Obama and faith -- good, or bad?

[Kulindahr]

It seems that Obama can't decide if faith is a good thing or a bad thing. Buried in the stimulus package is a little limitation that religious institutions, or institutions which allow facilities to be used for religious gatherings, are barred from getting some of the free dollars.


On the other hand, he's setting up a White House office for faith-based initiatives.


Apart from whether either of these ideas is good or bad... where's he coming from on this???

 

[HenryReardon]

On the other hand, he's setting up a White House office for faith-based initiatives.


Apart from whether either of these ideas is good or bad... where's he coming from on this???

I seem to recall that the press and the left gave Bush hell on the idea of faith based initiatives. What will they do or say about this?

 

[opinterph]

... where's [Obama] coming from on this???

This is nothing new in the President’s agenda. As recent WH press conferences suggest (relative to other disputed items of his agenda), the American people voted for this [STRIKE]initiative[/STRIKE] change.

July 2008

In a campaign already strongly emphasizing faith, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama announced his intent to make federal funding of religiously based organizations a key part of his push to help the needy. [Christian Science Monitor]

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and _ in a move sure to cause controversy _ support some ability to hire and fire based on faith. [Huffington Post]

 

[naked gent]

I seem to recall that the press and the left gave Bush hell on the idea of faith based initiatives. What will they do or say about this?

They should nail him on it. I thought it was unconstitutional when Bush did it and I think its unconstitutional when Obama does it.

 

[construct]

They should nail him on it. I thought it was unconstitutional when Bush did it and I think its unconstitutional when Obama does it.

I agree, especially if it allows discriminatory employment.

My understanding was that Obama had said that no proselytizing would be allowed. That would go a long way toward rectifying the abuses of the Bush administration.

 

[HenryReardon]

They should nail him on it. I thought it was unconstitutional when Bush did it and I think its unconstitutional when Obama does it.

Why is it unconstitutional? It doesn't establish a church.

The whole separation of church and state thing is hugely misunderstood.

The founders had just revolted against a country that had a state or "established" church.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" simply means that we cannot have a "state" or "established" church.

A little girl won $64,000 on the telly back in the sixties by correctly spelling the word antidisestablishmentarian (sp?) which means "against those who are against disestablishing the church."

Prayer in schools, ten commandments on courthouse walls, faith based charities - all of the above have little, if anything, to do with "establishing a state church."

This is one of the areas where zero tolerance has come to mean zero common sense.

There are worse things to worry about.

 

[naked gent]

Why is it unconstitutional? It doesn't establish a church.

The whole separation of church and state thing is hugely misunderstood.

The founders had just revolted against a country that had a state or "established" church.

Well didn't revolt because of any religious issue so the fact that England had an established church was incidental to the American Revolution.

And I don't think its unconstitutional because it establishes a church but rather because tax payer dollars are given to religious groups who can them discriminate against american citizens on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.

If those groups were required to obey the anti-discrimination laws the way everyone else is then perhaps it would be different but as they are not I'm agin it.

 

[HenryReardon]

Well didn't revolt because of any religious issue so the fact that England had an established church was incidental to the American Revolution.

And I didn't say otherwise. However, the founders were very much aware of the problems that occurred when a state supported "established" church was in place.

And I don't think its unconstitutional because it establishes a church but rather because tax payer dollars are given to religious groups who can them discriminate against american citizens on the basis of their religion or lack thereof.

Frankly I would be more confident that the mainstream churches (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist) could do a more efficient job of administering programs with less overhead, and none of them (except in a few extreme cases perhaps) are much given to discrimination.

 

[NickCole]

I agree, especially if it allows discriminatory employment.

My understanding was that Obama had said that no proselytizing would be allowed. That would go a long way toward rectifying the abuses of the Bush administration.

Oh please.

Who's going to monitor that?

It's amazing how you keep believing what Obama says is going to happen despite increasing evidence to the contrary.

 

[NickCole]

WASHINGTON — President Obama signed an executive order Thursday to create a new White House office for faith-based programs and neighborhood partnerships, building upon the initiatives started by the Bush administration to administer social services to people “no matter their religious or political beliefs.” ...

I opposed this when Bush did it and I oppose it now that Obama's doing it.

In announcing the expansion of the White House faith office, Mr. Obama did not address one of the biggest questions surrounding the outreach: Can religious groups that receive federal money for social service programs hire only those who share their religion?

Why won't Obama answer that now? He answered it during the campaign.

Oh, here it is. Big surprise.

The president called Thursday for a legal review of the policy case by case, aides said, before determining whether religious groups can make decisions on whom to hire — or help — based on religious beliefs. Mr. Obama spoke against discrimination last summer, telling an audience in Ohio: “You can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/us/politics/06obama.html?hp

Last summer Obama said they can't use that money to proselytize or discriminate, and today he's called for a legal review of the policy before determining if religious groups can discriminate.

Typical Obama.

 

[construct]

Oh please.

Who's going to monitor that?

Well, I guess the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Who do you think is tasked with monitoring these programs.

It's amazing how you keep believing what Obama says is going to happen despite increasing evidence to the contrary.

The difference is that I voted for him in the primary; so it's not amazing at all. Now, I am under no delusion that any politician is going to do exactly everything he says he's going to do. Obama is no different. I'm just judging whether what we're seeing is an improvement over what has gone before. I advise you to do follow my example. Count your blessings, Nick.

 

[construct]

Last summer Obama said they can't use that money to proselytize or discriminate, and today he's called for a legal review of the policy before determining if religious groups can discriminate.

Typical Obama.

Good! It's good to be cautious, and it's good to cover your ass with a legal review. I see no problem yet. I'll wait and see what happens.

 

[NickCole]

Well, I guess the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. Who do you think is tasked with monitoring these programs.

Whether or not they're proselytizing? Nobody.

I'm just judging whether what we're seeing is an improvement over what has gone before.

Virtually anything would have been an improvement over Bush, but that's not the point. Bush was done, over, finished, gone. Some level of improvement over Bush is not good enough. Success is good enough.

It's really astonishing how low a bar some Americans will set.

And right now is really not a good time for low-bar-setting.

I advise you to do follow my example. Count your blessings, Nick.

I count my blessings every single day. I've many, and having lived through hardship, I know the value.

 

[NickCole]

Good! It's good to be cautious, and it's good to cover your ass with a legal review. I see no problem yet. I'll wait and see what happens.

It's also good to not promise something when you have no idea whether or not it's what you're going to do.

Clearly, though, that's not something that troubles Obama's "ethics" or "transparency."

 

[construct]

It's also good to not promise something when you have no idea whether or not it's what you're going to do.

Clearly, though, that's not something that troubles Obama's "ethics" or "transparency."

See my previous post:

Now, I am under no delusion that any politician is going to do exactly everything he says he's going to do. Obama is no different.

 

[NickCole]

See my previous post:

I saw it.

And in that context I'll simply point out what his supporters have but from a different viewpoint: we're only two weeks in. And he's already failed to live up to his own mark several times. Doesn't bode well.

 

[Apollo]

I dont think churches or other non-profit organizations should receive any of the money. Churches are essentially none profit as most of their money comes from donations and not having to pay taxes.

There is really no good reason to give money to them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Opinterph, my point was that his position seems to be contradictory -- and even more so, given the quotes you posted.

If he wants to support "faith-based" institutions, why is the economic stimulus package explicitly excluding them?

 

[opinterph]

Opinterph, my point was that his position seems to be contradictory -- and even more so, given the quotes you posted.

If he wants to support "faith-based" institutions, why is the economic stimulus package explicitly excluding them?

Though President Obama has essentially embraced the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009, he did not write the bill, nor did he stipulate its contents. And though Rahm Emanuel and Rob Nabors were reportedly involved in consultations, the initial [House] version of the bill was authored under the stewardship of Representative David Obey.

Indeed, it was Mr. Obey, the third-most-senior member of the House, who, in large measure, shaped the bill, in concert with other House Democratic leaders …

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California placed Mr. Obey in charge of producing the economic measure … [New York Times]

The biggest challenge President Barack Obama faces in trying to sell America on his nearly $900 billion stimulus package is that, as it stands, it's not his. Rather, it is the product of the all-powerful House and Senate committee leaders on Capitol Hill to whom Obama and his team turned over authorship even before the new Administration entered the White House. [Time.com]

 

[Kulindahr]

Letting pork-loving politicians craft a bill this large was foolish.

Obama should have asked the governors of the states for input on what their states needed for infrastructure to aid their economies, made a web site for ordinary citizens to give input, asked small business people what would help them, and had some practical economics professors work it all into a package.

It would have been a bill without pork, without special interest goodies, aimed at the economy now and not two, three or five years down the road. It would have been a bill both parties would have had input into, that met the states' needs due to the governors' input, and had the voice of the people in it.

As it is, we're stuck with politics as usual... and a package that in a bare handful of years will leave us worse off than before... and contradicting the President's position of faith matters.