Obama Wants To Expand Bush's Faith Based Programs »
Posted by: JessicaLaurie 1 month, 4 weeks agoReaching 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
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 28
-
-
-
0%
memestryker1 month, 4 weeks ago
So much for separation of church and state.
Of course, the horse is already out of the barn, with Christian evangelicals, Muslims, Catholics and many other groups raking in millions of tax dollars as they prosyletize to people in their darkest hour of need--and the Supreme Court has ruled they can hire and fire people based on religious affiliation.
The U.S. experiment is obviously a thing of the past. Thomas Jefferson would turn in his grave.
Reply -
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 month, 4 weeks ago
With the electorate seeming to demand religion be part of the political process, it may be a popular move. It is absolutely not constitutional though. I can't see how tax dollars can be diverted to any religion even if they provide a service for it. The argument is that a religious group can, for instance, run a homeless shelter cheaper than government can. (They can generate more volunteer staff and paid staff usually accepts less pay). On that level one might say we'll take all the help we can get and a service shouldn't be overlooked simply because they are sponsored by a religious group. (Not my view, but that is the argument). I am not sure how this EVER was not challenged on a constitutional basis in the first place. Bush began this practice, and as with all government hand outs, it would be political suicide for a politician to end it. Personally I am disappointed. Maybe the ACLU will challenge this practice. They don't have to be popular to do their job.
Reply-
0%
cushi1 month, 4 weeks ago
Radio, I do not believe this barage of criticism would be taking place if he had made this gesture toward the Jewish Defense League, a Catholic charity, etc.
If Barack is going to be a leader for all the people, then he will have to and should reach out to everyone, including the Faith-based community. It would be hypocritical of him not to. That is a no brainer!
There is so much to do in order to restore this country. We need "all hands on deck!"
Reply-
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
cushi,
It would take place, since it would still be a church-state separation issue. I'm against any of my tax dollars going to any church for any reason--faith-based funding, school vouchers, you name it.
This is identical to abortion--people didn't want their taxes going for that, so they don't. I don't want my taxes going for anything religiously-affiliated, and they shouldn't.
In this case, it's more serious, because the Supreme Court upheld the right of churches to bar those who are not members of a religion from holding positions providing these services. This is a real problem, since it amounts to the same thing as sending jobs off-shore. As it stands, churches that discriminate based on religion can bar women, gays, etc. and still get tax dollars.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
cushi1 month, 4 weeks ago
Barack Obama's campaign and platform is about inclusiveness, which means EVERYBODY, people! He is not suggesting throwing money at Faith-based Programs for them to do whatever they want with it. He is saying that he will engage them, along with non-Christians, jews, muslims, etc., in the work of restoring all that has been broken, but that they will be closely scrutinized and held to certain standards of conduct, to include no discriminating on services provided.
This is a reasonable approach and does not in any way smack of a sellout. It is so tedious to see how quickly distortions are put out there and gobbled up by the gullible.
Reply-
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
Obama's campaign and platform are about getting elected.
I personally don't consider his approach to spending my hard-earned money reasonable at all, and your ad hominem attacks are unconvincing.
Today Obama back-pedalled and said he'd require separation of private and government funds, but we know this has been a disastrous failure with school vouchers--another clear church-state abuse (Pat Robertson was the one who initiated that program with his Christian Coalition--in the shadows to make it look "grass roots").
What's distorted is Obama's idea of "inclusiveness."
This is bad policy. It encourages discrimination and forces citizens to fund religion.
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia1 month, 4 weeks ago
Obama's church in Chicago received federal money from the Bush program:
Obama's Ex-Church Has Won $15M in Federal Grant Money
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/obamas-...
In fact Trinity received federal money even before the Bush program
Obama has never had a problem using taxpayer money for churches:
In addition to giving $20,000 of his own money to Jeremiah Wright, as a state senator Obama directed $225,000 of the Illinois taxpayers' money for programs run by Father Pfleger. In the U.S. Senate, Obama earmarked $100,000 in federal tax money for Father Pfleger's work.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell...
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 4 weeks ago
You neglect, swiftboater, to mention the hundreds of millions given to the southern evangelicals as payoff for political support for the bush administration. Hagee, Parsley recieved much more than Wright.
And this money was for PROGRAMS to help the poor, feeding, clothing, and sheltering the poor, and unfortunately, at the expence of family planning.
99% of the bush religious grants, went to the mega church pastors that supported the Cheney/Bush regime.
And you chose to distort this to swiftboat Obama. Classic republican. Vote republican, vote to have nostalgia promoted to policy making position for McSenile.
Reply-
0%
nostalgia1 month, 4 weeks ago
You are little behind in your information
I'm not voting for Obama or McCain
Stop making assumptions - it makes you look like a fool
And the overuse of the term "swiftboat" is ridiculous to say the least. Facts are facts - can you refute anything I posted or do you just throw out disparaging comments and hope they stick - typical liberal Democrat tactic by the way
I provided you with sources for my info, where's your documentation??
"hundreds of millions given to the southern evangelicals as payoff for political support for the bush administration"
"99% of the bush religious grants, went to the mega church pastors"
Reply -
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
Yes, Obama is just the new Bush, same as the old Bush, when it comes to stealing tax-payers' money to give to religious organizations.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 4 weeks ago
I say great. If dems want to take back the country, they have to market themselves to the red state evangelicals, who voted in mass for the republcian party, which has basically destroyed the country.
This is a great calculated move by the dems and obama, to win back the south/rural voters, enough of them, to divide the pack, to end the monopoly on power of the evangelicals.
I also think dems would be smart to give up the abortion, guns, gay marriage and other issues. Get these people voting dem.
The government is run right now by corporations, and the rich who have decimated the ccountry, unions, and the living standards of working and middles. They have done this with the support of idiots who vote guns, gays, and religion, which the rich care not a fart about.
Against the constitution? F*ck the constitution. Republicans have wiped their arses on the constitution. The supreme court is a POLITICAL entity, always has been.
Either win, or sit and watch.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 4 weeks ago
Its time for dems to get real, and start playing to win. Politics is the art of comprimise. If you aren't in power, you have to do what is necessary to get it back.
We spend trillions of dollars on a neocon zionist fantasy of an Israel friendly nation building war in Iraq, sold by hard right zionist owned and operated american news media, enriching the oil and military instrial monopoly with tax dollars and corporate welfare, and you really think throwing a couple hundred million dollars to charity makes a bit of difference?
It does if your a red state chruch going evangelical. These inbred idiots vote republican EN MASS, because they are too stupid to see behind the curtain. True conservatives would not be caught DEAD in a red state.
Give them something. We HAVE to divide the red state vote. We have to start winning the south. Give 'em guns, gays, flags, abortion, religion.
Its about who you appoint to the supreme court. Its about the veto proof majority.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 4 weeks ago
Do your really think you are living in a democracy, when Cheney is conducting a covert war in Iran, using a defined terrorist group in Iraq for cross border raids and killings, trained and weaponed by 400 million dollars approved by congress, firing Admiral Fallon who wanted to know what was going on under his watch, all for the hopes Iran will respond, so that Cheney can give the go order in october of this year to destroy Iran, not just with a one bomb, with thousands, ground operations, thousands of bombs to destroy radar, military barriacs and soldiers, airforce, and then thousands more bombs to get to underground nuclear facilities.
Already in motion. Expect a barriage of zionist owned American news media propaganda, all about how evil Iran is, and how nobel and heroic the Israeli air force, protector gods chosen nuclear stockpile.
Reply
-
-
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
The dems haven't been very kind to the constitution, either. Their "liberal" SCOTUS judges voted right along with the rest to allow property seizures (guilty until proven innocent), for example. On the other hand, the right to keep and bear arms is right there beside freedom of speech, so both dems and repubs would do well to keep that particular right safe.
The repubs and dems are both freaks, if you ask me. Now they both want to force me to pay for thumpers of all kinds.
Reply
-
-
0%
joeblowe1 month, 4 weeks ago
Right here is sufficient reason to NOT vote for Barry in November. Clearly he does NOT understand separation of church and state. Any more than GWB does. Some days I wonder if there are ANY politicians who really get it. And we seem to keep electing knuckleheads to our federal government that can't understand the basics of our constitution. Some days I despair from the stupidity of the American public.
Reply-
0%
antibrainwasher1 month, 4 weeks ago
The supreme court is playing fast and loose with the constitution, there is nothing absolute about the constitution, and the Bush regime has made that absolutely clear, politicizing the entire justice department, instituting torture, all starting with the supreme court appointing GWB, in a complete overturning of precident, the hard right wing political judges are making law, not interpeting law. They are doing EXACTLY what they accused liberal judges of doing. Lately, they have overturned 200 years of precident to overturn gun law interpretations, just for one case. The constitution is not absolute. It is up for grabs. The right wing supreme court is NOT interpreting law, it is MAKING it.
vote McSenile to cement 40 years of right wing supreme court politicalization of the constitution.
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 month, 4 weeks ago
Although your comment about the Constitution not being "absolute" might be correct in the current political context, it is SUPPOSED to be absolute. I agree that there has been some fast and loose play by ALL branches of the government lately (neither the President nor the Supremes passed the "Patriot Act." or the bill allowing the President to decide whether or not we went to war with Iraq.) Your comment about the recent 2nd amendment ruling is off base however. The Supreme court has not made ANY ruling on the 2nd amendment since it was passed. And this time they did get it RIGHT. And don't come to me with "interpretations" of what the 2nd Amendment MEANS when what it SAYS is perfectly clear. Further, a reading of Federalist Papers will assure you that the 2nd was, in fact, in large part to make sure the PEOPLE were able to protect themselves from THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. Your own argument here seems to indicate that they were 100% correct to do that.
Reply -
0%
memestryker1 month, 3 weeks ago
abw, you need to read Stephen Halbrook's book "The Founders' Second Amendment" before you make fast and loose statements about the Second Amendment. Or at least read the Federalist and anti-Federalist writings available at any library. It's clear the recent decision was correct on the Second Amendment and frightening to me that Obama and others claimed to believe otherwise.
Reply
-
-
-
Submitted By:
JessicaLaurie
Visit my web-site.
Also submitted:
- 6.9 - Cows have magnetic sense, Google Earth images indicate
- 3.8 - Are Malthus's Predicted 1798 Food Shortages Coming True?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
MidnightPrism
ameliog
dandt1612
monte-g
joeblowe
not2needy
gamahuche
Shannonyork
ind06
Radiofreeeuropa
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
