his feet on the war in Iraq. He has gone from hard-edged, vocal opposition to calls for a phased-out troop “drawdown” that could last at least 16 months. (He has been against the war but did nothing to try to stop the war.) That bugs me. Obama is in favor of continuing a trampling of our rights and supporting religious organizations with our tax dollars and now will need continued or even more diligent watchdogging. How is this change?
I know there are only two realistic choices, I am just not happy about either of them. Not happy with one, the other McOne is not even a consideration.
2 July 2008, on 10:05 am
rainzilla:
Here is the point that you miss.
Obama has been in government for quite some time.
All the programs and policies that you say he will try to enact, he has done NOTHING to support those programs so far. He has proposed no new bills. He has supported the WAR and even his advisors say that his removal of troops can be delayed.We know that the surge has not worked, there is not a political solution being proposed and the only improvement in Iraq is that oil companies are getting their drilling rights back.
So Rain, which bill # is his health care plan?
Which bill # will get us out of Iraq?
Which bill # upgrades veteran care?
WHich bill # stops corporate welfare?
With Democrats in charge there would be not stopping a proposed bill that will help America. But no bills have been proposed by Obama. He is all talk and no action and will be the same if he gets elected.
People say that Obama would be better than McCain, be careful what you wish for.
2 July 2008, on 10:20 am
I, too, was taken aback by his FISA vote- for immunity in advance granted to telecoms who give up our personal info without a whimper. And, honestly, I can’t explain it.
This one, however, is painfully simple. He’s pandering- to the religious already in our camp and on the off chance that some religious on the right might be so disgusted by C-c-Caine* that they’d switch in a snit. However, his views on the separation are well-known and I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. In this case, he hasn’t just thrown a bone to potential voters. He plans to call these charities on the carpet in regard to their proselytizing and/or discriminatory hiring practices before delivering the check. This may, in and of itself, end the Initiative due to the more extremist organizations- to whom keeping teh gays out and belting folks with the buybull is more important than actually helping them- refusing to comply.
Facts are, there simply aren’t enough what we’d call “secular” aid organizations out there to even make a dent in what these churches already accomplish. And I’m not talking about folks on Fox or anyone with a face we’d recognize. I’m talking about local churches that “adopt” families in need, that keep local food banks stocked, that even offer up job training and placement. Sure, sometimes the help comes with a sermon but it’s still help all the same. And, from personal experience, when you’re hungry, sitting through a half an hour of hocus pocus is no big deal. Sure, it’d be better without it. Sure, it sullies the purity of their motivation. And, if their hiring practices are bullshit, they need to be punished-perhaps by that tax exempt status being lifted? But they get shit done and Obama knows that.
The drawdown of troops is really the only feasible way to bring this whole mess to an end. As easy as it is to say just bring them all home now, it’s just not logistically possible, nor is it, in humanitarian terms, desirable.
2 July 2008, on 10:35 am
Facts are, there simply aren’t enough what we’d call “secular” aid organizations out there to even make a dent in what these churches already accomplish.
Then why were we all so adamantly opposed to Bush’s faith-based initiatives since that was his reasoning, also?
There is separation of church and state for a reason. We have all been adamantly opposed to the mingling of the two from prayer in school, to faith-based war mongering. Why has this suddenly changed? We just set aside what we said before because we want our side to win so badly? Catering to the Bush administration and perpetuating the status quo is not change. It makes me mad to even look at those “change” signs when he speaks because I know there won’t be much of any. People have a faith-like hope in Obama more than any other candidate I have seen since I have paid attention to politics. I am not alone in my opinions, there are many of us Liberals and Democrats in our area who are also skeptical and know there isn’t any real choice …it’s just the lesser of two evils…again.
But they get shit done and Obama knows that.
This is one program we all complained about allowing the bleevers to narrow the gap a bit more between the separation of church and state. How about this…since churches get government handouts, they should pay taxes like the rest of us.
The government should “get shit done” and not have to pass it off to faith organizations. Now that would be some real change.
2 July 2008, on 11:12 am
OOC above asked some good questions about his track record:
These questions aren’t meant to trash talk or undermine the chances for “our side” to win, but they are legitimate concerns many people have, especially many of us in the state of Illinois. We are taking a huge chance on someone who has done very little.
Proposals, even if they make it through the House most likely will be vetoed by the Dubya, but at least try.
2 July 2008, on 11:32 am
I am shocked to see anyone posting on this forum that such an unconstitutional program could ever be acceptable. Well, maybe if it was someone here as some sort of lame missionary or political campaign… I agree with Gkruz and the puffy lil 19 year old.
Isn’t pandering to religious groups part of His Holyness Obama’s own type of “public financing”? You know, his defintion of public financing that comes from private donations… um… yeah, for someone who used to be an atheist, His Holyness is headed way off in the wrong direction. What doesn’t this constitutional law professor not understand about the constitutions ban on state established religion. Is someone gunna respond to this comment calling me racist and telling me how the constitution doesnt prohibit this type of crap? Before you do, maybe think about making your own forum that is dedicated to worshipping Obama and making sure that everyone feels well trapped in the two party system.
On churches and charity - chruches spend money wastefully. If we want to put more resources into aid programs, lets do it without the audacious tax exempt churches and retirement homes for preachers.
I will not be one of the ones who is actively trapping people into the two party system. I’ll leave telling people how to vote to His Holyness’s most loyal! They’ll get all you closet racists to see the light.
2 July 2008, on 11:53 am
I am shocked to see anyone posting on this forum that such an unconstitutional program could ever be acceptable.
Well, there are some of us who still stand against government support of faith-based initiatives no matter who is in charge. And I hate being trapped in a two-party system that our politics have de-evolved into. Either or, lesser of two evils, and people calling me an idiot because I won’t pick the lesser of two.
2 July 2008, on 1:19 pm
Staring down from Canada I can only shake my head in amazement. Once again you’ve put yourselves in the position of voting for 1 of 2 things which are basically the same. You need to eliminate that retarded 2 party system you have and go to a multi-party parliamentary system like the rest of the civilized world uses. In a parliamentary system old George Bush would have been out on his ass in a non-confidence vote about 7 and a half years ago.
You had the power and money to build Utopia but you’ve spent it all now on spiffy weapons and the future is not looking so good. Obama will likely get elected and continue the war in Iraq, suck up to Israel and generally be George Bush Lite. Shortly there after your economy will sink into a deep depression ( after people realize Obama ain’t so different ), the world will stop using the US dollar as the defacto currency and the end of the US empire is upon you. Sadly you’re going to damage a lot of other parts of the world on your way down the toilet.
2 July 2008, on 1:36 pm
I don’t think it’s acceptable. I’m as hardcore for the separation of church and state as you. However, I’m realistic about my options. And if a vote in favor of Obama means keeping McCain out of office, so be it.
2 July 2008, on 2:08 pm
My issue is that regardless of how well intended these initiatives are, they are still ran by assholes who want to convert you and everyone else to their dogmatic bullshit. It is totally fucked up that I should have to pay for some brain-dead proselytizing fuck-sheath to “spread the word.” I don’t give two shits how much regulation occurs, these gob zombies will ignore any regulations as soon as they get the chance.
That aside, McCain is a bigger disaster then these initiatives could possibly be. So while I hate this horseshit with a passion, voting for Obama is only like getting kicked in the nuts a couple of times while voting for McJackass will be like being kicked in the nuts everyday for 4 years.
2 July 2008, on 3:18 pm
I think it has been proven that these faith-based programs don’t really work as well as the secular fact based programs. I’ll check on that. Most of the money from Bushco went to organizations that were in support of Bush and his policies. Is that what Obama wants? Only bigger? Any money to faith-based orgs is still unconstitutional and as Barry Lynn explains. It should be up to the people who support those programs to fund them. Also not to mention but Faith-based is woo woo horseshit.
Off topic I found this rather amusing article at crooks and liars. This is what happens when people automatically alter/censor the news to fit their beliefs. A runners last name, Gay, was changed to Homosexual. Read it for a laugh
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/01/note-to-the-religious-right-auto-replace-is-not-your-friend/
2 July 2008, on 9:59 pm
“which bill # is his health care plan?
Which bill # will get us out of Iraq?
Which bill # upgrades veteran care?
Which bill # stops corporate welfare?
With Democrats in charge there would be not stopping a proposed bill that will help America. But no bills have been proposed by Obama.”
Arright. Your last statement answers your own questions while, at the same time, being incorrect. Democrats have been “in charge” of Congress since 2006. However, in neither house is their majority more than nominal. Without serious defection from across the aisle- and given the GOP’s pettiness this never happens- no bill authored by the Democrats has stood a chance of passing both houses(see “Impeachment, Articles of). And that’s not to mention the awaiting veto in the White House.
Healthcare? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Iraq? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Veterans? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/veterans/
Corp. Welfare http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
The last link is for all Fiscal issues but, scrolling down, there’s this:
” End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.”
Let me explain this to Star one more time.
A) I’m not happy about this.
B) It certainly isn’t a reason to not vote for Obama
C) Bush set this Office up specifically to circumvent the 1st Amendment and funnel money to his fundie cronies. That’s why I objected so vehemently then and do so now.
D) Obama’s plan seeks to correct that corruption, make it work for good- for all the reasons above about the churches being in position already to help right away, and, just maybe, plant some seeds of tolerance among the most egregious of the proselytizers and homophobes.
E) While I probably wouldn’t have done it, I can see how it he arrived at it logically and I can get behind the end result it’s likely he was aiming for.
F) While I also deplore that it’s come to this, our national elections are a fiesta of pandering. If it gets him some of the religious vote, I can’t fault him for it. Hell, I don’t really think C-c-Caine* believes like that fat fuck Hagee but he’s got far crazier fundies to appeal to than Barack does. It’s just how it works until we can get the money and special interests out of our elections.
If it were up to me, no religious institution would be tax exempt and they’d have to post what those glitterati televangelists actually made and spent but…we’re not there yet. Maybe someday. Senator Obama is admittedly imperfect, just less so than Clinton, and a country mile less than C-c-Caine* After the blistering, despicable greed and stupidity of this administration, what we need here is some unity. Unity to both elect a president and to fill out that Congressional majority so that we can dig ourselves out from this Bush catastrophe and start getting some shit done.
*- pronounced like Dewey Cox as played by John C. Reilly.
2 July 2008, on 10:18 pm
We will see how the future unfolds.
2 July 2008, on 10:34 pm
Everyone should read Scalzi’s Reminder: There’s No Actual Office for “President of the Left”.
A vote against Obama is a vote for McCain. Remember Nader and 2000?
3 July 2008, on 12:08 am
Stardust, Raindogzilla, and others have asked a lot of good questions, and raised a lot of thorny issues.
And there is no easy answer or solution that I can see.
The way I see it, what the republicans need most right now is a good bitch slap. There are many worthy issues, but when it comes to electing a puppet figurehead, generalities are just about all we have. Does this shit upset me? Hell yes. But I will not vote for a third party joke just so I can have thirty seconds of self-justification in exchange for four more years of murderous republican horseshit.
If the “independents” here are at all serious, there is a mountain of work ahead of you, if you want to make even a dent on the 2012 elections. The idiots are here in huge numbers, and it will take years or decades to effect any real change at all. You should follow your mind and conscience, but in the end, it is just a choice between the lesser of two evils, at least for now. Grow up and deal with it. If you are as fed up with republican bullshit as I am, you will either vote Obama or you will vote for “four more years.” If you want another real choice, you will have to work for it.
Then again, maybe theocracy, war with Iran, a new draft, economic depression, and the hatred of the entire civilized world are the only things that will get average Americans off their asses.
ChuckA raises a good point: Even if you hate Obama, the possible further republican influence on the supreme court is one hell of an Obama selling point. One Scalia is one too many.
3 July 2008, on 7:44 am
One Scalia is one too many.
Neil, you are right on with that one!
3 July 2008, on 9:20 am
Change????
Obama cannot pass bills because he cannot get the Republicans to work with him to change???
But you expect because he is president for all to anoint him, and everything will be fine and we will sing songs together?
He is such a great politician but he has not done anything?
I could see this argument if he was a governor or mayor trying to be president. Obama is a US senator, his legislative record is non existent. He has not brought people together, he has not brought change, his message is phony.
What you have bought into is that any Democrat is better than Bush/McCain.
Because the Democrats have controlled congress they could have stopped this war. They chose not to. Obama chose not to.
The Democrats said if they took control of congress they would not pass bills unless they were funded. This was great campaign rhetoric but soon it was forgotten. Obama did not challenge or champion this he just went along. Where was his leadership?
Better veteran benefits, sounds great, but where is the money coming from? That is across the aisle, easily passed bill but has not been done. Why? Obama has not proposed it? But again he has no legislative record. Obama is all talk and no substance.
With Kerry, Clinton, and McCain there is some record that can be discussed.
McCain is sucking up to the fundies because that is his base. Obama is sucking up to the fundies because that is what he believes. 20 years of hearing Black Separatist propaganda, 20 years of hearing that whitey is the cause of black problems, 20 years of hearing the country needs a change, no legislative record, only good sounding promises that could have been passed or proposed already and what do you have?
You will not know unless he gets elected.
What he promises will not get made into law. The amount of money he wants to spend will break the bank.
Obama if elected will be a one term president, with a dismal record.
3 July 2008, on 10:48 am
@Outofcontrol,
Maybe you should look around, before you say that Obama has no legislative record.. Maybe here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/164117/783?new=true
Or maybe here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
By the way, I’m as disappointed as anyone else by this ‘faith-based’ funding crap–however, if you listen carefully to his speech, he actually says increased funding for ‘faith-based and secular’ programs. It’s such a brief mention that one wonders if he’s hedging his bets somehow.
Either way, if McCain (bomb bomb bomb. bomb bomb Iran…) becomes president it’ll be a nightmare and I’ll be headed north.