Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama to expand Bush's faith-based programs

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:24 AM
Original message
Obama to expand Bush's faith-based programs
Source: Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, AP

CHICAGO (AP) -- Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday at Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. The arm of Central Presbyterian Church operates a food bank, provides clothes, has a youth ministry and provides other services in its impoverished community.

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."




Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_FAITH?SITE...



This man is making it more and more difficult for me to be able to trust him with my vote.
Sadly, he's still the lesser of two evils.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. Wow.
DU will be a bloodbath today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. LOL! I'mma scared.
:scared:

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
checks-n-balances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. I can't believe my eyes
This is nuts. Where is the money going to come from? There are already existing ways to help that should get that funding first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. File this under: Fighting Fire with Fire. I would be willing to bet it's just
triangulation talk. If we are going to win this time, we have to deprive the repukes of motivated voters. Get it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. And then what?
We win and he changes his mind? Doubtful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. You? I won't even try to convince of anything. We never see eye to eye..
Not saying my eye is better than yours... Just saying. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. And I respect that...
Where politics and religion try to go hand-in-hand I doubt I'll ever see the "other" side of that argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. I agree about the so-called faith based bull shite. But, for right
now, it is what it is and we get to use it to our advantage. The wingnut SCOTUS won't vote it down until there is a Democrat in office, so let's get Obama elected and then we can take care of getting this program canned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. No. Sorry.
I refuse to help him get elected. After all the things he's done in the past few months I'm no longer sure I can even vote for him.

I realize that the rules of DU state we must support the candidate. If Skinner wants he can remove me from DU. I've been here for a lot of years and have always supported the candidate, but I'm not sure I can support him anymore. This is a message that I left on his website. Yes, I'm wearing flame-proof underwear so have at it.

You may have lost my vote today.

By expanding the Bush "faith-based-initiatives program" you've moved farther to the right and become nothing more than Bush-Lite in my opinion.

I was angry when you said that you believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, enforcing discrimination against gay men and women.

I was incredulous when you had Donnie McClurkin spouting anti-gay invectives from stage while you merely said you didn't agree with his stand.

I was saddened when you said that gay marriage should be left up to the states. I could not believe that you, the man who wants to be president, would say that the rights of a minority should be given at the behest of the majority.

But this? This sir is wrong on so many different levels and I find I cannot vote for you in the 2008 Presidential elections. For the first time in my adult life I cannot vote for the Democratic candidate and this is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Having observed you over the years, I know that you are committed
to your beliefs and you are not a troll. So we agree to disagree. :pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Works for me. :-)
And thanks for the hug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #24
49. I hope you will atleast delay your decision for a few more months.
The backlash against Obama is strong. Hopefully he will take it as the giant slap he needs to stop this crap and reverse.

If he does not and you indeed find yourself unable to ethically vote for him then may I suggest you do a write in for the candidate this cycle who you feel had the best plans, strength to not pull an Obama, etc?? Please vote whatever you do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #49
264. I think Mr. Obama has identified the voters he needs to win
the left has no where else to go, so a very big move to the right is in order; those are the votes he needs. He can take the lefties for granted. By the way I don't understand the furor here, he has used religion and churches as a big part of his political base for his entire career. This should not be any kind of surprise to all of you "high information" types. This move is in no way a flip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #264
301. Agree. That's why he was originally my 4th choice.
As of today, he is STILL my choice.

Like, did anyone really believe he was going to take 'under god' out of the pledge, or 'in god we trust' off the fucking money? I'll be happy if he simply puts religious charities on equal footing with secular charities, and visa versa - with no favoritism to any. And THAT, I think he is capable of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #24
62. I understand. I'm getting there, as well.
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
66. Hey, what say you go take a walk, ignore Obama for a while,
let him do the dirty part of this work of getting elected, hopefully without losing his whole soul and towards the end, come back and I think you'll see something more to your liking. He's pandering right now, it's what he's supposed to do right now and those of us who can't watch had best sit it out a while. No, he isn't going to be the second coming of the messiah, but right now he's going to look a lot like Judas. Ignore it. He isn't talking to you right now and if you demand it of him and he chooses to listen to you, he will lose. He needs more than just our votes so he's pandering. Close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears for the next few months - this isn't the time to take him to task. He knows he can count on us to block some of his stupider ideas but he needs to be able to trust that we will wait for him to be elected before we pounce. While he has integrity, he's also a Chicago politico - he knows what he needs to do right now. If you can't wait, then don't watch, not right now and not until the convention. He's grooming people you don't like to vote for him and I guarantee you aren't going to like how he does it. It's ugly. It was ugly when Kennedy did it and it was ugly when Clinton did it and it was necessary in both situations and it's necessary now.

Basically, what I'm telling you is that he knows this is indefensible and not doable. He also knows that Ma and Pa don't know that and that they really want him to say this so they can feel good about voting "values". He's gladhanding for their votes and gosh, it'll be too bad when he isn't able to do those things but thats politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #66
74. Let him do the dirty part of this work of getting elected...
This isn't the time to take him to task.

So let him lie, cheat, and steal to get elected because in the end it will make stuff all better?

So the hope and change he promises is pretty much just more of the same-old same-old?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #66
93. I hope you are kidding
"...he knows this is indefensible and not doable. He also knows that Ma and Pa don't know that and that they really want him to say this so they can feel good about voting 'values'. He's gladhanding for their votes and gosh, it'll be too bad when he isn't able to do those things but thats politics."

So you are saying he is intentionally misleading the people, and sees them in the patronizing and condescending way you just described?

This is very much "doable" - it is already happening and it is a huge gravy train and massive heist of public funds for ambitious hustlers on the religious right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:10 AM
Original message
Well maybe we should
Ride that gravy train. You don't need a church to qualify. If this goes through I will preach Atheism and get some of that money they are so eager to give away to cults. And maybe we can get internet faiths for those who can't get away from their computer. Bloggers for faith. Just might be a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #93
271. Wishful thinking Two Americas. People do what they say they will do.
The Republicans will bring a bill, and Obama will have to sign it because he pledged he was for this. All the right-wing stuff will get passed because Republicans in Congress will support them, and Democratic measures will be filibustered. No. Obama is no Democrat. I am a Democrat. Obama is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #66
260. Kennedy did not do this....
Here is how he felt about separation of Church and State.


On Sept. 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion. At the time, many Protestants questioned whether Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as president independent of the church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a skeptical audience of Protestant clergy. The following is a transcript of Kennedy's speech:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #66
266. Sorry, but Obama on FISA and now this.
Those are fundamental Democratic principles. These are the bedrock of the Constitution. I am horrified by Obama's proposal. I am a solid Democrat. I walk precincts. I do everything. I table. I make phone calls. I work to get Democrats elected. And I do it because Democrats have been the most likely to protect my personal rights of any party and because Democrats support the rights of ordinary Americans, ordinary working Americans and the poor.

Obama is attacking Democratic ideals. This makes me sick. I feel that I have nowhere to turn.

The courts are full of Republicans. And now Obama is taking the Democratic Party to which I have devoted a lot of myself in a direction that is just sick. I am so disappointed. \

I strongly supported Edwards. Sorry guys. But I'm questioning whether I can support Obama.

I am a Unitarian. I believe in tolerance. And I also believe that separation of church and state guarantees that at least a modicum of tolerance is the norm in our society.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #66
380. you konw what's great?
the conviction that he is pandering now, and has been pandering his entire life, except from January-May of this year. that was the truth, everything else is a lie.

you keep saying that to yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
89. I am also disappointed in his recent concessions to the right.
I'm an Obama volunteer and I have been from the start. His recent pandering to the right is very disheartening. I don't know what to do--I know that I'll vote for him, because the alternative is just too horrible to imagine. I'm still a supporter and a volunteer, but I'm not as enthusiastic as I once was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #89
107. Even his supporters are voicing concern
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:49 AM by MissDeeds
Obama's actions in the past few weeks have been especially disheartening. We do not want someone in the White House who doesn't carry forth Democratic ideals. Just a "D" behind a name isn't good enough. At this point, Obama is the "presumptive" nominee. His supporters especially need to send a strong message that they want the same candidate they signed on for, not "Democrat lite".

There is still a convention coming up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #24
105. I agree with you.
He's lost me for sure with this bullshit. I knew this would happen, but people refused to listen; they thought he was the second coming. I knew he would just be a huge disappointed and NO friend to progressive.

Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #105
221. Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.
Fuck this "faith-based" bullshit.


AMEN!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desktop Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
110. Hillary not looking so bad now, huh..
I will vote for Obama, even though my vote is pointless, living in a rock red state. But the biggest lie promoted by the shallow minded advocates of Obama is that Hillary would "say or do anything to get elected". The truth was the other way around. From healthcare, social security, speed of Iraq withdrawal, FISA, expansion in Afghanistan, and now expansion of Bush's faith based funding of programs with my tax payer dollars, Hillary would have been the better more liberal candidate. It was no surprise the older and wiser voters supported Hillary Clinton in this election and the younger, impressionable voters drank the Obama koolaid right down while they hurled insults and untruths about the Clintons faster than a swiftboater attacking Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #110
124. Actually...
I was not pleased with either candidate.

I preferred Mr. Kucinich or Mr. Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #110
226. You mean Hillary "The Family" Clinton ...

Oh please, Hillary would have been far worse.

My favorite from day one has been Kucinich, but he has never been electable on a national stage. Elections are about choosing the least disagreeable candidate, they always have been, and they always will be. Show me someone who isn't disappointed in someway with their leader and I'll show you a mindless sycophant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #24
116. Change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milord Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #24
203. Sad to say, I agree with you
Obama is losing my vote. I disagree with his stance regarding Gen. Wesley Clark's incisive remarks about McCain's war record, and POW record, not qualifying him for president. Obama should have supported these remarks, as they are correct. Instead, he's treating McCain as if he has some holy status and is untouchable. Bullshit to that. And now this move towards faith-based shenanigans.
Oh no. Not for me, thank you. I guess this means I just don't vote, but I hate to throw my vote away. I frankly don't know what to do. I suppose there's always Nader, but that might lead to a McCain victory, which is absolutely totally unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #203
272. Obama said in that comment that he disagreed with the truth.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM by ooglymoogly
I would have chosen Clark any day over Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #272
346. Absolutely - & Clark continues to speak the truth - the Obama campaign fell for the Republican spin
The Republicans wanted to neutralize the military credibility Clark would bring to the Obama campaign and the Obama campaign fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #203
421. Oh, for Pete's sake, you've GOT to vote for Obama...
although I am emotionally OFF the hook
as far as donations and volunteerism go.

I will vote for the Dem.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamarama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #24
211. Oh good grief. The clue phone is ringing, pick it up already! THIS ELECTION IS NOT ABOUT YOU.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:05 AM by KzooDem
It's about US, an entire NATION.

Just because Obama doesn't march to the same exact drummer as you do on issues that are important to you doesn't mean he's not the best candidate. Fuck, he's our ONLY candidate. What don't people like you UNDERSTAND about that???

I'm gay, too, and have some reservations about how he has handled some of the gay issues. But, I also know that he was the first to commit to Logo's program to interview the presidential candidates on their stances on gay policies, etc.. I watched that and was impressed with his candor and his responses.

I'm rabidly against the infiltration of religion into our government as well, and am not thrilled over the news of this faith-based plan.

BUT...I'm not about to throw away the chance for us to seize power from a corrupt cabal of criminals just because I don't agree with EVERYTHING Obama says or does or thinks.

If you're waiting around for a candidate that fits what you believe to be the perfect mold, then you're going to be waiting an awfully long time. Meanwhile, we have a friggin' democracy to reclaim, or at least what's LEFT of it.

So, go ahead...throw away your vote in November. But if we lose, it is people with your mindset who have thoughtlessly and selfishly withheld or wasted their votes that I will excoriate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #211
225. What don't people like me understand about that?
You're mistaken.

I understand only too well.

You say this election is not about me. Why? Why do I have to put the needs of everyone ahead of my own AGAIN? Why do I have to worry about their problems when they're obviously unconcerned with mine AGAIN? When do *I* get to matter? When does my FAMILY get to matter to someone other than me?

Yes, I'm a selfish, uncaring, insensitive bastard.

At what point would you say enough? When do you refuse to take a back seat to everyone else?

Ms. Rosa Parks had the courage to stand up and demand equal treatment.
Mr. King had the courage to say the time is now.

I don't have a lot of years left. When do I finally ask "can it be my turn now?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #225
273. Bravo, well said mr Bowden
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamarama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #225
324. It will NEVER be your turn if you let the Resmuglicans win by witholding your vote.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 11:58 AM by KzooDem
Fine...when you're eating cat food because a)you can't afford anything more than that and b) your teeth have all fallen out of your head because you can't afford dental insurance, let alone health insurance, because the Republicans remained in power because you and those of your ilk were foolish enough to throw your vote into the dustbin, I don't want to hear you complaining.

You do a good impression of a victim. NEWSFLASH: We're ALL victims of this administration and it is going to take each and every one of us to kick them the hell out of Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #324
426. My dear KzooDem...
I've been a victim of EVERY administration. I've been given lip service and that is all. Be a good gay boy. Vote for me and then sit back, shut up, and leave the driving to me. Oh, and by the way, send me your money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #225
398. well handled
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #24
222. I'm disappointed ...

I'm disappointed and less enthusiastic. But honestly, it came down to him vs. Hillary and Hillary would have been worse.

The way these programs are being administered now, the federal government is funding church operations. If Obama and steer it to proper NGO service administration, that would be fine. If you elect McCain, he'll keep the same people on board who are abusing the system and fleecing taxpayers to build mega-churches.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
341. I know.... I'll hold my nose and vote for him anyway.
We don't have another electable choice. It sucks. I have had to drastically lower my expectations about Obama. And yet, I'll have to vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
427. I fear you're in the same boat I am. That is you will have no other choice to vote for
that can win anyway. If you think it doesn't matter (think stupidity of the green party in 00) then go for it. I however think there's still a big difference between mcsame and obama, just as I still feel there's a big difference between gore and bush. And I still think the greens threw their votes away and helped get bush elected while doing it.

I like Obama as a human being. I don't like that he keeps doing what Hillary did to lose me.

I also don't like the appologist for him on this site. He needs to keep his mouth shut if he doesn't intend to do things. As it stands, I believe he'll try to do what he says. And I constantly don't agree with what he's saying. It's like he's a moderate republican.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
209. So you hope he's just a big liar? Lie to everyone and then flip-flop and do the opposite?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:10 AM by Hoof Hearted
Promise to expand it then can it? How will that enhance his credibility or for that matter our party's credibility?

What the hell happened to a new kind of politics?


I found the program to be evil and repellent when Bush belched it forth from his evil bowels. I certainly didn't expect Obama to walk over to this particular steaming pile of never a good idea and not only put it in his pocket, but try to serve it to me on a dinner plate.



edit typo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #209
445. I am becoming extremely disillushioned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeFleur1 Donating Member (973 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #21
256. Do You Mean
He's a liar who will do or say anything to get elected? Is that what you mean? Big change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
329. You think the SC would vote this down . . . ??
They've had no problems with it before . . . have they?

Scalia would turn down money for the Catholic Church?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peregrine Took Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
336. You are dreaming. He would never cancel them - he would owe the fundies
too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuaneBidoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
432. Just like Republicans will suddenly care about Executive "overreach" when we have a Dem Pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
55. He won't be able to make that work
And he'll just let it slide. He's playing the game. It's called election, it's ugly and disgusting and requires much dissembling and great parsing and a huge amount of bullshit. This is the GE, he's playing to a bigger crowd than just the Democrats and he's telling them what they want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #55
81. "he's telling them what they want to hear. "
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:49 AM by durrrty libby
Yes he tells THEM what THEY want to hear, but he would never tell YOU what You want to hear

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #81
236. I think he's rope-a-dopeing them ...

The truth is as the head of the federal government, he can administrate these programs however he pleases. What we really object to is the way conservatives do things. So we want the laws written in ways that stays their hand.

If Obama starts excercising FISA and Faith Based in a liberal way, it will be the conservatives screaming for their repeal. Then all he has to do is concede to their wishes and it's all done.

At least I HOPE this is what is going on. Just like I hope that the Senate is going to offer an amendment to the FISA bills that strips immunity after it goes to the floor. They're keeping Obama out of the line of fire.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #55
162. The "Game"??? We have been gamed too often by, supposedly, "our own."
I, for one, am soul sick at "the game."

The name of the game should be honesty, integrity, clarity, and openess in the interest of keeping this country as close to the ideals of the founders as possible. In the interest of making the country what we were taught it was in elementary school.

But then, honesty, integrity, clairty, and openess in politics are all filthy dirty words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #55
206. This program exists now
Bush made it work. It is in the now. Already. Obama wants to make it bigger and more able to discriminate based on faith, and of course faith is often more than that. Many churches are ethnic, meaning of course they won't have to hire 'those people' ie those like Obama, those like me, those unlike themselves. It is wrong.
And what you are saying is he is activley telling lies to them to grab votes. That is even worse. Just how is it that you yourself can detect when he is dissenbling for advantage and when he is being true? Tell us how you do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #206
312. Wrong. Bush DIDN'T make it work.
The program, as is, is almost 100% christian evangelical. Jews, muslims, catholics, buddhists, hindu, pagans NEED NOT APPLY.

If he expands it, it could only mean to treat all applicants equally, and putting in controls to keep the faith-based programs on an equal footing with secular programs.

I'm not happy about faith-based programs myself, but if they've been judged to be constitutional, then they should at least be administered fairly. As it is now, the church program gets the goodies and the mosque and ashram are left out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #312
334. We don't need to expand "god" programs in any way . . . nor encourage this insanity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #312
422. They haven't been judged constitutional.
They were created by executive FIAT.

And so far, no one has been allowed
standing to challenge them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #55
241. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss eh? No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #241
296. Obama and Bush/McCain are exactly the same!
No difference.
Might as well stay home or vote for Nader.

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #296
344. Thanks for the Herring. I like fish. Pandering bible-thumpers, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #344
351. "Obama to scrap Bush's faith-based office"
Seems that the herring was provided by the right-wing AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080701/pl_politico/1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #351
370. That basket of fish appears to be empty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #55
247. so when he told us he wouldn't play that game....
he was lying? How are we to know when he is being truthful? Yes he is our only choice but my glimmer of hope that he would be different has been extinguished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #55
278. tavalon, this is not a game.
As I said above, here is the future: There will be slightly more Democrats than Republicans in the Senate, but not enough to make 60 votes on issues that the Republicans love. Obama's Democratic measures will not get through the Senate. The measures that appeal to Republicans will.

Take the faith-based measure that allows discrimination based on religion in hiring (which in the Mormon religion basically also equals racial discrimination). That measure will be introduced by Republicans with Democrats signing on. Who will vote against it? Since Obama has said he supports it, what Democrat will buck the leader and vote against it? After all, it's a great way to pander to evangelicals. And Republicans will all support it.

I expect Obama to say he believes in choice but that hospitals run by religions that don't agree with birth control should not have to fill prescriptions or give advice about it. Pander, pander, pander. That is not needed. Not this year. This is who Obama is. This is what he hid to get the nomination. What else has he hidden? And we thought Bush was secretive.

It is hard to admit you've been had. But a lot of DUers have just been had.

I was a staunch Edwards supporter. I regret having switched to support Obama. This stance goes against everything that is American. Read Madison on the separation of church and state -- and remember that Madison drafted the Bill of Rights. He knew better than anyone what was intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberalynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
359. Self dete
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 01:14 PM by Liberalynn
self delete
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
50. I do get it. 'They' hate us for our freedom ...
... So, we'll destroy those freedoms and they will no longer hate us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
71. Prove it is just "triangulation talk"
Funny how when Obama talks like a Republican and walks like a Republican and votes like a Republican, he is just "pandering to the right."

If McCain had made a similar announcement, we'd be ripping him a new one, and rightly so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
101. Are you saying Obama is lying?
This is not good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comradebillyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #101
275. its even worse if he's not lying
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #101
281. rateyes -- being secretive.
He opportunistically did not mention his ideas about faith-based projects and discrimination in hiring when he was running for the nomination. He did not lie. The subject did not come up. But he was not open with members of his own party about a stance that he had to know would lose him votes. That is opportunism, not prevarication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
262. What you are experiencing is called "wishful thinking."
Is Obama also going to fund faith-based Muslim, Unitarian, Jewish, Mormon, Friends (Quakers) and Buddhist charitable activities? How about Bahai? How about the really small groups? How will they even decide whether a group is a religion? I can imagine that there are "religions" in American that we don't know about that would make our hair curl. First FISA and now this. Did you say this guy taught Constitutional law? He has, apparently, never read Jefferson or Madison on the topic of religious freedom.

Madison vetoed a bill allowing government to give away property to a Baptist congregation or to fund their charitable activities. Obama had better clarify this or he will not have my vote. And his clarifications had better preclude discrimination in hiring based on religion if government funds are to be used.

The Salvation Army, Jewish, Quaker, Unitarian and Mormon charitable projects are among the best in the world. How will funding to their organizations be granted? On the basis of the percent of believers in the country? Don't tell me based on the quality of the programs. I worked in the non-profit world and know the politics of grants and government funding all too well to believe that. This is idiocy. This will just strengthen sectarian divisions in our country. This is bad, all bad. There is no upside to this one.

In LA, FEMA funds were funneled through religious organizations in the early 1990s if not before. I remember that the Catholic Church was one of the organizations that was very active in distributing the money. The Methodist Church was also involved in activities in this area, but I don't think they were permanent members of the committee that gave out the money as was one other evangelical group. Money was not given to projects that proselytized. This is the key. And if you allow the religious groups to only hire their own members, proselytizing is inevitable. Government money and religion -- a very, very bad mix.

This is horrible. The evangelicals and Catholics are behind this. The Catholic Church, historically, has promoted church dominance over the political institutions of countries, and the evangelicals now promote that idea. Eventually, they will fight each other. The Bush faith-based initiative was the first move in the direction of faith-based government. There will be a huge struggle by the most right-leaning, authoritarian churches for dominance of the faith-based money. This is the beginning of dissension and religious struggle in the U.S.

Americans will not become violent revolutionaries for political or economic theories. We have other, peaceful ways, to resolve our differences in those areas. But religion???? We are a deeply religious people. That has a good side and a bad side. Each of us rightly believes we know the truth when it comes to religion (even atheists). Religion is what we are likely to fight, become divided and violent about. Evangelicals want government funding of their charitable activities as do Catholics precisely because they want to believe they alone are right and want to dominate those of us who have different beliefs.

Obama means well, but this is a huge mistake. We have agreed to disagree about religion. Once religions are eligible for government funding and can favor their own true believers in hiring for government-funded programs, they will fight about who gets what. And then the whole nation will be angry, American against American. It will be worse than the civil war because it will not be regional.

First FISA and now this. NO NO NO NO NO. This is not a matter of triangulation or political strategy. This spells TRAGEDY for our country. This spells violence in the streets one of these days. No. This is not good. We have lived in harmony with our different beliefs all these years. What a mistake. What a tragic mistake. NO. We should be working for more tolerance, not this divisive measure.

Imagine -- a future with schools in which all faculty are Muslim (or Catholic, or Mormon, or Methodist, or Unitarian, or Buddhist) -- on you dime. Imagine -- a future with jails that are ________. Trust me, kids raised in a Catholic school will be full of Catholic ideas. There is no way you can have a school with a faculty of nuns without school prayer and Catholic propaganda. Same goes for every group. And then you will have kids graduating from those schools indoctrinated into their religion and hating other religions, each group believing it knows best . . . .

In a European country, where my children attended school, the classes were divided into Protestants and Catholics. There was a certain amount of religious instruction in each class and the teachers had to be of the appropriate religion. My Unitarian children were placed one in a Catholic class and the other in a Protestant class. They were excused during religious classes. I remember walking my kids to school one day and hearing a kid about 9 years old yell that the Protestant girls were all whores. That's what we will have in our country if Obama does this. Kids calling kids names based on religion.

The election is not close enough for this. Obama does not need this. I am furious. I am just furious. Who in the world is a Unitarian like me supposed to vote for? Nader is looking better and better. And I'm not a Nader fan.

Sorry for the rant. But this is the worst thing I have heard in years. Clearly, Obama does not get it and is extremely naive. Has he never heard of the 30 years War and all the other wars fought over religion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #262
455. But - how do you REALLY feel about it?
Very well made, and true, points.

Thanks!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LaloBorges Donating Member (115 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
306. you are implying that it is ok to lie as long as it takes you to the
white house?

That is how BusCo. got there and that is why many of us don't want them back.

This is very disappointing! Obama was running such a good campaign, why is he starting to swim in the swamp? "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Is this what we are getting to?

1st FISA, now this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
320. are you saying that he is lying in order to win?
i hope that's not what you're saying....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
326. Are kidding me . . . he's promising them $$$ -- with no qualms about it--!!!
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:00 PM by defendandprotect
And this is a man who taught Constitutional law part time . . . ????

I see you winking at me ---

Are you sure Obama isn't winking at the Evangelicals?

This is an outrage!!!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
52. And they will
He's tellin' the middle America Ma and Pa Sunday what they want to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #52
106. Sort of Like what Bush did
In the 2000 elections. And in the 2004 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #52
234. My 80 Year Old Middle America Ma and Pa church going on Sunday.....
want separation of Church and State. My father is like many in that age group and they are not stupid.
You mentioned Kennedy doing this, my memory was the opposite of what you suggest. Kennedy stressed that he wold not mix his or any one else's religion with his policy's.
He made that clear in this speech.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...

Kennedy: Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I'm grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #2
72. Wednesday, he'll probably embrace torture. This is beyond craven.
Everyday, a new right wing surprise! Isn't this FUN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
146. Are those "already existing ways" cost-effective and successful?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
207. Obama needs to FIX this program before he expands it
there are now millions and millions of $ going to Evangelical Interests outside of the US.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #207
373. Yeah he needs to fix it - with a shotgun behind the shed and a six foot hole.
It was bullshit to start with, top to bottom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
216. I'm not happy ...

I would have preferred that they stress formation of adjunct secular organizations. The fact of the matter is that people hire and fire based on all kinds of criterea that are never spoken. Why make an issue of it?

The critical component here is that the state DOES NOT FUND CHURCHES. You can fund NGO service providers whose mission is to provide the particular service, not proselytize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
303. me either, here we go AGAIN - this was never a good policy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
327. Boy is this nuts?? It really is NUTS BIG TIME!
So now our candidate is courting the same whackos that won't vote for him anyway - based on the notion that he is an African-born Muslim terrorist.

His concern should be for the 40% of all Americans who consider themselves INDEPENDENTS.


They may stay home on election day. If they do, it makes a stolen election more likely.
And once again, NOBODY will receive more votes than the declared winner (or stealer, depending on how the chips may fall.).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
5. Most surprising if
they haven't taken some innocuous comment and spun it.

If it's true, I'm terribly disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. My (black) aunt who is a non voter, voted for bush in 2004 because..
her mego church pastor (Creflo A. Dollar) endorsed him because he was BRIBED. My poor aunt is distraught that she actually voted for bush. Even though I had been pointing out for years what a devil he was. She now realizes that she was duped.

Obama is taking the fight to the repukes this time. I wish the so-called progressive left would get hell out his way. He did say that he was going to bring a gun to a knife fight. That's exactly what he's doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. I wish the so-called progressive left would get hell out his way.
Wow.

Really. Just wow.

And how far do you think you're going to get without the "so-called progressive left"?

Sorry, I stand aside for no man or woman. My country, too, you see. And I do not like the way Mr. Obama is opting to run it if he is elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #17
82. I don't see this as an issue about the "progessive left:"
I see this as about basic American values.

And Obama is on the wrong side of it together with Bush and all manner of unsavory sorts. This is not good. Did he HAVE to do this? To get elected? Or is it what he actually believes? The former I understand. the latter is regrettable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #82
145. Actually Obama is on the right side of American values
and if you check out most legitimate polls concerning americans and religion you would find that out.

Our party has gained a partial reputation as hating religion or any one who purports to be even slightly religious.

Barack is proving yet again that he gets it, and has his finger on the pulse of the nation better than we may think he does.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #145
174. exactly. People of faith matter more than people not of the faith.
That's what I'm getting, loud and clear.

Actually Barack the Anointed is confusing High Priesthood with Kingly office.

There are some historical facts here: 1. High Priests and High Kings are mortal enemies, and 2. When you combine the two into a figurehead, you have a figurehead, powerless to deliver secular or religious change with any credibility, and surrounded by pretenders to the high priesthood and pretenders to the high throne.

Keep religion out of government. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #174
180. Not to highjack the thread, but your statement is not true
kings and high priest/ess' are not mortal enemies, just in the Judeo-Christo factions. There is a documentary about Tibet (The Monks of Tibet?) that talks about this. Also read pre-Christian British history, especially the non-Christian Grail stories. Just one of those myths that people accept as truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #180
293. well we aren't living in Tibet
:hi:

However, the twain should not mix. Democratic government is about the administration of common resources - and that precept is violated by mixing church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #293
404. I suppose it would be utterly futile at this point to
show that this nation is not and the constitution did not mean it to be a democracy in the true meaning of the word.

We are as a nation a republic. Or to quote Benjamin Franklin when asked as the constitutional convention was ending what kind of government we are being given? He responded a Republic if you can keep it.

And I for one am weary beyond belief about this separation of church and state, can any one show me in the constitution or it's amendments where it states that.

It states that government shall not impose a religion, and guarantees religious freedom.

No where does it state that open expressions of religious faith is to be shunned or shoved aside.

In fact it was Jefferson (who in whole I hold a low opinion of) who alluded to a concept of separation of church and state in a letter he wrote. From this letter the Supreme court crafted this so called separation of church and state in a case decided shortly after world war 2.

In fact a real separation of church of state has not and does not exist in this country.

All that does exist is that the government must not support one religion over another.

Using government resources to assist local faith based organizations to help in community projects is both positive and laudable, and Obama has seen that up close and personal from his time as a community activist on the south side of Chicago.

He is spot on, on this issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #404
409. Actually the principles of democratic government dictate
that governance has to administer shared resources, security and our economic interests at the interface of foreign policy.

It is and should ideally be an administrative body, administering to the commonwealth, which by definition of being a group of individuals is necessarily secular in concept.

What those people do as long as it doesn't impinge upon the rights of anyone else pursuing their rights should not come to bear or even notice of the administration of government, except that we agree one person's religious practices should in no way impact the civil and human rights of any other individual.

Once we recognize religion in government, we have made a choice that excludes looking at the rights of individuals and now looks at the rights of social groups as having MORE rights than the rights of individuals. That is my problem with it. Nobody is shunning or shoving aside anything. We are globally RECOGNIZING that any expression of faith is not appropriate to the administration of government, whatever individuals elect to practice. Imagine for a moment if "Satanists" were the majority of congress and spent the majority of a congressional session praying and swaying (that's a joke, "Satanists" are actually secular) so much so that no christian, jewish, buddhist, or what-have-you exhortation could be made.

No, I don't want my tax dollars going to support any religious group that believes I should have lesser rights, and that is currently what is happening in the FBO grants. Furthermore certain of those groups are getting preferencial review if they fill the same niche as a secular organization. So I can't agree with you on this point.

Government and Church do not have the right to sleep in the same bed, or else do not have the right to expect my unwilling participation. Obama hopefully can nuance it correctly as a strategy, but I cannot condone it myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #174
400. How hard would it have been to make a
statement moving in that direction? With his religious troubles this year already you would imagine.... Or at least have a shred of hope. But maybe he actually believes this stuff. He is a convert after all and there are always the purists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #174
402. Would you??
emulate the Roman empire and have any religious (and lets face the facts folks, when we say religious we really mean christian, because you never see any one going nuts about Budhist or other religions on DU) banned to the catacombs??

How about fed to the lions??

Where are you getting this high priest and some such non-sense??

Calm down, if you let the church alone to do good works, what is so terrible.

You see to a large percentage of americans your attitude exhibits a hatred of christianity.

There is a reason that christians and to a large degree catholics have gravitated to the GOP.

We make them feel hated here, even if they want to be with us.

Consider that??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #145
224. He's on the "right" side of most issues. At least you got that part correct. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #224
401. Well - he's not a republican
so that's good.
And like most (almost all) democrats he is on a better side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #401
405. No, he's not a republican.
He just appears to like and respect them more than he does so many Democrats. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #145
311. I have no problem with supporting faith based charities provided that there is no
use of public money for proselytizing and no discrimination based on religion in the programs funded with public money -- neither in hiring nor in services. That is the way it was in the '80s and '90s when I worked in fundraising or a homeless program. It worked well. There is nothing wrong with religious groups organizing secular programs for social service purposes. In fact, it is very good. But you don't want the religious aspect of an organization to dominate a publicly funded social service program. The merger between the use of money for religious purposes and the use of it for social purposes is extremely dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #311
403. Faith based charites are invariably mired
in some faith connected nonsense. Whether it;s job discrimination (Salvation Army) or downright cultist.

This is not how any necessary public service should be provided. nor how any tax money should be funnelled.

End of story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #145
338. No one believes the latest polls on religion . . .
and why is he even vising this group of nuts . . . ???

People who literally believe in every word of the Bible are nuts --- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #145
399. I am not referring to popular opinion
nor the perceptions of the great electorate vis a vis democrats. I am talking about democratic values in a civil and secular society.

it may be the way to win elections. it may even be the only way to win elections. but how awful that is.

It is always a tremendous shame to see democrats slide down that slope. Clinton did it and Obama will do the same. It is too bad. it will be a sign of maturity politically when it no longer happens.

Finger on the pulse (meaning go where the votes are) is one thing. Working to change that once in power is another. there are other options. All of which are better than strengthening 'faith-based' aid.

We need less religion in our lives. I just wish for a leader to stand up for such matters. or at the very least be sincerely insincere about pandering. Not going to happen so we put up with the best there is on offer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #82
304. Agree- Now the giveaways begin-appeasement
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
102. it is a shocker, isn't it?
I can't believe the things I am reading here this morning. Stunning, just stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
199. Out of 310 Million People in the Country......
What is your estimations on the number of people on the "progressive left"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #199
255. So you think it's acceptable to throw the progressive left under the bus now too?
Have you checked under that bus lately? It's getting pretty fucking crowded under there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #255
261. Just asked for an estimate...
waiting...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #261
362. I answered that
70-80% of the people in the country are not on any political team. Politics is driven by small factions, and that has always been the case. There are as many or more activists on the left who oppose this then there are extreme right wingers who are pushing it, and I believe that were we aggressively and confidently pushing our view the public would support our view. But we will never know, because our leaders betray us and cave before we have a chance to find out.

This is not merely some personal desire some of us have, this is the principled and considered moral stand of those best prepared and able to take such a stand or understand what it means.

The Constitution is not a personal preference nor merely something that a few of us "like" and that is only of value to a small group of people.

We aren't shopping, dammit, and selecting our personal preferences. We are trying to save the country.

We must stand on principle and bring the public to us, not look at where the right wingers have already driven the public and then move to where they are.



We might just as well cut all the bullshit and hypocrisy and out and out support the right wing rather than go down this path of utter moral depravity, as well as the path to certain political failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bjornsdotter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #255
328. Yeah it is


....budge over.

:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #199
287. When did Separation of Church and State become a "progressive left" issue?
seems to me most americans are fed up with bush's idea of a religious state. It does not work and creates disharmony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #199
331. Snooper2, the dirty little secret in America is not the numbers of the
Progressive left.

The dirty little secret in America right now is that:

only 32% of all Americans consider themselves to be Democrats,
28% consdier themselves tobe Republicans and
a Whopping 40% consider themselves to be INDEPENDENTS.

By going after the Christian right, Obama is throwing the largest block of voters under the bus.

If those people stay home, it will be an easier election for McCain's people to steal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #199
339. When people actually understand their state in government .. . ..
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:11 PM by defendandprotect
the majority of the public is on the progressive left ---

When confused and brainwashed by religious propaganda and right-wing propaganda .... they vote GOP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #199
354. completely irrelevant
Politics is always driven by relatively small factions competing for attention from the public. Always. There are no more people in the religious right faction that are pushing faith-based initiatives then there are leftists like us who oppose them. The problem is, our leaders are siding with our opposition.

Why oh why do we surrender before we even begin to fight, again and again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #17
208. Good - let's just see how McCain runs it instead
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. I sincerely hope you're correct
I've seen some of the negative spin his campaign has had to deal with; the racial slurs, trying to condemn him as a.) a muslim or b.) hates muslims. I thought perhaps the spin machine was in gear and had taken one of his remarks out of contest to spin it.

They are definitely trying to wedge voters.

I am a progressive and one of my primary concerns is the separation of church/state; that said, I will vote for Obama. Even if he lives with that statement, he's so far superior to Bush and McSocks that there is no apt comparison.


I definitely see your point, Kahuna, and hope in my bleary-eyed early morning disappointment I didn't sound like I was trashing the senator. We have to be tough
if we're going to beat the unscrupulous, lying criminals supported by the RW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Thanks. I realized something yesterday. Obama is a ruthless MFer..
I can imagine him as the type of boss that is all smiles to your face, but behind closed doors completely no nonsense. I don't think that he would have gotten this far without being very savvy and ruthless. He's taking it to the pukes and I'm beginning to love it. We need a little faith on our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #23
68. It's a tough game
and the opposition is ruthless and thoroughly dishonest.

We won't survive by playing nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #68
325. Becoming, doing and acting no better than they is NOT the answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #325
330. I see your point
I'm filled with misgiving on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedLetterRev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #23
115. I so want to believe
but given the big talk and bitter disappointments in the likes of Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer, et al., I'm just going to hold my criticisms and judgments of Senator Obama's methods in reserve until after I help make sure he's in the Oval. After that, his feet will be held to the fire as much as any Democrat's would be (get used to blisters, my good Senator). Damify will give the right any ammo at this juncture.

As a gay man, though, I must give some agreement to Mr Bowden's sentiment. I am sick unto death of being courted for my vote, then thrown under the bus at the earliest possible moment after elections. However, this election year, I believe we'll have enough of a Progressive caucus in Congress to put a cork in a lot of that thanklessness. I believe President Obama will allow progress to continue and the regressives to continue to marginalize themselves with their clownishness (ie, the recent Vitter-Craig foolscap). He didn't rise up through Chicago politics by being a fool. I have to respect his acumen and at least give him a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
130. With all due respect, what's to admire about ruthlessness?
Perhaps I'm unduly critical, but ruthless is a word that describes people Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. It is where genocide is not only condoned but ordered. Darfur's genocide is ruthless, Rwanda, the Holocaust are all products of ruthless leaders and followers.

If you think ruthlessness is something we need then why not stay with the Bush Regime and vote for McCain? He's far more promising as a ruthless President than Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #130
235. The system is not set up to pick who has the most potential or could do the most good.
It's a system to elect by getting the most people to vote for them. I do admire Obama for always attempting to be many steps ahead of others (though this one does seem preemptive-defensive).

The fuzzy line of religion and politics has already been breached many times in this election so might as well do a one-eighty with it :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
171. I hope your right
But the flag pin thing sticks in my head. He caved on that. I hate seeing that pin on him ALL of the time. And now this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobRossi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #11
33. Or in other words......
"If you can't beat em' join em'"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. As long as they have control of the purse strings we can not beat them..
but we can "pander" to their base to deprive them of a motivated electorate. I don't have a problem with that. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #37
63. So why the hell have a two party system or even a spectrum?
Lets just be right wing torture supporting Bible thumping but care less of what it actually says, SUV loving, people and be done with it at this rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
56. This is not a gun to a knife fight.
Don't twist this cowardice as some kind of good thing that is the very definition of fanboy.

And I am sorry us "Progressives" are in the way. Maybe we need to act like what the talk show hosts on clear channel say we are? Liberal Zombies?

Ya I missed the renewal on my T-Virus shot (Video game reference) And the Plagas (Another video game reference) seems to have left me for someone calling himself "Leon" (Video game reference)

Sorry but no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #56
343. ....and he went out looking for this . . . there isn't even any pressure on him yet ---!!!
Imagine when the weight of the MIIC hits him ---

He'll be giving them any war and any weapons they want ---

Invade Canada --- sure!!

I'm amazed that people here think they're somehow "in the know" about campaigns ---

what's foolishness. Moving to the LEFT is what brings in votes.

The DLC is the poison apple here and I wouldn't be surprised if they were encouraging this.


Wink . . . wink . . . BS --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
100. He's bringing an armory full of weapons, and using them all.
It's going to get ugly, but it's necessary to win. I don't understand why some feel like Obama suddenly got stupid after running an absolutely brilliant primary campaign. He and Plouffe know exactly what they are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
118. Looks more like he is caving to the right instead
The FISA cave, the Clark cave, now this. Three caves in three days, sorry, but it looks like he's keeping whatever gun he has locked up at home.

In this year, during these political circumstances, Obama or any other candidate could run on a strong, progressive, liberal platform and still win handily. Instead, he's caving to the right again and again, and leaving behind (again) the left wing of the party. He's not even throwing us a bone here. He's simply demonstrating, once again, that we are living under a two party/same corporate master system of government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hestia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #118
189. I totally agree Mad Hound. Why, this year in particular, is Obama allowing
the right to once again dominate our verbage and candidate? Why do we have to constantly pander to people who make fun of people with any education whatsoever? Why do have to answer to neo-con sociopaths who really do hate us and the US? How big of a percentage really is this electorate that he is pandering to? 30%? We allowed that percentage to take control for the last 30+ years and look at what stupid gets you, this quagmire that we are currently living in. Why do we have to hear that our Democratic politicians HAVE to pander to the lowest common denominator?

As a student of Hermetics and a walker on the Pagan Path, this whole 'faith-based' pandering is extra-bull. It's time we step out of the AIPAC/Liberty University mind-set and see what else is out there. It's a whole 'nother spritual world out there that doesn't require money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #118
413. No he is not. He is defining himself instead of letting them define him as..
Gasp!!! The dreaded LIBERAL!!! Run for your lives... :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glorfindel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
134. Creflo A. Dollar...I thought the name was a joke like
Jubilation T. Cornpone or Jack S. Phogbound. Then I looked it up. How truly funny!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
136. Ah, yes. Creflo Dollar
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:43 AM by stanwyck
I live in Atlanta. So, I'm well aware of Creflo Dollar. Wonder what he's saying these days, though. I haven't heard. We have over 600,000 unregistered black voters in Georgia. We could take back this state from Saxy Chambliss and Sonny Perdue if we could get more Democratic voters to the polls. We need a greater margin of young people and minority voters to show up and vote for our candidates. It's all going to be about who shows up on election day.
Obama knows this. His faith-based initiatives are based on his personal beliefs...and his belief in motivating voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #11
140. so, he's s'posed to be more about appeasing the fascist right
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:08 AM by beezlebum
over his "progressive left" brethren? :wtf:

i hear the whole "it's a dirty game, getting elected" crap. i get it. he has to prove he's the same as mcsame to get elected. meaning he has to lie & cheat.

i don't think progressive ideals are so fringe that the effing lunatic right takes priority over us. that's bullshit!

it was tough for me to lend my support to obama. i was a hardcore kucinich supporter, but realistic enough to understand that he wasn't going to get elected. i still expected the nominee to at least try to appeal to me. i initially thought obama was in the same rank as hillary- a fucking DLC right wing hack DINO who was playing progressive to win the nomination at best.

i tried to suppress that notion, but it's looking more and more like i was right, and i'm furious. i tried to enthusiastically get behind him. i donated money i didn't have to spare- my last freaking dime!

did those fucking right wing fascist fringe donate any of their hard-earned and sparse money to his campaign?? fuck no!

the PROGRESSIVE-LEFT GRASSROOTS did! he should be courting ME, because I am one of the millions of people who are fed up with right wingery who donated money and time and effort to this campaign!

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
268. I can't believe this is on DU!
I feel like I have been transported to freaking Red State loonville. And you can get the hell out of the way of MY RIGHTS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
283. And now we will have bribes and more bribes.
This is why this is wrong. The fighting over the money will not only destroy our country, it will destroy our churches and our religions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kermitt Gribble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
302. Separation of church and state is not a "progressive left" issue...
it is a American issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beezlebum Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #302
307. thank you toonces
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
317. "He did say that he was going to bring a gun to a knife fight"
Yes, but he left the knife sticking in the back of the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeanGrey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
446. Creflo Dollar was bribed? Enlighten me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarveyBrooks Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
290. From Obama's campaign...
Obama will create a Presidents Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

As Barack Obama has said many times, he believes that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. And many of the challenges we face todayfrom saving our planet to ending povertyare simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

Thats why Obama will help draw on their strength of these groups through the creation of a new Presidents Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.


LINK


The whole "Change" thing is nothing more than a slogan in Obama's marketing campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. And? So?
I would trust an Obama administration to not politicize the program. There are a LOT of faith-based groups that do good in the world and which are not tools of the political right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. And I want MY tax money going to support them...
Not likely.

When we right exemptions for religious groups to enable them to discriminate while taking federal money to do so, I'm sorry, but I cannot condone that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. It's been going to them anyway. The only difference is it's been used
to bribe voters for repubs. See my post above about my aunt's church that received those funds and voted for bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LuckyTheDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #9
59. It'd be FAR worse under McCain
But go ahead and vote for him. It's your right as an American.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
41. Federal Money is there to promote the general good not to enrich church programs.
Faith Based programs from the .gov are wrong, period. That is for the people to do. People donate to churches all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #41
137. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Excuse me but I would be thankful if you did not post libel about me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #139
148. Well, sorry, but you don't
Not one person here criticizing this program has the slightest idea how it it actually set up to work. These funds do not "enrich" churches--there's hardly enough funding there in the first place to do that. As I've said in several other posts, the money is carefully watched, carefully restricted in its use, and the FBO's are prohibited from discrimination in the delivery of services on the basis of faith, along with all other federally protected categories.

These federal funds have ALWAYS been available to FBO's; the only difference now is that the government is actively promoting its availability to agencies who already do the bulk of the social work on the ground. They are not treated any differently from non-religious organizations when it comes to applying for the funds or how they are spent.

And the really stupid thing is, 99% of you ASSUME that only right-wing FBO's are receiving the funds, when in fact tons of left-wing and progressive FBO's get it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heliarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
308. Exactly Right...
But what I like about the rhetoric this time around is that Obama keeps bringing it back to federal responsibility to the community. He keeps on talking about the church's responsibility to join the government's strategy to end poverty. That sounds like a top down guide if anything...

And I'm an atheist. I might be a little enamored by the Obama campaign right now, but this still strikes me as a really positive way of "using" a stupid adventure of the Bush administration.

He's sending a message to the Evangelists that says ... you might not lose your programs.

But here's where this falls apart for me. Faith based initiatives have been the front line dog whistle for the abstinence nonsense for 8 years now. I sincerely hope that he reforms that sort of proselytizing. Helping the poor shouldn't be about requiring them to find the lord as you come to their aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
345. Absolutely . . . should never have been permitted . . . . . .
and it should be STOPPED-- not in any way encouraged!!!

BTW, what's McCain promissing them . . . 50 virgins when they get to heaven?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
258. Funded by tax dollars and practicing discriminatory hiring?
What is this? Freaking Iran? I am so sick of this faith based BULLSHIT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #258
299. it isn't true - please research before you overreact. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Just what we need. More cowbell!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. If this is true, it puts the lie to the Obama is a Liberal argument.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 05:39 AM by RC
This is saying Obama is one of them. 'Them' being what has been destroying this country for the last 50+ years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:40 AM
Response to Original message
13. more details
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 05:47 AM by Pirate Smile
He also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

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.

Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush never got Congress to go along so he conducted his effort to give religious groups equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts through administrative actions and executive orders.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said.



I would imagine this comes from his working as a community organizer hired by churches. He always said that the strongest organizations in those impoverished neighborhoods were the churches. It was the easiest way to reach the people needing help.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
15. "steering federal social service dollars to religious groups."
The news from Obama keeps getting better and better....

A constitutional scholar expanding government entanglement with religion.

At the rate his campaign is going, it'll have closed the enthusiasm gap with McCain by mid August.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #15
43. Im wondering if they will pass each other on the spectrum by then.
McCain trying to drift left and Obama pushing and shoving into Conservative territory. My guess is at this rate McCain will be called the progressive by then!

Makes ones head spin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fasttense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
16. The bushes merely used the program as a way to bribe influential
pastors to push voting republican from the pulpit. Obama's plans are a little different:

"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.

Obama does not see a need to push for a law to make this program work as Bush did, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush never got Congress to go along so he conducted his effort to give religious groups equal footing with nonsectarian groups in competing for federal contracts through administrative actions and executive orders.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for aid recipients nor using federal money to proselytize, the official said."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #16
141. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
I work with these programs and I know from experience that 1) federal and state agencies watch the use of the funds like hawks, down to the last penny; and 2) the administration has zero to do with handing these funds out. They don't just hand money out, the agencies have to prove they know what they're doing and that they have specific purposes and projects in mind for the funds. There is no way anybody gets "bribed" with these funds, mainly because there isn't that much money in the pot to begin with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
347. This is insane and will only begin a BIDDING WAR between GOP and Dems . . .
for the Evangelical hand in marriage ---

who believes this garbage??

And for those who think this is happening with a WINK . . WINK . . .

Do you have any clues about how much money the Vatican may have been investing

in buying our government???

They fought the ERA -- with the Mormon Church --- with a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$--

They've now gained access to our Treasury ---

Wake up, America --- !!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marias23 Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
19. Barack : Say It Isn't So
I don't like the sound of this.
He may have just lost my active support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #19
38. He already lost my support. But lets hold onto the vote.
I do not think Obama is going to be a good president but a McCain presidency can do FAR more damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:48 AM
Response to Original message
20. This is shaky ground.
If he actually delivers on this (which I doubt) he will have the same problems that Bush had implementing it. It seems like he is starting to bite off more than he can chew. This is actually one of Bush's policies that I didn't totally hate. Lots of churches do some pretty good humanitarian work, but it's a slippery slope that just doesn't jive with our system. He needs to get back to the stuff he ran on. 4 years isn't really that much time and the executive branch has much more pressing issues. Restore the judicial system, replace idiots in every department with competent people, reverse Bushco's fuckups, investigate the criminal administration, get troops out of Iraq, make the tax system fair, protect the environment. Is that not enough of a burden in 4 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:17 AM
Response to Original message
27. disgusting, absolutely disgusting
I'll help him get elected because McSame will do worse but it sure opens the door for the 2012 election!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. 2012 Is looking more and more like a surefire Repub win.
Obama is talking this stuff while we are looking at going into depression. He will not deliver and is in bad danger of becoming the Hoover of the 2010s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #27
414. Thanks for your vote too! I understand how you all feel. Still I do
like that Obama is taking this issue off the table and demotivating this voting block.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
28. Obama is really starting to sink.
Stop your moaning he will have my vote. (Tho he is REALLY trying to change that)

But Obama is trying this make everyone happy approach and tho it MAY get him into Office this time. It will make him FAR less effective as president and likely defeated in 2012.

OBAMA STOP THIS!! You are not the person we supported in the primaries.

To put this into perspective, If he had started acting like he is now during the primaries. I would have went ahead and gone with Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1monster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #28
179. Of course he is. You just were not paying a ttention. There were loads of
threads on Obama's voting record. He is the same person today that he was during the primaries.

The last time I hero-worshiped a candidate, I was twelve years old. And I don't think even Bobby Kennedy could have been all things to all people.

But he definitely would have slowed the dizzyingly fast downward slide into fascism that has occured since Richard Nixon's appointees and staff greased the skds. (Take a look at GW Bush's staff and support groups--how many of them got their big start in the Nixon Administration?) And the irony there is that by the standards of those people, Nixon was a flaming liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
29. Anyone who has a problem with this should write to his campagin and find whats up
This is disturbing in my view



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
348. I've continued to drop off messages ever time we get a right wing bomb . . .
like this smelling up the air ---

However, as long as they know that Liberals/Progressives have no place to go . . .
I think you know how much they will care---???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:22 AM
Response to Original message
30. One Would Think, and Hope, That Such Pandering Would Be Neither Used Nor Needed
by our Party's candidates.

If it is merely lip service, it is cynical, and I think we've had enough of that.
If it is a well-intentioned mistake, it had better be the last one, and apologies should be immediately forthcoming.
If it is an actual policy plan, I'm outtahere.

And if it is the MSM again twisting and distorting by selective editing and clanking soundbite, I wouldn't be in the least surprised. But he's got to stop giving them the opportunity. The country is about to shake to pieces, and it doesn't need any more stress.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobRossi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
32. Reason 493 to not vote in November.
Fuck each and every one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Well we REALLY REALLY REALLY need to defeat McCain.
Just go out and vote. Its Obvious that Obama is going to suck as the president but McCain's attitude could lead us into Martial law.

For me? I refuse to really support Obama anymore. He has my vote but that is it. Had I known he was this stupid I would have voted Clinton in the primaries.


I can only pray that the Repubs are going to pick Ron Paul in 2012 because its going to be a surefire win for them no matter who they pick at this rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. Thanks for your vote. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #32
349. Now . . . let's have the "winkers" tell us how successful an idea this is
among liberals/progressive who will drop out -- or move onto other liberal parties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
34. And people are surprised by this "news"? lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #34
350. YES ....call me dumb, but I am surprised by this news ... he taught Constitutional law . . . ??
I had no clue!!

I mean, this notion to fund religion is so F-U'd that it sticks out like a garbage can

in the middle of a highway --

so ... no ... I had no clue . . .

How did you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
36. Ever have a moment when you think that your shiny new bike is the best
thing in the world, and after the first ride, all the paint falls off, showing a rusting hulk?

That is how I feel about this whole mess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. I have a question. I heard Bill was a bit of a pander bear during his primaries.
But was it this bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:58 AM
Response to Reply #39
64. I think not.
I really expected better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal1973 Donating Member (964 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:32 AM
Response to Original message
42. Faith-based funding is illegal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
58. Dimson has definitely attempted to destroy the line between church and state
and this just pisses me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
142. Wrong.
Learn how it works and then reconsider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #142
353. It works to give money to religous groups . . . that's illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #353
381. How is it illegal?
Do you really have any idea how any of this works? The money isn't given to them so they can convert people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #381
439. State & Church are separated .... it's where your guarantee to freedom of thought
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:42 PM by defendandprotect
and personal conscience come from ---

No one --- including religion --- can tell you what to think.

Religon is a personal belief system --- that's why it has to seek government authentication.

These are all organized patriarchal religions based on Bibical notions of female inferiority,

homosexual intolerance and stand against female reproductive rights.

Church & State are separated for the benefit of both ---

Church doesn't get involved in State affairs, State doesn't get involved in Church affairs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKthatsIT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #142
454. It's unconstitutional....
therefore, it doesn't matter how they've manipulated the law. Signing statements are against the law, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
156. Which law is it in violation of?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #156
355. Are you supporting taxpayer money for religions . .. ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #355
438. It's for charities that happen to be inspired by ethics that are faith-based.
It's not for the religions themselves. A large percentage of charities are faith-based. It would be discriminatory to exclude them from taxpayer money just because of the associated religion. Of course, restrictions are needed, and Obama has made clear that he supports these restrictions. I would have no problem if a charity run by an atheistic organization received federal dollars as long as they adhered to the same restrictions. I also have no problem with secular charities getting federal dollars as long as they are well run.

I think some people with anti-religious sentiments don't like this even with the restrictions in place just because the charities make the religions look good. Has it occurred to them that people in some of these charities simply want to help people? How is it so wrong that their religion has something to do with their desire to help people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #438
440. We all understand what it is . . . that's why we object . . . !!!
Did you miss something in "faith-based" that didn't signal you that this is RELIGION . . . ?

Why do you persist in thinking that we don't understand what it's about --- ???

It's about FUNNELING money thru churches ---

Let's simply help citizens ourselves ---

Let's address the issue of poverty, homelessness, joblessness --- trade agreements ---

where's Obama on that?

"Discriminatory" . . . ?? Evidently you not only want to ignore the Constitution, you want
to rip it up --- ???

You seem close to understanding that religions requires government authentification . . . ???
That's because religion is a personal belief something --- not something supported by government -- nor science.

Again, if we want to help people we don't need to enter into "partnerships" with churches --
we don't need to FUNNEL money thru churches ---
What we need Obama to do is start to talk about homelessness, poverty, the CLINTON ending of
welfare safety nets -- lack of unemployment extensions and suspension of payments! ---
trade agreements shipping our jobs out of the country --- and no tariffs to combat that.

It is not wrong for religion to help people ---
it is wrong for them to want to do it with our money ---

In fact, churches should be paying taxes on their stock portfolios, investments ---
and their vast real estate holdings. ALL of that has nothing to do with their land which
their churches and schools sits on --- it's simply investment.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #440
449. You distort the situation.
"Did you miss something in "faith-based" that didn't signal you that this is RELIGION . . . ?"

A charity is a charity whether it is faith-based or not. Just because a charity has an associated religion doesn't mean it equals religion.

"Why do you persist in thinking that we don't understand what it's about --- ???"

Because you have a distorted viewpoint of the situation.

"It's about FUNNELING money thru churches ---"

"FUNNELING" is strange wording. The money goes to church-run and other charities. It doesn't go to the churches. I believe there is a restriction that the charity needs to be run separately from the church, if not there should be such a restriction. With this restriction in place, the money doesn't go through the church.

"Let's simply help citizens ourselves ---"

Go ahead.

"Let's address the issue of poverty, homelessness, joblessness --- trade agreements ---
where's Obama on that?"

I believe Obama has addressed those issues. He's certainly better than McCain on them, don't you think? Are you supporting Obama or not?

""Discriminatory" . . . ?? Evidently you not only want to ignore the Constitution, you want
to rip it up --- ???"

There's nothing in the Constitution that says there must be absolutely no contact or association at all between church and state. That's not what the second amendment means.

"You seem close to understanding that religions requires government authentification . . . ???"

Religions do not require government authentification.

"That's because religion is a personal belief something --- not something supported by government -- nor science."

There are various religions that differ greatly, and they are not simply "a personal belief something". Each have a set of beliefs.

"--- not something supported by government"

We don't want state religions, but I think your viewpoint goes too far.

"-- nor science."

Certainly some of the beliefs are unsupported and some conflict with science (like the false 6,000 year claim), but with respect to others that is debatable. Not all beliefs need to be supported by science.

"... we don't need to enter into "partnerships" with churches"

I think it is advantageous to those in need to help certain church-run charities (those that meet the restrictions).

"... start to talk about homelessness, poverty, the CLINTON ending of
welfare safety nets -- lack of unemployment extensions and suspension of payments! ---
trade agreements shipping our jobs out of the country --- and no tariffs to combat that."

Fine, but that's different from the faith-based charities issue. I agree with you about shipping our jobs out of the country. I've been hit by that myself.

"... it is wrong for them to want to do it with our money ---"

That sounds similar to a right-wing talking point. So should we end support for all charities? Should we end welfare? I talked to a right-winger who felt that pretty much all government support of social services (whether government-run or not) should end because it is based on ethics associated with religion.

"In fact, churches should be paying taxes on their stock portfolios ..."

In some cases maybe so, I think it depends on the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #449
450. You're right . . . if you ignore Separation of Church & State . . !!!!
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 02:08 AM by defendandprotect
and you will ignore it at the price of losing democracy.
Heed the FOUNDERS who well understood the threat that church represents to democracy.

The FOUNDERS didn't separate state and "charity" . . .
they separated state and CHURCH --- and only church --- !!!

"Funneling" is being used because our government is not using the money DIRECTLY to
provide these services --- which it well could do.

Let's have government use the money to create jobs, to build permanent housing --
to hire people to provide these services that volunteers are doing now.

You're also trying so hard to ignore reality --- notice it is a "FAITH-BASED" program.
Do you think that refers to 5 and 10 cent stores --- or religion?

And these charities have already within these programs violated the restrictions.

As for McCain anyone would have to be brain dead to be paying any attention to him.
If McCain won, it would only be because of a steal. People who think he has any
viability seem to be those who still watch TV news!

The "second amendment" has to do with guns --- not religion.

It's the "establishment" clause you're looking to criticize.

The government is to make no law regarding the "establishment" of religion . . .

And religions are, of course, fighting to get back into public schools because they
do require that authentification by government.

Religion is a personal belief system --- that's all.

There are various religions that differ greatly, and they are not simply "a personal belief something". Each have a set of beliefs.

Do you understand that people CHOSE to believe in a "god" or "gods" . . .
that it is not based on anything factual? Anything recognized by government? Nor science?

People are always happy about having religion around until they come to understand that the
religion that could end up running their lives is someone else's. Then they tend to see
things differently.

Further, as others have pointed out, giving money to churches also does harm to secular
programs which are already set up.


"... it is wrong for them to want to do it with our money ---"

That sounds similar to a right-wing talking point. So should we end support for all charities? Should we end welfare? I talked to a right-winger who felt that pretty much all government support of social services (whether government-run or not) should end because it is based on ethics associated with religion.


Now Separation of Church & State is "right-wing" . . . ????
First, Democrats --- Clinton/Gore -- are the people who ended 60 plus years of Welfare
safety nets--!! Do you understand that?
I am for the full and original welfare programs which FDR put in place.
I am for full employment benefits without limits --- are you?
It is the suspension of those benefits which is adding to the poverty, homeless, etal.
There are many right-wing religious people who will turn Jesus into a hater of the poor
if you give them five minutes. :)
Distorting the teachings of humane and compassionate prophets has been going on a long time--!
Nothing new!


"In fact, churches should be paying taxes on their stock portfolios ..."

In some cases maybe so, I think it depends on the situation.


Many churches have vast investments . . .
think about it ---

Did you ever see the movie "Shoes of the Fisherman" with Anthony Quinn --- ?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-03-08 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #450
451. I don't.
Edited on Thu Jul-03-08 07:55 PM by mcg
I meant the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which is interpreted differently by different people. I am not criticizing it.

"And these charities have already within these programs violated the restrictions."

Why do you omit "some of"? Surely you don't think ALL of them have. Those that do should lose federal funding. They should be run in a secular manner if they are getting funds. I think an Obama administration would enforce the restrictions much more and monitor them more closely. Under the Bush administration the initiative has been flagrantly abused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith-based_initiatives

"I am for full employment benefits without limits --- are you?"

With no limits at all? No, because I've seen someone abuse them, they just didn't want to work. However, I think we should err on the side of not denying benefits when they are needed. I think we should move closer to the programs FDR put in place. We should have more government-run social programs.

"First, Democrats --- Clinton/Gore -- are the people who ended 60 plus years of Welfare
safety nets--!!"

You are sounding more and more like a Naderite. Who are you voting for? I don't think it is safe to assume that Obama will win. McCain has more than a 0% chance of winning. That is too much.

Clinton signed a bill coming from a Republican Congress, so it is inaccurate to say that "Democrats --- Clinton/Gore -- are the people". It did not end welfare. I am critical of some parts of the bill and I hope there will be another welfare reform. I don't think there should be abuse or unnecessary dependence, but we should err on the side of helping people. Gore was only Vice President. Consider this wording from a Wikipedia article: "In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party. ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #451
452. McCain is a pitiful joke ---
I am aware that "charities" violated the restrictions . . . I am not aware of which ones or
whether it was all or one. I recall no mention that they would be bounced from the programs.
What YOU "think" Obama might will influence your decisions, it will not influence mine or
anyone else's . .

This is ALL an abuse of the Constitution ---


Re this . . .

"First, Democrats --- Clinton/Gore -- are the people who ended 60 plus years of Welfare
safety nets--!!"

Clinton signed a bill coming from a Republican Congress, so it is inaccurate to say that "Democrats --- Clinton/Gore -- are the people". It did not end welfare. I am critical of some parts of the bill and I hope there will be another welfare reform. I don't think there should be abuse or unnecessary dependence, but we should err on the side of helping people. Gore was only Vice President. Consider this wording from a Wikipedia article: "In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party. ".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform


I don't have time now to research this --- however Clinton asked Gore's opinion on it --
and Gore encouraged him. Clinton/Gore overturned 60 years of Welfare guarantees.
It may not have totally "ended" welfare . . . however it "overturned 60 years of welfare
guarantees."

Your response is nothing but meaningless hair splitting--

Again, passing taxpayer money on to church is illegal --- if you support separation of
church and state.


You are sounding more and more like a Naderite. Who are you voting for? I don't think it is safe to assume that Obama will win. McCain has more than a 0% chance of winning. That is too much.

McCain is a joke ---

I would be happy to vote for Nader if I thought he had any chance of winning.
In fact, I've never voted for Nader --- specifically because of that.
Let me suggest to you, however, that it is unhealthy for us to have two parties controlled
by corporations - which we can clearly see has led to fascism in America.

The DLC is the corporate-sponsored wing of the Democratic Party and it's goal is to move the
party to the RIGHT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
44. Jesus Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Would not be happy at this.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 06:40 AM by Zachstar
Think about it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
190. Helping people who care for the poor and sick?
I think he probably wouldn't mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #190
242. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's
And get the fucking money changers out of the temple.

Paraphrasing.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #242
251. Ok, that makes no sense
whatsoever (in the context of what we're discussing, anyway).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #251
396. I think Jesus would absolutely mind faith-based programs
because of his stances on those two issues: government money should not be mixed with God's business.

But then, after spending 17 years as a fundy and reading the Bible daily, I no longer believe in the guy, so what the fuck do I know?

Clearly, I don't even know what the Democratic party stands for anymore, since this is a-okay with so many so-called "progressives."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #190
356. Nonsense . . . Jesus, if he existed, was egalitarian and wouldn't support
Evangelicals . . .

or in fact any organized patriarchal religions --- !!!

Nor would he be arguing to get his hands on the dollar bill ---

Wow -- how easy it is to turn people from true values to junk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlaGranny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:40 AM
Response to Original message
46. Speaking as an atheist here,
I never liked it when GW did it, the reason being I knew how it would be run. I was never against the IDEA. Most churches are already doing this kind of thing on their own. They have the organization. If it can be run without Bush flaws I'm not against it. Everything Bush touches turns to crap. If the rules are there and enforced it MIGHT work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
357. Most of the organizations are Catholic; most of the money goes to the RCC. . .
Also, I think people are very naive about the political activities of the Vatican ---

The Catholic Church and the Mormon church put tons of money into defeating the ERA ---

and I have great suspicion that they invested heavily into putting Catholic legislators

into government ---

and how much into Bush's pockets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
47. ...support their ability to hire and fire based on faith...

This is good and Godly: Faith should trump all.

Certainly looking forward to a return to the at least the 1950s when did not have to put up with Jews in public swimming pools, and most country-clubs and hotels. I mean, if you can fire someone for having the wrong superstitions, surely you can keep them out of the water supply.

And one can only hope that there will be a return the The ONE True Faith as a test for any employment, government program, academic position, marriage, voting, or right to life.

This is the biggest step forward since God commanded Israel to drive out all - including spouses - who were not of Israel.

God Bless!!

Oh yes ... We do need to start deciding which One True Faith will Justly Rule our Land. I suggest the Spaghetti Monster - but the True Swimming, not the False Flying, Spaghetti Monster.


I cannot believe this is America, rushing to re-embrace the simplistic and xenophobic divisions of the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sybylla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #47
167. You've pointed out my biggest problem with this
Funding well-run, non-proselytizing programs already in place is one thing. Hiring and firing based on faith is entirely another.

If it's a non-proselytizing program, why do the employees have to be of the faith? Why is it not most important that good people are hired to do a good job?

This is wrong on so many levels and will only foster the kinds of environments you describe - the kind we all thought we left behind decades ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #167
185. Amen Brother
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #167
358. PLUS . . .they do prosletytize . . . that's has been quite often discovered . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerpetuallyDazed Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
48. Why? He makes an excellent point and is being politically savvy.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 06:57 AM by PerpetuallyDazed
More than 70% of our country follows Christianity... Why not appeal to this massive demographic in a different way from the Republicans? Obama's out there re-branding what it actually MEANS to be a "Christian" and in doing so he's dissolving the power and influence of the (Republican) Religious Right. It's ingenious, really... I'm not religious but I support the good things these institutions do.

On edit: I thought this was more of a "Progressive" message board, but I'm starting to have doubts as I continue to see hostility and anger towards embracing anything outside of the "traditional liberal orthodoxy" (i.e., devout secularism) which I find rather ironic. I consider myself wildly liberal, but not to the libertarian points of view shared by so many here. Is this just a generational thing or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toasterlad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #48
54. Do You Also Support the Bad Things They Do?
There's a reason for separation of church and state, and it is alarming and disgusting for ANY candidate to propose tying the two together any tighter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #48
60. So screw the so called "Seperation of Church and State"
Hell while we are at it. We mise well just use to constitution to power the white house for a few seconds by burning it in a "green" steam generator. Bush marked over most of it anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #48
363. The Vatican is writing off the US, Canada and Latin America . . . so ....
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:45 PM by defendandprotect
don't think your figures are anywhere near reality ---

People may still identify with the label but as far as those practicing a faith or attenting

church every Sunday doesn't happen anywhere near those numbers ---

plus, the churches have revealed they exaggerate numbers.


Why not appeal to nuts who believe every word of the Bible is true?????

These are Evangelicals --- !!!

This is the religious-RIGHT he is promising to strengthen--!!!


You're also making presumtions about the "good things these institutions do."

It's simply privatizing government --- and whether it's Halliburton or the Catholic Church . . .


I say, NO--!!!!



Separation of Church and State is a Constitutional expression of liberty --- it gives

you your HIGHEST PRIVILEGE which is freedom of thought, freedom of personal conscience.


That is no small issue -- it is one of the ideals of democracy.

I think your misunderstanding about it is simply that --- your misunderstanding.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PerpetuallyDazed Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #363
406. Here ya go...
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

And I don't see how his plan empowers anyone more than those who are poor and hungry. Let's be pragmatic a moment--can we not both agree that you're never going to have an ideal situation to achieve your goals? You have to compromise somewhere, and that's what Obama's doing. For many reasons I believe "the ends justify the means" in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #406
441. Did you like the founders compromise with slavery . .. ???
Let's not compromise Separation of Church & State ---

Let's keep State out of church affairs --- and churches out of state affairs --

Let's have OBAMA talk about actual poverty, homelessness, joblessness --

and what he's going to do about it ---

CLINTON destroyed a lot of our Welfare safety nets --- let's re-establish those!!!

Unemployment benefits have been interrupted and stopped --- let's re-establish that link -- !!!

Trade agreements should be cancelled -- they're simply taking jobs out of the country.

Where's Obama on all of that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
51. He's doing what he's supposed to
He's winning the middle. I hate this part of an election but I think I'll reserve judgment until he gets in, then I'm going to ride his ass like you wouldn't believe. I expect him to behave like a constitutionally educated Democrat with deep values when he gets in. Right now, I expect him to be a slimy Chicago street fighting scumbag politician pandering to anyone and everyone he can get away with pandering to. Right now, I expect him to win at any cost with any stupid promise. Poli-tics = many blood sucking bugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #51
69. IF you can't make him accountable while he still needs you,
it will never happen after the fact. That strategy is a real loser
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Bingo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #69
188. obviously
You would think with all of the frustration and disappointment people express here with Congressional Democrats, that people ahd already learned this lesson, and learned it the hard way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #51
108. this part of an election
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:54 AM by Two Americas
I have never seen "this part of an election" before. I have never read about anything like this any time in our history in any presidential election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #51
367. Evangelicals are part of the whaaco right . . . not the "middle."
Obama is now competing with McCain for who can hand over more taxpayer money to these nuts.

These are the religious RIGHT . . . who believe every word of the Bibble ---

So stop the Wink Wink and wake up ... wake up ---


And imagine how he'll cave when he finally gets some real pressure on him --- like the MIIC.

Wink wink ... !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #367
393. Lefties, Here in Texas They are considered Lefties -
less'un they hear The Lord a talkin' to 'em and speak back out to Him in tongues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #367
415. My non-voting, church going aunt is not the wacko right. She had no
interest in politics at all until her bribed pastor (Creflo Dollar - how appropriate) endorsed bush. So she voted. She is now fully aware that she cast a vote for the devil. This time she will vote for Barack, regardless of what Creflo says.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
442. Destruction of Separation of Church & State isn't the "middle" . . .
it's a right-wing concept ---

Just as "faith-based" anything else is . . .

Let's have government help our citizens --- by ending poverty, homelessness and joblessness ---

Let's hear Obama talk about that!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brindis_desala Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:49 AM
Response to Original message
53. You really need to get out more...

This is nothing new...

Religious organizations have long competed for federal contracts to provide social services, and they have tried to influence Congress on matters of moral and social policy indeed, most major denominations have a presence in Washington to monitor such legislation. But an analysis of federal records shows that some religious organizations are also hiring professional lobbyists to pursue the narrowly tailored individual appropriations known as earmarks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/business/13lobby.html


The charitable-choice policy was added to the SAMHSA law toward the end of the Clinton administration. Congress has included it in at least three major federal programs over the years, beginning with welfare reform in the mid-1990s. President Bush has been a strong advocate for it. In his State of the Union speech last month, he asked Congress to make charitable choice a permanent part of federal law.

While charitable choice allows religious groups to receive federal dollars and continue hiring only people of their faith, supporters noted that it also bans these groups from using the money to proselytize or from turning away needy clients who hold different beliefs.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/19/battle-... /

Clinton agrees to federal aid for religious groups

A compromise between the Clinton administration and the House Republican leadership clears the way for a misguided and constitutionally dubious plan to fund religious groups that offer social services, Americans United charged in May.

While details are still being finalized, both sides agreed May 22 to provide public funds for "faith-based" substance abuse programs. The measure is part of a larger "New Markets and Community Renewal" legislative initiative, an effort that would cost $5 billion over five years to provide investment incentives for poor communities.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200007/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
57. Go Democrats!
:woohoo:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
61. Okay, fine. I think I'm just about done here.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
65. Just a little longer!
Slam his decision! Do it! Lets put the pressure on him and make it clear we are not going to continue to support him doing this. If he starts realizing he is losing his base he may reverse.

He is going to have to earn my support back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:01 AM
Response to Original message
67. hell, we should just tax all churches
and then take the tax money and use it for the "faith based" programs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
369. We need to tax their stock portfolios ... and their real estate holdings . . .
and make only their churches, religous property tax exempt --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #73
86. You said:
"If you're a real Democrat and not just a dilettante, you'll not only vote for Obama, you'll get out your checkbook for him, go out and knock on doors for him and do whatever it takes."

No, sorry.

Those people who do that are Republicans. Single-minded, almost Borg like. I prefer to think for myself and would like our candidate to uphold certain standards, especially when he campaigned on a platform of change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneGrassRoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #86
104. Absolutely. Blind faith in one human being is dangerous. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #86
176. nicely said. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #176
416. Really? And do you really think Hillary would have don't it any different?
If you believe that I've got a nice shiny bridge to sell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #86
200. We're going to have to be just as single-minded
We need to be as committed to democracy as they are to theocracy and keptocracy. If we allow ourselves to be ruled by only those who are most interested and committed, then zealots will win. We need to be just as zealous.

I agree that we all think for ourselves. I have my own opinions about Obama. I wasn't a big fan of Clinton, either. But if we allow these matters to distract us from the goal, this might be the last chance we have to contest an election. Once Obama is elected with Democratic majorities in both houses, then we can talk about the legislative agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #200
371. Be "zealous" in TRUTH . . . not lying . .. not pandering to idiots . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #371
378. Absolutely - blind allegiance under any banner is repugnant to democracy
Leave that shit to the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:37 AM
Response to Reply #73
96. I agree with you. It's still disturbing though. All of it, FISA, Gates, etc.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:39 AM by tom_paine
What you are saying is, essentially, that we don't have a choice and that we MUST not be distracted and we MUST vote for Obama.

I agree. To not vote for him in November is to cut our noses off to spite our faces. And I remember reading here at DU (I haven't researched it's veracity, though) that FDR didn't campaign on the New Deal.

However, what if he does what Bill Clinton did, which is more and more what he sounds like he may do?

Don't get me wrong, Clinton was a great President but he let all the investigations of Bush criminalities and treasons drop "for the good of the country". He helped triangulate the Democratic Party into the spineless mess we are today (with a few exceptions) and thus played right into Bushie hands for shifting the playing field rightward, under everyone's feet and mostly unnoticed. He did nothing to "reconnect the burglar alarms of the Constitution" and in fact helped the Bushies out by disconnecting a few, the Telecom Act of 1996 comes to mind.

There's more, but you get the idea. Thus, while I completely agree with you about standing by Obama and voting for him come November, I am concerned that all he will be is a Good Emperor, as opposed to a Bad One, and that the Bushies will take over right where they left off when next they seize power. It will be as if they were never gone, as it was when Bushler seized power in 1993.

Oh, economically, things were immeasurably better. But the internal rot that is destroying or has already destroyed the old American System of Checks and Balances, privatized the voting systems into untrustworthy, easily hacked unreliability, turned our media into a Soviet media with hot anchorbabes and celebrity news, to name but a few of a dozen or more aspects of the problem?

No movement whatsoever to turn any of it back.

But we shall see. First, Obama has to be allowed to sit upon the throne, and that is something I have serious doubts is even possible, what with our corrupted voting systems, criminal Bushies masquerading as judges, and a massive Bushie Voter Disenfranchisement movement that the Democrats are too afraid to investigate even when they are busted dead to rights in such a way that any substantive investigation will likely blow the lid off it.

Please read the history of FL-13 Jennings-Buchanan in 2006, from beginning to the end moment where our own Democrats killed the investigation before it began (afraid or the Bushie Lie Machine and Toady Media crying "sour grapes"...probably), to see that I am not exaggerating in the least.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying I agree with you Alcibiades, but I am still quite concerned, especially if these things Obama is saying are not simply "campaign tactics".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #96
243. We have to do whatever we can
With our time and money to get Obama in. Once he's in, the policymaking process begins, and we should be active in that. I share your concerns about FL-13, which is a blueprint for how they will seek to steal this election and every one thereafter. I grew up in West Berlin back in the day, and used to watch DDR TV sometimes. The good news is that no one believed it. We're not there yet, but the propaganda on the MSM is nearly as bad today.

I don't think Clinton was a great president, but compared to the alternative, he was FDR. In the meantime, we need to be prepared for every contingency, including the possibility that Obama will be a Clinton. I do think it's premature to start criticizing him for that yet.

It should go without saying that most folks on DU (save for some strange lurkers and DLC types) are way to the left of Obama. I know I am. At this point, however, it's not a choice of half a loaf or no loaf--it's a choice between half a loaf and totalitarian corporate theocracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronopio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #243
269. "Once he's in, the policymaking process begins, and we should be active in that."
Once he's in, any negotiation over his platform is over. He will be beyond any pressure you can apply to him.

Sorry, but while I completely support your activist statements, I'm realistic enough to know that the only leverage you have in a negotiation is your ability to leave the negotiating table. If you and I are chained to that table there is no negotiation - only degrees of capitulation and rationalization.

This is why discovering what your principles are and sticking to them is the only thing you have left after being thoroughly jaded by the game of politics. The game of politics doesn't even give a shit about your cynicism - it uses that in its triangulation. Once you get beyond the adolescent phase of cynicism you realize that the American Presidency (no matter who is in it) isn't the solution to our problems, it's a big part of the problem. It's a power base that everyone else will always have to fight for their own best interests.

"I do think it's premature to start criticizing him for that yet."

It's not premature. We have to go into this deal with Obama with our eyes open and with as much information as possible. He may very well be worse than Clinton. If he's not consistent before being elected, what else do you have to go on other than his inconsistency? If he doesn't even try to be consistent, what is your basis for any kind of consistent opinion about him.

Consistency is a principle, and is not negotiable. If the person on the other side of the negotiating table shows that they don't agree with that principle, you don't know who you are negotiating with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #269
321. I agree
My hope is that this really is just another bit of triangulation. By all means, let us express our displeasure over this with the Obama campaign and Obama himself. Let us harbor no illusions about the true nature of politics in this country, or who it is set up to benefit. Cynicism is not simply an adolescent condition, but an appropriate reaction to the disjunct between democratic political theory and actual politics, and is at least as appropriate a response as the liberal ironism so much in vogue.

As far as Obama goes, he is consistent: consistently Machiavellian.
This isn't particularly necessary, because, with $5.00/gallon gasoline, we shouldn't have to pander to the churchy set. What you say about consistency has great value, but not every point needs to be defended with the same dogged determination. If Obama thinks what it takes to gain the presidency for our party is a cash bribe to churches, then I'm certainly not going to stop knocking on doors because of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #321
361. If you cannot hold him accountable now when he need you the most you will NEVER have that ability
Milquetoast for breakfast, anyone?

Fuck this noise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #361
372. These people are so busy WINK WINKING at each other ...
they can't see what's actually going on ---

Dealing with Evangelicals should not be something Obama is even doing ---

These are religous nuts who believe every word of the Bible is true --- !!!

And, he's promising them more $$$ -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #372
418. Again, I agree with you
I wish I lived in a country where we could even publicly say that. Sadly, we don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #243
284. 100% agreement.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #73
120. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #73
164. Sorry, I disagree about the last bit. i don't need to donate, just vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #164
250. OK
You're probably right, Obama has plenty of cash. Those who can and want to should get out their checkbooks, and we will.

If we are afraid Obama will not follow through, however, we need to be prepared to hold his feet to the fire. That means we'll have to engage in non-election year political activity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #250
374. Do you think I'm giving money to a candidate who on the right . . . ???
If Obama isn't on the right, let him say so ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyclezealot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
75. Pandering
find a pol who won't pander and you have a gem. Is this genuine or just pandering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
76. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Scooter24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
77. I have no problem with faith-based groups
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:11 AM by Scooter24
as long as the money the get from the government is used for the greater public good and not just those who agree with their point of view. They also must remain politically neutral.

There's a big difference between giving federal money to a local church who helps the homeless and giving money to Focus on the Family.

The only thing that concerns me is giving these groups the ability to hire and fire based on faith. But I'll wait for clarification on this point because it wouldn't be the first time the media takes liberties with his speech to make it mean something totally different than what he said.

On edit- I know Obama isn't perfect but he is the best candidate we have this election. Too many of us are focusing on a handful of issues and not looking at the big picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
78. Yuck!
Very disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #78
417. And I ask you, WWHRCD?
What would Hillary do? I think you really do know the answer to that, don't you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #417
434. Your offensive question
is most revealing about your brand of political thinking.

Not everything is a personality cult.

If you would like my list of disappointments re WJ and HR Clinton please let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:14 AM
Response to Original message
79. Calm down. Hillary would have done the same thing.
This is the General Election. O's got to play to the larger audience. Got to throw the wingnuts a bone to help snag the ones on the fringe. The ones who are not happy with illegal wiretapping. The ex-military who are ashamed that we torture. The working class who are hurting economically. Those voters are out there and O' knows he will need every single one to overcome the Neocon Election Stealing Machine (tm).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desktop Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #79
94. You have no evidence Hillary would do the same.
Obama has a history of religious activity above and beyond Hillary Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #94
111. Google "Eugene Rivers" and "Hillary Clinton".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desktop Donating Member (263 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #111
150. I guess I missed the "expansion" part in there
Clinton's director of faith-based outreach, "said that if she were elected, Clinton would continue funding faith-based organizations, but would seek to maintain an appropriate boundary between church and state," Christianity Today reported. "Clinton emphasizes a 'fair and level playing field' for faith-based and secular providers of social services, Strider said."

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=231


Senator Hillary Clinton would respect the separation of church and state, that is a far cry from expanding Bush's faith based initiatives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #111
375. Holy Shit . . . twice --- !!!
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:56 PM by defendandprotect
Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.


Is there nothing but betrayal to be found in the Democratic Party these days . . . ???



I also recall HRC doing some questionable "compromise" garbage at one point about abortion.
Alarming --- !!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #94
201. Hillary tranformed into a beer chugging gun hugger during the primary...
I'll bet money she would have made a move similar to this in the G.E.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #79
254. I doubt that, but it's beside the point.
Pointing to what someone else did, does, or would do does not excuse this anymore than a 5 yo whining, "but he did it too" does when faced with a violation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
80. That's worrying
I like Obama. For the most part, I trust him and think he'll make a fine president but little things like this... They don't bother me enough to reverse my support of him but they make me uneasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neecy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
83. okay, now *this* I hate
The 'support the right to hire and fire based on faith' means one thing and one thing only - they can fire gay employees. This came up with Salvation Army some years back when they claimed their "faith" gave them the right to fire gays. I still walk by their bellringers during the holidays.

Nice to endorse anti-gay bigotry, Barack. Wow. I'm having some buyer's remorse here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lostnotforgotten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
84. Faith Based Initiatives, Attacking Wes Clark, FISA Cave In, Gates As Sec Def
I rest my case, Obama is not liberal, Obama is not progressive, Obama has rolled the left-wing of the Democratic party under the bus.

Before, anyone alerts on me and calls me a democratic underground traitor, I am reporting the obvious !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #84
165. The list of disappointments will grow longer between now and November,
and if he somehow wins, will multiply exponentially in the years to come. Progressives will have no one to turn to.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #165
376. I've continued to be worried about Obama's "church-i-ness" . . .
I'm more interested in people with a direct line to spirituality --

people who avoid middle-men -- or are they the money men?

Hard to tell the difference -- !!!

AT this point I'm really holding my nose ---

I don't think Progressives have anywhere to go right now . . . ????


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
85. Oh for Christ's fucking sake!
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrs_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
87. his support of
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:33 AM by mrs_p
the faith-based initiative is not new. he talked about at the cnn faith forum.

one more thought: i wonder how many folks here live in poor urban centers or have lived in poverty. i grew up rather poor, and it was ONLY faith-based programs that helped us get by - fed us, clothed us, and even helped my sister and i get an education (so that now i am actually in a professional graduate program instead of living in abject poverty with several kids). sure, there are a lot of superchristian jerks out there, but it is often the churches on the forefront of the war on poverty. obama has worked with these churches and knows that they will be more effective with more money. how many people here are on the streets, feeding and clothing the poor? i don't like his supposed support of firing based on faith - but i never HEARD him say this and i'll wait to pass judgment until i do. i wouldn't be surprised if the reporter added that in the stir the flame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
88. This is very disappointing
The so called "faith based initiative" (public financing of religion, let's call it what it is) is one of my main objections to the Bush regime.

I was reluctant to support Obama in the primaries precisely because I was afraid he would do something like this. Damn I hate being right.

I wonder how much money Donnie McClurkin is going to get to run programs to "cure" gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ravencalling Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
90. Doesn't bother me
At the risk of sounding too hateful, I will re-iterate the fact that I would have voted for the pile on my front lawn in a choice between it and Bush. So am I willing to do a bit of compromise? Actually yes.

Although I do not agree with the Faith Based approach per se, I can see more sides to this issue. First, there are churches that should be assisting our communities, especially in the current economy. They already do not have to pay taxes, they should give something back to the community. I would go further and mandate it myself - LOL, but that would be really stretching things.

Mega-Churches. How many of you see these monstrosities in your community? I have one here, with a huge statue of liberty replica - monstrous, that has a sign, bringing America back to God or some such thing. I'll post a pic at some point.

Here is what I would like to see. Every day when I drive by, a line of homeless or less fortunate people in line at one of these mega-churches to get a free meal. I don't see that at these mega-churches. People who cannot afford gas, a line of church buses serving the community by shuttling people to where they need to go, work, grocery store, etc.. These churches can sure afford gas! Every weekend seeing crews of church folks, picking up trash on the side of the road, OR - holding adoption drives for animals that are in shelters. Churches instead of turning out political hate spewing parishioners, putting their parishioners to work in the community. If you think about it, churches don't pay taxes, they need to be giving back to their communities. And if it were me, I would state that if they don't do this, they lose their tax exempt status. I am not happy about funneling our tax dollars which we pay, and they don't into the Churches because I believe a punitive approach would work better. LOL.

Churches do a lot of community work - at least some do. But there are those that could be doing much much more! Don't you think? Go ahead, go drive by and check out some of the 6 flags over Jesus places and ask yourself that question!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
91. I am very concerned about this on
so many levels. Let's take the mega-church morons out of the equation for now. There is no denying that faith-based groups have done and continue to do remarkable social justice work, particularly on the community level. Think of the civil rights movement, the peace movement and local churches, the Catholic Workers, and on and on. Historically, it seems, these groups do the most not when they are working with/for government but when they act either in opposition or as a prod to government. In terms of the individuals involved, my sister-in-law is a great example of so many I've met.She is the average volunteer. She does what she does, not because of her faith but because that work is a manifestation of what her faith assumes people do in the world. She works in her church's social programs very steadily and very unobtrusively. I asked her about it and she basically said "our community has hungry people and kids who need help reading. My church has a place where I can cook and help." That's it. I could be wrong or naieve ( and I know that the concept of "funding" is very broad), but taking funding from the government both potentially compromises the groups that are working for social justice ( even if the money is, say, for a children's heath care program) and would seem to cut off the very essence of the religious community's involvement, a person's spiritual investment and an investment in that community.

Taking the issue of separation of church and state aside ( and yes, I know it is gigantic), with a George Bush agenda it makes the institutional/traditional church simply another interest group acting in collusion with a repressive government, trading votes for money channelled into programs where they can get more people to vote for officials who vote for programs . . . . Now to the good guys. Taking Obama's best motives, and his own community organizing background where he had to have worked with progressive religious groups,as a starting point, I still believe there are dangers for the spiritually and socially progressive groups. It potentially compromises them. One of their jobs is to keep prodding, agitating, to get government to do what it should.

As far as hiring and firing based on faith because, I know where I stand on that. He is flat-out wrong. The rest is pretty complex, and as I do on many of Obama's recent positions, I need to really think about them. I am not a faith-based person, or religious. I am agnostic, at best (Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul. Or not). Still, I would be very interested in what people like Jim Wallis and Bill Moyers have to say on this.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
92. The entire Fourth Amendment is gone, so who really cares
... about ignoring a couple of itty bitty clauses in the First? (There weren't that many left anyhow.)

Establishment clause
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Free-exercise clause
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durrrty libby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. "who really cares" True. If a Constitutional lawyer/ lecturer/prof
doesn't give a shit then why would anyone else? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
95. I worked for a "faith based" social services agency
several years ago. They shorted their clients on services, failed to pay their employees regularly, and generally worked outside the law. I concluded that "faith based" social services existed only to funnel tax money to the church.

I think Obama is making a mistake here, in his attempt to capture the religious Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
97. i can't believe what is happening
this is such fucking bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLib at work Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
99. I heard part of this on the radio this AM, and said to myself, "They MUST be talking about McSame!"
This makes me feel very queasy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
103. Why resist, chant "FAITH, HOPE, CHANGE, . . . FAITH, HOPE, CHANGE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #103
151. Obey. Resistance Is Futile. We Are Borg.
It's only going to get worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #103
394. Yeah, we get it. War hero McCain will save us from the evil brainwashing wizard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
109. A bit misleading. They can't fire persons based on faith if they are supported by federal funds.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 07:55 AM by Kristi1696
Meaning if the person is paid using federal dollars.

As skeptical I am of religious institutions, I live in a poor neighborhood and recognize the special relationship churches have with my community. It's just not something a not-for-profit could replicate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #109
153. So who's going to enforce that rule? The POTUS? The guy promoting the breach?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n0nesuch Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
112. FISA, Gun Control, Death Penalty and now this.
Obama is starting to sound like every other politician (and I am a long time supporter). This isnt the 'Change' I expected or wanted. With leads in both polls and money, none of this is necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #112
186. Leads in the polls at this stage may not mean a whole lot
Dukakis Lead Widens, According to New Poll

Published: July 26, 1988

LEAD: In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll.

This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFD7...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #112
252. Presidential candidates must choose: aristocracy & wealth versus We the People & our debt. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wundermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
113. Fantasy based poverty to continue under Obama...
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:05 AM by vmaus
CHICAGO (AP) -- 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.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."


Simply too big for government to solve? Not at all. Sounds like a Bushism to me.

Btw - insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Either Obama is insane or a deceiver of his true intentions...

Obama is either a fraud or just more of the same insane BuShit.

Progressives: behold the pretender faking change behind the curtain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaDooRonRon Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #113
173. "Progressives: behold the pretender faking change behind the curtain."
We already know.

Trust me.

We've been yelling it out for quite a while now in hopes that at least a few folks would listen.

Maybe - just maybe - the light is coming on for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
latebloomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
114. One pandering to the right after the other
Don't WE get a bone, Mr. B?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThatsMyBarack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
117. Are we all gonna diss him....
JUST because of this? I was looking forward to getting a REAL leader this November. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #117
122. No, there have been a string of failures from him lately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kaygore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
119. I hope that this isn't: Let the pandering begin!
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:18 AM by kaygore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
121. I hope this is a campaign promise that is never fufilled.
This is a very bad move.

I had thought better of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
123. Omigod.
It's like we're seeing the spirit of the possessed George Bush, transferring into Obama.

Brace yourself, boys and girls, because for the next four years we're going to be hearing, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Obama, wake the fuck up! The churches are complicit in the good ole boy network. They are the launderers of money, the cleansers of guilt. They accept hefty donations from the very people who are screwing over community development projects and shorting your people, and then the church calls these malefactors, good citizens, and their reputations can't be touched.

Damn. He doesn't see it, does he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
125. Oh wow - I'm pretty shocked at this
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 08:21 AM by Politicub
Especially supporting their ability to "hire and fire based on faith."

It won't cause me to vote for McCain (nothing would, really), but I was hoping these programs would have their funding frozen or reduced in an Obama administration. Guess I'm SOL on that count.

:sigh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
126. From the Obama campaign:
From a thread posted by slinkerwink in GD - P :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Obama will create a Presidents Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

As Barack Obama has said many times, he believes that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. And many of the challenges we face todayfrom saving our planet to ending povertyare simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

Thats why Obama will help draw on their strength of these groups through the creation of a new Presidents Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that theyre better at lifting people but. But what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Obamas Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will help empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet these challenges.

The partnership will not endanger the separation of church and statebut will harness the energy of these critical groups.

The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practicesincluding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques will only be allowed to go toward secular programs. And Obama will ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

Innovative new programs: training larger organizations to support smaller ones, and expanding summer learning programs to serve one million students

Barack Obama will work with the hundreds of religious and community groups that understand the process to train the thousands of groups that dont. The Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will train the trainers by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Servicesand secular nonprofits like Public/Private Venturesthe support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs.

And the Council will target key challenges like closing the achievement gap. Obama will expand nonprofit summer learning programs to serve one million students by developing partnerships with faith-based and community groups. This partnership wont just help children learnit will help keep them off the streets during the summer so they dont turn to crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MJJP21 Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #126
131. How ?
According to your post money received will not be allowed to "proselytize". How do you stop it? When an organization has x amount of dollars what is to stop them from passing out literature , bibles etc. The money all goes into one pot. A legitimate claim of usage is organizational expenses. So instead of paying this expense from the usual sources of funding they instead divert this to proselytizing.
What about those with no religion? Will they be served equally without prejudice?
I don't believe religious organizations are now bound by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Locally it is widely known that those working for religious organizations cannot be hired unless they are professed members of that particular religious organization. This in itself is a separation of church and state issue. To have them comply with all state and federal guidelines regarding hiring etc is a break from the separation of church and state guidelines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #131
138. Federal funds for a program come with Title VII requirements.
Failure to follow the law is grounds for revoking a grant.

I expect a lot more oversight of these types of grants in an Obama administration. As well as regular audit to document adherence.

The devil, as they say, is always in the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #126
133. Posting facts just angers the trolls
And those without reading comprehension (most of this thread).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MJJP21 Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
127. As I said
As I said early on when I joined this forum you have to ask yourself why were the republicans dying to face Hillary and not Obama. According to the republicans Obama was so far to the left he was going to fall off the earth. If true the republicans should have been biting at the bit to face him but they were and are scared to death. This is very disheartening to hear. Religion has no place as a recipient of govt tax dollars to carry out govt programs. You damn well know that some if not all of this money will not be accounted for and will for sure be used to pass out religious indoctrination in the forms of pamplets, handouts and bibles. This is and will be a crossing the line of separation of church and state. Surly we can do better by encouraging those who can volunteer to render services and be accountable for the money they receive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
128. I voted for Edwards

We been Had?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbc5g Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
129. There is a huge segment of Christian voters that Republicans take for granted
Not anymore. McCain isn't trusted by many Christians and Obama see's an opening. This is how you win in America, folks. It sucks but it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #129
419. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING! You are correct. He's
pulling a fast one on the repukes. I like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
132. Awesome, GOBAMA !!! (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
135. WHY do so many DU'ers
assume that the Faith-Based Initiative is only benefitting right-wing organizations?? The ignorance on this subject is astonishing. I work with a lot of these organizations in my government job managing several milliion dolars in fed funds that my state uses to house homeless disabled people. We take referrals from LOTS of FBO's of ALL sorts who receive federal dollars to provide shelter, transitional housing, drug/alcohol recovery and support programs; you name it, they do it. And they are NOT allowed to discriminate against clients on the basis of religion. And NO one is asking them what they're politics are because it doesn't matter--they serve the poor.

I'm not religious, but it's impossible for me to say that these organizations are not filling a vital role. They do it with or without federal funds, but they do it BETTER with federal funds. The system is not without is abusers, but guess what? My state and the feds watch every single f*cking penny they get. No such funding system is going to be 100% perfect, but if any of you knew how much worse off millions of people would be without it, you wouldn't be whining and moaning like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #135
144. because it's fucking faith based.
it shuts out secular NON pink unicorn reality.

I'm offended by the very existence of faith based crap taking money from the administration of government.

I'm sick of them, truly, madly, deeply.

On the plus side, Obama is being consistent and true to his "image", whichever way anyone wants to take that.

If it's a strategy, I'm disappointed at the lack of innovation. Once again, he is speaking to everyone except the people standing in front of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #144
154. that's why I said up thread to tax them
say, maybe by congregation size...if there are more than 300 or maybe 500 members then they should get taxed, that money goes in to a pot for government grants, faith based initiatives, but it still can't be used to push their religion, only to be used to help those in need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #144
157. It doesn't "shut out" shit.
You, like everyone else here, have no clue what you're talking about. The same money being given to FBO's is also given to non-religious organizations, and always has. Both types of agencies are subject to the same restrictions and both are closely watched as to how they spend their funds and how much they spend. Some FBO's have been applying for and getting these funds for years before Bush came into office.

And most of all, I am offended that you refer to these organizations as "faith-based crap". You have no fucking idea how many thousands of sick, destitute and homeless people these agencies serve. Without them, America would be VASTLY more fucked up than it already is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #157
168. I'm afraid you are clueless.
Sorry, I despise "faith", that's a given. You have no idea nor can you quantify how many secular organizations have received LESS money to help people than AFA or other faith based organizations. Your arguments are at the least equally without merit toots.

You won't be convincing me to like FBOs. I respect the work they do, on their own. Tax them and I'll consider changing my opinion, but the FBO's here in texas suck money out of the economy and all the nudge nudge wink wink oversight in the world doesn't change the fact that they only take care of people of faith, most often their brand.

FBOs are not and should never be the "bulwark" against social ills. Government is about administration, not faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #168
187. I'm not trying to convince you to like them
But I don't believe you have any experience or direct knowledge of this situation to support your statements (while I have years of experience working with these agencies--I am hardly clueless). You despise religion? Fine, I don't much like it either. But I also despise homelessness and poverty and drug addiction, and I see what these agencies do. Maybe it's very different in Texas, but I doubt it.

And explain to me how FBO's "suck money out of the economy", please. Are they not part of the same economy you're in? They buy food to feed their clients; they pay wages and benefits to their employees; they help people get back on their feet, which directly *benefits* the economy. I don't know where you get such an idiotic notion, "toots".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #187
289. Okay
I lived with the psych er intake coordinator for Parkland healthcare systems for ten years.

Let's not pull rank.

two words: Potter's House. Tell me what you know about Texas and I'll tell you where I live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #289
383. I know nothing about Texas
I live in Missouri, so I know how it works here. How it's supposed to work. How it does work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #383
385. well apparently we'fve all been arguing about arguing anyway
according to EarlG's links above.

:blush:

I do think that there are as many organizations abusing it as not though. Keep in mind that my partner and I although deeply anti-religious are also long time significant contributors to the AIDS Interfaith Alliance, gave an unholy amount of money to DIFFA last year and before in cash donations and runway for distribution as they see fit, and of distributions from DIFFA and Black Tie / HRC to organizations with a faith credo.

I would just rather work through private means to get secular money than through the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #157
213. Thank you for your informed perspective.
Even though it goes against my knee-jerk reflexes, it makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #213
228. You're welcome
My knee-jerk reflexes go against faith-based funding too, but I've had a lot time to figure out how it all actually works, and why it *doesn't* violate church-and-state. But most of all I see on a daily basis the good things these agencies do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #144
424. THANK YOU
you are absolutely correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #135
277. It's hard to determine *who* is benefitting, 'cause the whole thing
has not been transparent. As far as filling a vital role...picture yourself in a very rural community as a non-believer trying to get needed services from the only organization in town,and that organization has virtually no oversight and can hire and fire according to their religious beliefs. Do you honestly think that people of no faith, or a different faith are going to be treated right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #277
389. I can only speak from my own experience, but...
I think it amounts to bigotry when you assume that people connected with a faith-based aid organization wil automatically refuse to serve a non-believer or a person of another faith. I have worked professionaly with many such organizations in my state (Catholic Charities and Salvation Army, to name the biggest ones), and they absolutely do NOT do that. many of the smaller agencies I work with ar decidedly *not* conservative to begin with; they are simply driven by the basics of the Christian tenet that you protect the poor and feed the hungry.

FBO's who do get federal funds DO have oversight, if its done properly. For instance, my state department has a staff that travels around the state overseeing agencies that receive Access to Recovery dollars, which is federal money primarily for FBO's who do alcohol and drug addiction recovery services; non-FBO's also receive those funds. And we're talking some very small agencies in some very rural areas. When the process is done *correctly*, as it would be nationwide under an Obama administration, it serves people without discrimination.

It's really a very negative thing to see all religious organizations as corrupt and hypocritical branches of right-wing conservatism, because it just isn't so. It's that kind of thinking that loses us so many elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #389
408. It's not bigotry if you've seen it happen, and recognize that it can happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #408
410. Oh jeez--yes it is bigotry!
Apply what you said to other situations. If a person of 'x' ethnicity is, say, rude to you in public for no reason. Well, "you've seen it happen and recognize it can happen again". Does that make it okay to assume that all persons of that ethnicity will behave in the same way in every similar situation? Sorry to tell you, that is pretty much the essence of bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lars39 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #410
412. Have you ever lived in a small town that is predominately christian?
Where you only get hired to teach in schools if you're Baptist? Or you're kin to the superintendent? Little towns are run like little fifedoms. It is very difficult to buck the expectation of conformity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #412
437. In fact I do
if you consider 35,000 small--it's not to some. So I do know something of this. But you're using personal experience to paint a huge group with a broad brush, and you ought to know better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pierre.Suave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #135
315. I have to agree with you
for the most part.

I volunteer at a local shelter that I am positive gets money from someone other than the church they are affiliated with. They really are staffed by people who care about the homeless and who really try to help them anyway they can, without discriminating against the homeless at all.

I see so much potential for abuse here, and I absolutely HATE the inclusion of religion in anything government related.

But give me a better way to do what these organizations do...

I am very conflicted about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #135
342. Because they think religion is right-wing, or some silly nonsense like that.
I'm religious (in my own way) and I'm a liberal, like many other people. I don't have a problem with this as long as the money is used correctly. Just because a charity is faith-based doesn't mean it shouldn't get federal dollars. Some of these charities are efficient because they have volunteers. I think efficiency should be a criterion.

I think there is some anti-religious bigotry being displayed here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #342
388. I have to agree
on the bigotry aspect you point out. I've never seen so many knees jerking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
143. I must say I kind of like this
I know, I know. But these young evangelicals who are more anti-poverty than anti-gay, more pro-environment than pro-death penalty, belong with us, not with sociopaths like Robertson and Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueJac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
147. ?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
149. THAT'S IT -- HE HAS COMPLETELY JUMPED THE SHARK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #149
163. Don't be so hasty.
The evangelical vote is a huge block. They make no bones about "controlling" the U.S. through voting and putting fellow "Christians" in positions of power.

Taking as many votes away from the Repug side as possible is imperative to winning the election.

Bear with Obama. Hakuna Matada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
152. Separation Between Church and State
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:31 AM by fascisthunter
it's all I'm asking. It's in the Constitution....


"The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept."

Funny how some pretend it isn't even there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #152
161. Where exactly in the Constitution does the phrase "Separation Between Church and State" appear?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amb123 Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #161
233. HERE!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

1st Amendment to the Constitution


THAT'S where it says "Separation Between Chrurch & State"!

THERE IS NO FREEDOM WITHOUT CHURCH/STATE SEPARATION!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #233
240. The word 'seperation' does not appear in that clause
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #240
270. No, it doesn't. But you are using a right-wing talking point
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:44 AM by RufusTFirefly
Just because the exact phrasing isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean the notion isn't implicit in the document. That is a straw man argument.

It was Jefferson who first used the phrase to explain the combined intent of the Establishment and Exclusionary clauses. This is from his letter to the Danbury Baptists, sent on Jan. 1, 1802. (boldfacing is mine).


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


(By the way, "privacy" isn't mentioned in the Constitution either. But that doesn't mean it isn't rendered sacrosanct in the Fourth Amendment.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amb123 Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #240
352. "Separation" is implied.
The word "Separation" does not need to be there. It is impossible to interpret the First Amendment in any way other than the Separation of Church/State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #240
428. oh wow I can't believe I am reading some of this...
some things are CORE TO PROGRESSIVE, DEMOCRATIC VALUES and should not be fucked with. Keeping the endorsement of religion out of government is one of them. I don't give a rat's ass if Clinton "started it", that's just another reason to not allow any more of this faith-based bullshit.

If a Dem is doing something that we would take a repuke to task for, it doesn't change the fact that such a policy is insidious. (D) next to a name does note denote a halo.

DU has lost it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
155. Will the Moonies still get a huge stipend? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
158. Are we seeing the incarnation of
Barack Obush?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
159. UGH...sorry, I don't have much to say, but I figured this would happen.
:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
160. He is a community organizer who wants change from the people up.
This really shouldn't be a surprise that he wants to use community institutions to stregthen communities. Do people want to send in a bunch of government officials into the inner city communities to try to bring about change?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #160
170. I'm surprised people aren't seeing that immediately
and that he has worked for progressive causes within a faith-based framework for many years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
166. Yes... sadly, we still live in the same country that we did last time
and the time before that, and the time before that.

Sadly, we still have to deal with reality.

Jeezus Chreezus with the moaning... frickin offputting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
169. He just lost my support, and my family's. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #169
198. that's too bad
guess you'll be voting for McCain this fall.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #198
210. Get a clue losing ones support does not equal losing ones vote.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:57 AM by Zachstar
It means when Obama gets swiftboated I will be playing video games rather than responding.

It means when he asks for more money I will buy computer parts for my new rig instead.

It means he will get my vote out of fear of a McCain presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maine-ah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #210
368. well, if everyone around here can have a kneejerk reaction, why can't I?
:shrug:

there is more to this, infact, another post about it is in LBN right now. I suggest that everyone who decides to pull their support or vote, go and read the other article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
172. That's disappointing.
I don't whether this is just shameless pandering or if he actually thinks it's a good idea, but at the very least, I hope the funding starts getting pulled from the zealous, rabidly right-wing groups and starts going to more mainline, liberal churches. That way, it's more likely that people are being helped instead of just proselytized.

But, I still don't like it. I think we're actually overestimating our opponents this time, and this kind of pandering (if it is) isn't necessary. Oh well, better safe than sorry I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agentS Donating Member (922 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
175. Soup Kitchens
Aren't most soup kitchens run by churches?
So I see an angle here- fund the soup kitchens because at our current rate, more people than ever will need them.
What's the new stat? 1 in 10 Americans are on Food Stamps/WIC something? THANKS BUSHIE!
And there were some posters here predicting a financial sector collapse.

So get ready folks. St. Obama's already getting ready for another Great Depression. So get ready for some pushin' and shovin' when you get your daily bread.
And thanks to Justice Antonin Shoot-em-up, everybody in the line will have pistols, so no cut-sies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unapatriciated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #175
292. Yep we all will be forced to "take the soup"
Many Americans of Irish descent can still recall stories from the Great Hunger era of English efforts to gain converts to the Church of England. The British sought to capitalize on the starvation of the mostly Catholic Irish poor a starvation they did much to promote by offering life sustaining soup to those who would renounce their faith.

Most preferred hunger or emigration, but those who took the soup or soupers were always referred to bitterly. It was a form of degradation, and worse, a collaboration with their persecutors.


http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishinamerica/letters/...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reflection Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
177. Ai yi yi. This one smarts. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tidy_bowl Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
178. So I guess the gist of what everyone is saying...
.....let Obama be just like the other side to win. Lie, cheat, turn your back on your principles if that is what gets you elected. And then what? Will he as president invade Cuba if that 'what it takes', or have massive deportation of immigrants if that's 'what it takes'? When do you say enough? Or do you turn into same thing as the wingnuts? I am deeply troubled by Obama's sellouts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #178
183. Today's UK Independent puts this very well
"...Those in the Democrat party who supported Hillary Clinton's campaign seem to be taking a certain bleak pleasure in Obama's recent triangulations or rather headlong plunge into Republican territory. One such is the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who put the knife in most elegantly: 'Progressive activists during the Democratic primary... convinced themselves that Obama was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward.'

Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's remorse. The blogosphere is hissing like a catherine wheel with their anger with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them add that 'of course' Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to woo the 'redneck states' and that once in the White House he will revert to his 'true beliefs'.

To this group we must address a simple question. How do you know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny and, of course, his conscience?"

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/domin...

This opinion piece, of which very little is quoted above, makes thoughtful, if depressing, reading.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
181. I have absolutely no problem with this. It's time to put a lid on
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:40 AM by pegleg
all the anti-religious bigotry that goes on here and the democratic party is large enough to accomodate everyone, except those who try to make it a haven for their own selfish interests. I congratulate him on this move wholeheartedly. And I also think that he would have no problem standing for the rights of atheists or, for that matter, anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #181
182. Separation of Church and State... you call it bigotry
yeah.... okeedokee buddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #182
184. I don't think you have any concept of what that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #184
191. Oh I Do Though....
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:53 AM by fascisthunter
:hi:

It was created to preserve both the Church and State from each others influence and collusion which leads to corruption of both. Europe proved both needed to be kept separate. It's why Church's are tax exempt. We already see that with the religious right and the Republican Party. I guess the stupid people in our party think being like republicans is what really won past elections.

No amount of rational twisting will change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #191
195. No sir, it's quite apparent you do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #195
196. you are talking out your ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #196
220. You certainly know how to carry on a civil, intelligent argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #220
237. too bad... I despise liars and twisters of truth
your condescending attitude relating to one of your replies does not warrant you a civil reply, not from me. Why should I be civil to you? And as for intelligence, well, you failed in your first post to exhibit any such thing. Instead of providing something to back up your statement, you give me lip service.... so yes, you talk out of your ass.

Who ever told you the Church and State should not be Separated is also a moron with an agenda to give Church and State more ability to collude with one another. Stupid move and ignorant of history which provides plenty of proof the two should always be separated.

Just ask whack jobs like Pat Robertson what they think, I'm sure they'll agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #220
239. An intelligent argument...
Requires both sides to give points.

Your messages are merely saying "you don't understand" but in no way attempt to make anyone understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #239
265. OK. Here's exactly what I am talking about in an illustration.
I am aware of a homeless shelter which was started and funded by a group of local churches. This homeless shelter takes in everyone. There are normally about 15-200 residents in this place. These people represent a cross section of the population. Many are Catholics, Muslims, practitioners of Santaria, Buddhists, etc. There are absolutely no restrictions on the practice of personal religions in this shelter. They are all fed, clothed, and their individual clergy are invited in to minister to their spiritual needs. No one is forced to pray nor are they prevented from doing so. No religious services are required to be attended. Should this shelter receive the same help as one sponsored by a secular source, even though they perform the same function? That's what we are talking about here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #181
192. anti-religious bigotry ? What? It's the law not bigotry!
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 09:48 AM by Mountainman
I guess you would call the founding fathers anti-religious bigots.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #192
202. No I would call them zealots about freedom. The freedom of all to participate
in this country regardless of creed or conviction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #202
212. You conveniently leave out the part that protects the rest of us from religion.
Read it again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #212
218. it also protects religion from government
how we slip down a slippery slope.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #218
230. bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #212
229. I agree with you entirely on the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #181
197. www.answers.com/topic/bigotry
Bigotry: The state of mind of a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of beliefs other than his or her own.

Humm. So, "Bigot" - Now would that be someone who fires a worker for not sharing their particular superstition, or someone who is bothered by people being fired for simply having personal beliefs that do not match The Boss's views?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
193. This is awful.
I really hope Mr. Obama turns aside from this course. We need a high, thick wall of separation rebuilt between church and state. The government has no business putting my tax dollars to work for any church; the churches have offering plates with which to collect such funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcgindydem Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
194. my pov
I read a lot of posts here and have only posted a couple of times but felt compelled to add my perspective on this move. Let me say first I am a Christian and very involved in my church. Having said that I have no problem with the expansion of faith based initiatives as it relates to their helping the needy in the society. Having lived in the inner city I can see first hand that our city, state, and national governments have woefully failed to address their issues. As far as his stance on hiring practices, as he states his position, I have no problem with it, I know several people who are atheist or agnostic and we can associate and to a degree even be friends, however I would not want that person to be the secretary at my church much the same as I wouldn't want a muslim or a Buddhist or anyone that did not believe as i believe. Religion, the practice of it in your Church, is a personal thing and i do not see a problem with a church having a requirement that you be of that faith to be considered for employment. The concern that I have is this, If a church receives monies for certain ministries ie food pantry, homeless shelter etc and employs someone to oversee that ministry, while I would like that person to be of the faith of that church, where possible, of more importance would be proper administration of that ministry regardless of personal beliefs. So to sum it up I find no cause for concern in his statement other than the difficulty in implementation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #194
204. Oh don't actually post something that makes sense to this crowd
Look, my only concert with Faith-Based Funding is that I want to ensure that the faith-based organizations use no discrimination in who receives the money from our government and unfortunately I think that happens right now. I can't do anything about the hiring & firing practices within the Church but I think you'll find a bulk of these churchs are not as horrid as people make them out to be.

But personally, it's the same thing here in Wilmington - in times of trouble it's the churches that reach out to help those in need. Way too much money going to non-profit organization end up in overhead costs whereas a church can provide that service for a lower cost because these churches already have a building AND a shitload of volunteers available to help with the service.

I wish folks here in DU recognize that the vast majority of us Christians out there are some great people who would do all in their power to help another person. And yet we are judged by the very small minority of extremist Christians that make us look nutty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #194
232. As a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, Druid, Sikh ...
I pay my taxes to the US government, and I do not want my taxes to go to support programs limited to Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Druids, Sikhs ...

However, as a US taxpayer, I am quite happy that my taxes go to support social programs that are NOT limited by creed.

If the religion of a worker in an organization is an issue, then there is much wrong with my tax dollars being taken from me to support that organization. If one wishes to accept public money, then one is obligated to be non-discriminatory. If they wish to practice religious discrimination in employment, then churches should not accept public money.

After seeing the devastation wrought in Europe by centuries of wars of religion, the writers of the US Constution did not wish to repeat those mistakes - It is sad to see that many have forgotten this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
205. "Faith based" doesn't mean the lunatic fringe. The Civil rights movement was
"faith based."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
214. tax the churches first....then audit them, inspect them
and if they can provide high quality services, fund them.

in that order
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #214
382. That would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #382
384. no, it would be reasonable business practice
companies don't contract for services without vetting who they are contracting with.
Why should government contract for services without knowing that the entity was competent of delivering the service
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pegleg Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #384
387. Certainly they can audit them if they operate a nonprofit, but churches
are protected by the constitution against unwarranted restraints by the government. Those kinds of practices are used in China and were used in the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TornadoTN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
215. Concerned & Disappointed lately
This decision concerns me on many different levels, as I've seen first hand how dangerous some of these "religious" organizations are to a community. However, even though I am non-religious, I believe that some of these programs and organizations truly are beneficial and their services are a great asset to troubled communities. The problem is that its hard to differentiate between the two and thus begins the slippery slope. I would have liked to have heard something along the lines of Obama considering this as an option after a thorough review of the program to ensure that A.) People & communities are helped and B.) Programs can't be used to force a political or religious agenda.

I'm still happy to have Obama as my candidate, but I have to say that I'm less and less motivated to donate and spend my time helping the campaign. I suspect that some of this is the typical pandering that occurs and some of it is designed to defuse GOP attack strategies, but I cant help but feel uneasiness by this sudden rush to the right and abandonment of the left. I honestly feel like he has reinvented himself for the general election - when the person we supported and worked for was the one we all thought we were getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
217. Why is everyone surprised? You were warned.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
219. How many DUers will cheer THIS one?
Before I read down the thread, I'm wondering how many DUers will suddenly discover a passion for faith-based initiatives, and how many will be contorting themselves into painful, impossible knots trying to somehow spin this as acceptable.

:puke:

Will, Democrats had choices. He wasn't "the lesser of two evils" in January and February. Nobody forced more than half the voters to vote for this man. His positions were clear from the beginning. There is no comfort in saying "I told you so" to people lifting their eyes and brains above the clouds of inspirational "change" to see the light of day.

I predict that very few will bother to do so, preferring to go blind and deaf before acknowledging reality. He's a right-leaning centrist that sometimes seems to like Republican ideals more than Democratic ideals, has been all along, and we passed up the chance to nominate someone who would produce authentic, progressive change.

He's now the lesser of two evils. Vote with that in mind. Fine.

Can we stop pretend that he's the next MLK/JFK/RFK yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mugsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
223. I think people are over-reacting.
You have to read between the lines.

When I saw the headline, I was afraid I'd hear Obama was looking to expand Bush's existing "Faith Based Initiatives" program, but he said no such thing. He spoke about "getting charities more involved". I read that as a desire to get the Federal Government out of the religious charity business. Though I question just how he intends to get those charities "more involved", I still read that he seeks less government involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #223
231. You've got no problem with federally funded groups hiring and firing based on religious beliefs?
Read the Constitution much?

You don't even have to "read between the lines" to see it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
227. So much for the analytical power of "the blogosphere"
First, read the text of Obama's speech. You will find some interesting stuff in there. For example:

I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, 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.

Now read this statement from the Obama campaign in which they twice correct the AP's bogus report that the plan will allow religious organizations to discriminate in their hiring practices.

Thank you for listening. You may now return to your MSM-induced outrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #227
238. Well said.
Of course, we have to keep in mind, if someone's capable of fogging a mirror they are capable of posting on the tubes.

Hysterical knee-jerk reactions seem to be growing more popular here at DU. Kinda sad. This used to be the place to get the real scoop, not so much any more.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RufusTFirefly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #227
245. Thanks EarlG!
Obama may have his shortcomings, but he's almost always thoughtful and nuanced.

Now here's hoping that his reported position on FISA was inaccurately reported as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #227
246. Blush
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:21 AM by panzerfaust
That seems clear.

Still though, am bothered by how many people here would support such employment practices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #227
248. How Will States Make Sure Money Only Goes to Secular Programs?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM by fascisthunter
Honest question to whomever wishes to answer....


And please, there is nothing wrong with the way folks have reacted to this article. I'm glad to see so many care...



Thank you for this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #248
429. yeah don't hold your breath.
I can only imagine how bloated this program would have to be before it had enough staff for adequate oversight.

How about empowering local governments? Putting some power back into communities WITHOUT the extra problematic layer of religion? Is that difficult? Or is sanity and logic not sexy enough for the campaign trail? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #227
253. Yep...
"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."

But it'll be OK to discriminate based on other factors, like sexual preference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #253
274. JedReport.com flags some aspects of Obama's suggested policy
Here's one: "Their hiring policies must comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.)"

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/07/obama-plans-rol.html

Title VII does not currently include sexual orientation, so it seems that the key is getting Title VII changed so that it does. I would argue that this is more likely to occur under an Obama administration than under a McCain administration.

Also, several states do have laws barring employment discrimination against GLBT persons. Presumably religious organizations operating in those states would not suddenly become exempt from those laws under Obama's plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #227
280. Take someone with you to buy a car.
--Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, 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--

Can you explain to me just how is it they are going to enforce any of that placating bs? Really, explain to me why we should support pulling dumptrucks full of money up to your local church and trusting them to not 'proselytize?' Isn't that what they DO?

I just love using my athiest tax dollars to spread the disease.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EarlG ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #280
294. It doesn't mean they can't proselytize
Of course that's what they do. It means that if they're using federal dollars to, say, run a soup kitchen, they can't hand out Bibles with the soup, or refuse to feed people who won't convert to Christianity. This kind of activity has been par for the course under the Bush administration and it needs to stop.

Obama's plan is to use existing religious organizations to carry out secular charity work. Direct quote: "Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs." These organizations already have a framework in place, and believe it or not many of them actually do good work fighting poverty, homelessness, etc.

If they get caught proselytizing as part of the secular charity work that they're getting funding for, then presumably they'll lose that funding - just like churches are supposed to lose their tax-exempt status if they get involved in politics. Of course that's not how it works right now, because that's not how George W. Bush and his messed up administration want it to work.

So to sum up, we have a choice between a guy who believes in the separation of church and state but recognizes that religious organizations have a role to play in helping the poor and needy so has come up with a plan to make sure that they don't discriminate against the non-religious or use federal funds to proselytize.

Or this guy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #280
298. have you ever done the paperwork required for federal $$?
it is quite extensive. Also, if the religious organization does discriminate, then they are reported, they lose their federal $$. Quite simple really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #298
390. ?? if the religious organization does discriminate ... they lose their federal $$
Is there an example of this that you can cite? That is where an FBO has been held to account??

In both of the past presidential elections, box-churches here in the Lone Star came down heavily for * - not only directly preaching that to vote for * was basically to vote for god's will, but also having * "Vote for Me" signs all over their property.

Durn funny thing, don't recollect that any of them lost their tax-exempt status by directly electioneering - clearly illegal - and I misdoubt any FBO has, or will, loose any money over jus' passing on the Word of The Lord with the soup.

'Cause certainly, being 'Mericans, they will be more subtle than the Christers who refused to feed the victims of the 2004 Christmas Season tsunami: (From 'The India News' Sun, Jan 16, 2005):

" ... Jubilant at seeing the relief trucks loaded with food, clothes and the much-needed medicines the villagers, many of who have not had a square meal in days, were shocked when the nuns asked them to convert before distributing biscuits and water.

Heated arguments broke out as the locals forcibly tried to stop the relief trucks from leaving. The missionaries, who rushed into their cars on seeing television reporters and the cameras refusing to comment on the incident and managed to leave the village....

...'(They are)... now asking us to follow the Christian religion. We are staunch followers of Hindu religion and refused their request...after that these people with their aid materials are leaving the village without distributing that to us,' Rajni Kumar, a villager said."

GodBless: FBOs are fine, As long as you are of the RIGHT Faith.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #227
295. Thank you.
I am much relieved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemiCharmedQuark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #227
305. People *want* to be outraged.
It's almost unbearable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #305
309. EXACTLY!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #227
340. actually let's own it as DU induced outrage
I think it's not even the news item itself though - the fact that it exposes a dividing line on the issue, true or not.

That's the oddity in this thread. The more things change, the weirder they get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #227
420. Thanks EarlG! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzteris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
244. bullsh*t
we may as well elect a republican.

I'm extremely disappointed. WTF is he thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
249. Someone PLEASE explain to me WHY I shouldn't take this
As Obama throwing gays, atheists, or, for that matter, any one who wants a job without having to join a SPECIFIC church UNDER THE BUS, now that he has the nomination and doesn't "need" us, since he knows we'll vote for him because he's less evil than McLame?

I mean, ISN'T he opening the doors to, say, a physician doing important work to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa is suddenly shipped home because the religious charity who employs him or her (with OUR tax dollars) suddenly discovers that they're <gasp> HOMOSEXUAL??? Or divorced, or had an affair, or Roman Freaking Catholic for that matter!!! Or a social service agency routinely firing women employees if they become pregnant because their "values" state that mothers should not work outside the home??

I haven't read all the arguments up thread that no doubt talk about why this is good political calculus, etc., etc.

But if it IS smart, "politically," why, Why, WHY isn't it stabbing in the back gays and others who WILL be discriminated against with OUR tax dollars, now that he doesn't "need" them/us to win, as much as he did in the primaries???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seldona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
257. 'support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.'
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
259. this article from the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/01/barackobama...

just a snip of the article.

"The fact is, the challenges we face today from saving our planet to ending poverty are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama will say, according to prepared remarks. "We need all hands on deck.

"I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular non-profits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike to meet the challenges of the 21st century."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberty Belle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
263. hiring on faith only in NON-TAXPAYER FUNDED activities.
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:36 AM by Liberty Belle
Please be more truthful in describing this.

So, for instance, a Catholic organization that runs a healthcare clinic could NOT hire only Catholics to treat patients, if that's what their federal funds were for.

Do you really think a religious organization should be forced to hire people of other faiths to work, say, in its own church office, assuming there are no federal funds for that?

I'm not an advocate of funding faith-based programs, but if we're going to have them, this is a reasonable line to draw in the hiring/firing requirement.

Also the no funds for proselytizing requirement could be a back-door attempt of Obama to get rid of some of the proselytizing that now goes on. In our area, for instance, there's a big church that runs a ranch to help homeless people learn new skills and get back on their feet. Only trouble is that they force them to listen to religious sermons as a condition of getting help. Sounds like under the Obama plan, those groups would have to stop proselytizing if they want federal funds for such programs. So....this could actually be an improvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
go west young man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
267. Just another sign of how fucked up America really is.
The rest of the world is watching us these days to find out what "not" to do. Religion has always been a blight on the country since the Puritans landed and started killing the natives. It always will be. Obama is obviously using it to get elected but as a person of color he more than most should understand how christianity came to the slaves. It was whipped into them. In the grander scheme of things, things bigger than this election, I find it completely fucked up that he now wants to reward christianity in the United States. All their 'good deeds" come with a price tag. It's called conversion. Bloody loonies believing in the imaginary and pushing that crap on the rest of us. Man America has a long way to go. And the DU policy of can't bash the dem is falling apart by the way as our Dem's seem to mysteriously be republicans in disguise. The site is becoming a joke. I find "Dem's" here advocating for the death penalty all the time. "Dem's" advocating for government sanctioned religion. "Dem's" who are ok with anything as long as they get their "dem" elected. Democrat used to mean liberal free thinker but now it's something else I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
276. If true, I'm absolutely ok with it....
Churches have helped me when I was in need when every private citizen and organization (S.A.) I encountered refused to help. Plus, just a few months ago I got an extremely nice used dresser from a guy who runs the church down the street for only $30.

Honestly, there is not one political agenda that benefits me directly. So I'm not going to start complaining now. What else is new?

Neocons got into FBAs for political reasons, with no regard for the overall good. These circumstances are different, IMHO.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dropkickpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
279. Not surprising in the least
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 10:48 AM by dropkickpa
THIS is the second reason I am so unenthusiastic about him. Hasn't this country suffered enough at the hands of the fundie asshat we've got now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToeBot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
282. And that would be Strike Three, nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
285. Just another pandering corporate whore, still time to nominate Edwards, a real Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #285
392. He was the choice in our house

Sadly, it is too late.

As I repeatedly said: Hillary was the old face of The Machine, Obama, the new - With either, The Machine wins.



McSame too - part of the machine of power, which is grinding out the middle-class, turning the world-clock back to where there are only two classes: The Rich, and the rest of us.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bleacher Creature Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
286. Hasn't this story at least partially been debunked? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davekriss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
288. This is not Change I can believe in, Obama (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwlauren35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
291. I see this as a VERY, VERY GOOD thing.
The data supports faith-based charities as greatly effective in comparison to government "charities". There are rules in place to govern prostelytizing, and that these charities cannot turn anyone away.

I have worked with faith-based charities. They are WONDERFUL. They are feeding the hungry, providing care to newly released felons, housing the homeless. They often give care baskets to those who would go hungry for Thanksgiving. Religious charities facilitate adoptions. They give away scholarships.

Why shouldn't they get some money... when they are EFFECTIVE!!!!

I went through the same level of angst when Bush first started this program, and it was a Buddhist who set me straight. Christians aren't the only ones running such programs. There are Jewish charities. There are Muslim charities.

I would add that there are a LOT of people who would partake in a religious charity BEFORE they would go to the government. The outreach of religious charities is huge. AND, it's MUCH LESS INVASIVE!!!!

I'm 100% for them. People who don't like them are having a knee-jerk reaction, and haven't looked at the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #291
300. Thanks for helping people.
I totally agree, and wonder if the people who are complaining would ever help me if I were in need again?

If these groups took 'faith' out of their missions, there would probably be no problem. Churches have helped me a few times, and they made no attempt to 'convert' me whatsoever.

I really don't understand what is wrong with government helping people help one another.

Well, I guess they can, as long as they don't 'believe' in anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #291
322. effectiveness is irrelevant when we'r dealing with the erosion of chuch-state separation
Wake the fuck up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #291
366. YOU do not get to define my reaction. It seems your church friends have taught you condescension
very well.

My reaction is based in my absolute hostility towards mixing ANY state money with the church PERIOD. It is a position I have held consistently for over 20 years and it is based on the fact that this is a fucking DEMOCRACY and a SECULAR GOVERNMENT not a FUCKING THEOCRACY.


You want to support faith-based BULLSHIT do it with your own GODDAMNED MONEY.

Bush was WRONG.
Obama is WRONG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
missTheBigDog Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
297. Completely, and utterly disappointing...
As a lifelong Democrat, all I can say is wow. It's well known that many idiots on the right truly believe he's a Muslim and he's trying to change this, but to this extreme?? I just can't believe it. He's going against almost every Democratic principle. I was a Clinton supporter and but I reluctantly put myself behind our candidate. Now, he's making it more difficult for me to trust him as our President. I hate to say it, but is McCain really looking better right now? I have 4 months to grapple with this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
310. Despite this, we still have to prevent McCain from getting in,
he would be infinitely more destructive to this country. There is no choice left this late in the game. Obama will have my vote, but I will not agree with everything he does, and know that the reason he is being allowed to be a contender for office is that he is not for impeachment, is not speaking out against corporate rule, and is appealing to the middle. Obama is not Kucinich or Edwards, but he is the best we have.

Bush&Co put into place a powerful structure, and they are obviously still there, we cannot fool ourselves with false hope. Replacing corrupt officials will have to be done one at a time, until the tide is turned in the other direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
313. Does this mean he will support the "Pro Life, anti choice"groups with funding?
What about the religious based "anti gay" groups? Is this why he pandered to the "gay rehabilitation movement" Will he fund them as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbonds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
314. I feel betrayed with this.
If this is pandering to pick up right wing votes, it is also a betrayal of the left. I tried to understand the politics of FISA and rejecting Clarks statement, but this I can't. It has completely turned me off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
316. This has become Comical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
318. Here's the lesson from this election cycle:
If the mass media are talking up a candidate, don't vote for him/her.

Look closely at the "unelectable" candidates, because they are the ones with principles, the ones who won't play footsie with the corporate interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emald Donating Member (718 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
319. this is terrible, a horrendous mistake
so who decides what "faith" is going to get the riches? How about the lds bunch in texas? Can we send them some money to support the child rape? How about a satan sect, surely that "faith" should get some also.
This whole idea of using "faith" based distribution stinks so bad that our forefathers are rolling in their graves. What the hell? Obama seems to think the constitution is a maleable and fungible document, take some away there, add some there. Lying to get votes is lying. Pandering. Ugly beyond belief. If this man really thinks that faith based social funding is a good thing then screw him. I've had it. Does no one understand the constitution any more? CONSTITUTION you miserable idiots. Wow, am I disgusted. Maybe Bob Barr would support the constitution. First FISA and now faith based funding. Obama is one scary politician. I would've voted for Edwards, but not this man. Never. Flame away, support of a strong constitution is patriotism at it's best and I see no patriots out there. My voice won't matter, but I gotta say how disgusted I am that Obama would support this steaming pile of bushit. This is very bad. I really feel wounded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
323. HOLY SHIT . . . !!!! and "problems too big for our government ..."--!!!
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:01 PM by defendandprotect
THIS is sickening ---

Except for the fact that McCain would probably totally knock out separation of Church & State

to kiss religious ass -- I'd be giving up on Obama at this point.

Don't worry about infrastructure ---

Don't worry about Social Security/Medicare ---

Our public schools ---

Be sure to start out giving money to "god."


What crap!!!


PS: By the way the Catholic Church will get most of this money because they have the
most organizations/set ups to funnel money thru.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
332. I can deal with a lot, but I don't think I want to rationalize this one away.
If he keeps this up, I am done and will write in my vote for who I believe in. Maybe the Democratic party will never acknowledge nor have respect for the Constitution unless its politically expedient for them.
I am deeply disappointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
333. Clinton (Bill) supported faith-based programs
I'm not wildly crazy about them myself but I don't see any particular problem (in principle) with giving faith-based organizations some assistance to help people in their communities and, unlike Bush, I think that he will really use them for what they were intended to be used for. I don't like the idea that religious organizations receiving government funding are allowed to discriminate (and maybe this is something Obama/Congress can later fix) but, given Obama's religious/spiritual background, I'm not nearly as shocked by this as I am about his (qualified) support for FISA "reform" nor am I really concerned about whether he follows through with this pledge or not as long as he and Congress ensure that the money is really being used to help people within their communities and not just filling the coffers of televangelists and their "megachurches" or religious right lobbying organizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #333
430. yeah, another reason to toss em.
thanks for this Bill, oh and shove NAFTA up your ass too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
335. Buying the Christian right wing votes or does it go to all religions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fox Mulder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
337. I don't like this at all.
Why not use the money to expand the current programs we have? Why blow it on faith-based organizations?

This is unreal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EMAN51 Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
360. I love the obvious contradictions that exist
with the competing threads on page 1 of LBN. "Obama to scrap Bush's Faith Based Initiatives" and the "Obama to Expand Faith Based Initiatives". A guy could get a little confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberalynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
364. So he gains a few Republican's and looses a lot of the base?
Edited on Tue Jul-01-08 12:48 PM by Liberalynn
This is why we keep loosing elections people, because our side panders to the right too much! Liberal Democrats who could help win elections just stay home because no one represents us or the CONSTITUTION anymore. There is getting less and less of a noticeable difference between the 2 parties, and lets face it the Republicans are better at being Republicans, then Democrats are at being Republicans.. All they both want to do is kiss fundie buttocks, and screw the Constitution.

That is wrong and indefensible no matter which side does it and for what reason. Without the Constitution we are ALL screwed people. All JMHO

You give a way a few pieces of candy to attact new voters, you don't give away the whole shop and leave your loyal customers out in the rain.

Democrats need to start worrying about Democrats again and quit peeing on their base.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
365. Way back at the beginning of the primary...
I asked Obama supporters what they were willing to compromise in order to have this "unity" and "working with republicans" that Obama was talking about. I was assured that they wouldn't have to compromise....Obama could influence Republicans to see things his way. I heard that from a LOT of Obama supporters who got highly offended when I told them how naive that thinking was.

Well, here ya go! This is what that unity and working with the Republicans looks like. Anyone who had bothered to read Obama's Renewing American Leadership could have seen that he sounded more like a neocon than a liberal.

Need a job? Don't apply to a faith based ministry if you are an atheist, Wiccan, or homosexual....it's completely legal for them to discriminate against you. Wow, how's that for progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
377. K&R -- to make sure that everyone sees this . . . !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
379. And WOW . . .what a huge success this looks like .. . . WINK-WINK . ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babydollhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
386. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tpsbmam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
391. On the faith-based initiative, Obama's way isn't Bush's way
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/07/01/faith...

I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So when I saw this Associated Press feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair.


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


Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it's being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind. I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush's approach. In fact, it's largely the opposite.


Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, 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.


Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and wants to strengthen them, not abandon them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
395. IS HE EXPANDING OR SCRAPPING THEM?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Two distinctly different articles.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/news/economy/obama_econ...

What Obama says (or doesn't say) about American jobs says a lot too. Until he says something of substance, the future appears to be a total crash of America's economy. And will that take down the rest of the global economy too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asteroid2003QQ47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
397. Increasingly losing my will to bother voting come election day.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
-- George H. W. Bush, to American Atheists' reporter Robert Sherman in 1987, while serving as vice-president

I got the memo! Only the "Faith Based" are first class citizens.

Nominate Edwards!
----------------------------------------------------------
If a nation is unable to perceive reality correctly, and persists in operating on the basis of faith based delusions, its ability to hold it own in the world is pretty much foreclosed.
--Morris Berman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
407. I'm pointing and laughing at all who fell for this
When will you all learn not to get sucked into corporate media bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #407
425. I am not the one who "fell for something"
YOU ARE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #425
431. what she said!
:salute:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #425
435. If you didn't fall for coproate media spin
then I guess you weren't who I was talking about, are you?

But don't think I don't appreciate the 6 year old style retort. I do.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asteroid2003QQ47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #407
433. Silly girl! Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than...
the disposition of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they cannot comprehend.
--Samuel Johnson

-----------------------------------------------

The lesser of two evils is evil. - Seymour Leon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #433
436. What of those
who ridicule that which they fully understand and determine to be utter foolishness? :shrug:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asteroid2003QQ47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #436
447. They go to the polls on election day,
sit outside and watch the suckers vote!

----------------------------------------
Apparently, a democracy is a place where numerous elections are held at great cost without issues and with interchangeable candidates.
--Gore Vidal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
411. "support their ability to hire and fire based on faith." Damn, I miss Hillary.
I can now clearly see that Senator Clinton was by far the superior candidate. And believe me, I never thought I'd be saying that in a million years.

I didn't vote in the primary because I didn't see much difference between the two.

Now I sorely regret not voting for Sen. Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
423. When is someone going to pander to US??????
Repugs pander to the right.

Dems pander to the right.

Who in blazing hell panders to progressives?

NOBODY. AND IT'S GETTING REALLY FREAKING OLD!!!!!!!!


Fine. They don't need or want my vote, they won't get my money either.

Fuck them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dman Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #423
444. Well said!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dman Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-01-08 11:04 PM
Response to Original message
443. What the !!!!
Ok let me get this straight....

Bush is for FISA, now Obama is for FISA.
Bush is happy with the 2nd amendment ruling, now Obama is happy with the ruling.
Bush is for faith based BS, now Obama is for faith....

I can't even continue. What's going on and why this? Obama didn't rise because he adopted right wing ideas...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowwood Donating Member (550 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-02-08 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
448. Disappointing
Sen. Obama. Your best asset is your integrity. Don't compromise it. Maintain separation of church and state.
You can believe that the fundamentalist megachurches will find lots of ways to drain money into their questionable programs. How can this be monitored? Every crooked evangelical in the country will be figuring out a way to get this money.
Of course, ANY other religion besides Christian religions must have access to the money, also. Is that okay with everybody?
I have no problem with people who want to practice their religion. But keep my tax dollars out of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-04-08 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
453. This is making it harder for me to vote for him
Considering he's not McCain is keeping me from voting against him, but statements and actions like this make me seriously wonder if we've been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 22nd 2014, 05:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC