Obama Wants to Expand Faith Based Programs

I cant help thinking its political positioning in order to attract votes.

Does the end justify the means in this case? Only time will tell.

Maybe so, but what happens when the evangelicals want to call in their chips? One of Obama's big talking points is that of inclusion of ALL people. His stand on faith based programs flies in the face of what he says. Or is he, like many, many other politicians, just saying what some people want to hear?

The hypocracy of the left is quite apparent considering they slammed Bush (as they should) for suggesting the same thing.

Faith based groups are part of the all inclusive "all"?

Then where is the "CHANGE" OB is talking about?

So Obama and McSame are the third Bush term, eh.

I guess Obama can stomach it if he doesn't have to visit a mosque.

But of course. But there is no reason that a particular religious group has the right to get citizens' tax money in order to push their brand of faith. That should be done privately, through private contributions.

What really pisses me off, is the part where a person can be chosen or rejected for a job based on their faith. In the majority of other circumstances, this would be considered discrimination, and illegal.

vote early
vote often
vote Kucinich.

I am really enjoying watching this new, clean, sincere, non self serving version of politics unfold.

For what it's worth; this could very well cancel my intended vote for Obama. really depends on how it shakes out.

If I could vote in your elections, and this were true, it would be a potential "I can't vote for this guy" thing....

But in a two horse contest, I would be unable to vote for Mc Cain, and so would likely reluctantly still vote for Obama despite this.

I think it is a very bad thing, if he truly intends to do it, and if it isn't more smear stuff.

I'm inclined to think it is not more smear stuff but rather just simple pandering.

I think you, my fellow lefties, are overreacting on this.

A big part of Obama's appeal is his skilled political leadership, especially his ability to mix progressive values with middle of the road beliefs. This is a very good thing in a president.

For the record, I am a moderate on this issue. I have seen faith based organizations, from Catholic charities to the Friends to Evangelical groups do very good things (often with public help).

But the point here is that this is something that many Americans believe is useful and meaningful. If it can be done in a way that answers the concerns-- is a knee-jerk refusal really the right thing.

I believe that Obama is sincere. He is a long time person of faith.

If you don't buy this position... at least consider this.

What is at stake in this election is a woman's right to choose (with a precariously divided court), the need to restore basic civil rights, a war that needs to end and foreign policy that needs to include diplomacy again.

Is the faith issue really worth it, considering everything else that is at stake?

If you really think it is, there is always Nader.

And... just to point out...

I find Obama's unwillingness to take a strong stance on telecom immunity far more disappointing (and suspect that this is much more of a pander than the faith issue is).

Obama to scrap Bush's faith-based office
What the facts about Obama's proposal? ---BBB

Obama to scrap Bush's faith-based office
By MIKE ALLEN - Politico
7/1/08

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) plans to slam President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo op" and a failure on Tuesday, and says he would scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration.

Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush's faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives ?- which Bush founded during his second week in office ?- "never fulfilled its promise."

"Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded," Obama says in prepared remarks. "Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed."

Obama was referring to accusations by John J. DiIulio Jr., the office's first director, and David Kuo, his former deputy, that White House support for the program was driven more by swing-state politics than by compassion for the needy.

The White House views the office as one of the cornerstone's of Bush's legacy, making Obama's vow a very personal one.

Reaching out to evangelicals who are nonplussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grass-roots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership ?- not a photo op. That's what it will be when I'm president. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

"The new name will reflect a new commitment," he continued. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart ?- it will be a critical part of my administration."

Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: "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."

The Obama campaign released plans saying his new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, working within the White House, "will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients."

The campaign listed four goals:

?-Train the trainers to enable local faith-based organizations to learn best practices, grant-making procedures and service delivery so that they can better apply for and use federal dollars.

?-Partner with state and local offices so that federal efforts build on successes made at the state and local level.

?-Hold recipients responsible by conducting rigorous performance evaluation, researching what works well and disseminating best practices.

?-Close the summer learning gap by focusing faith-based and community-based efforts on summer learning programs for 1 million children.

Anyone who knows the history over the centuries of countries, who had "partnerships" with religion, surely knows the results of that sort of merger.

Religion belongs in church, in the home, and in private gatherings. IMO, it has no place in government.

I was thinking the same thing.

Thanks, BBB.

Here's Obama's whole speech (wish I could get out to Zanesville to see it -- invitation-only though):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01obama-text.html