Our party has supported funding faith based organizations past 8 yrs

[seasat]

The Democratic party has supported this initiative for at least 8 years. With all the hullabaloo over Obama endorsing funding faith based organizations, I decided to check the past platforms of our party in 2000 and 2004. Here's what Barack Obama proposed:

Obama wants to expand President Bush’s program to steer federal social service money to religious groups, but he put stipulations on faith-based organizations that would receive money under his administration. Among them:

• They would not be allowed to use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.

• They could not discriminate against nonmembers of their church or religion, but must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against populations they serve.

• Religious organizations that receive federal dollars could not discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.

• Taxpayer dollars could only be used on secular programs and initiatives.

Here's what the 2004 Democratic platform under John Kerry stated:

We honor the central place of faith in the lives of our people. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. We will strengthen the role of faith-based organizations in meeting
challenges like homelessness, youth violence, and other social problems. At the same time, we will honor First Amendment protections and not allow public funds to be used to proselytize or discriminate. Throughout history, communities of faith have brought comfort to the afflicted and shaped great movements for justice. We know they will continue to do so, and we will always protect all Americans'freedom to worship.

Here's what the 2000 Democratic platform under Al Gore stated:

Faith-based and community-based organizations have always been at the forefront in combating the hardships facing families and communities. Democrats believe it is time that government found ways to harness the power of faith-based organizations in tackling social ills such as drug addiction, juvenile violence, and homelessness. However, in contrast to the Republicans, Democrats believe that partnerships with faith-based organizations should augment - not replace - government programs, should respect First Amendment protections, and should never use taxpayer funds to proselytize or to support discrimination.

They all say the same thing. Obama is not running to the right on this issue. He is following the past platform positions endorsed by our party over 8 years.

If y'all get time read through those old platforms and compare it to the Obama's positions. Obama's platform has definitely moved to the left on health care and energy as compared to those previous platforms. We've definitely moved to the left on Iraq since 2004. Look through Obama's stances on media diversity and net neutrality. He's more liberal on those issues than previous platforms. Folks, while the current positions may not be as liberal as some would like, our party and the country have both become more liberal on most issues.

[yardwork]

1. The government has been supporting faith-based initiatives for more than eight years.

Ever since - when was the first Congress? Anyway, your point is good, and thank you for posting your research.

This and several other "shocking" revelations about Obama this week are nothing but nothing. Just a big load of nothing.

[sandnsea]

2. Clinton started them in earnest

It's been Dem policy for a really long time.

[ellacott]

3. Thank you for posting this

It's frustrating that so many people are condemning Obama for this when it's been a part of our Dem platform for so many years. Neither Gore nor Kerry received this much criticism. I think many are letting the media pull the strings.

Even before Clinton incorporated this program it had been in existence for many years with Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, Bnai Brith and the Jehovah Witnesses. This is not new.

[seasat]

4. I agree with y'all

I just noticed that it wasn't an "official" part of our party platform until 2000. When I get time, It would be interesting to draw up a table comparing the previous platforms on each issue to Barack Obama's issue positions. In my quick review of them, his positions are much more liberal than our past candidates.

[patrice]

5. Am I wrong in thinking this will be an opportunity to ride herd on the tax status of churches?

I generally approve of churches putting their money where their mouth is in regard to living the Good News.

What reforms of the existing Faith Based Initiatives are necessary? possible? Is it possible to control the level of executive compensation and the kinds of boards-of-whatever they have? Working boards are much preferable to do-nothings who draw very nice tax deductions for what is essentially a monthly social engagement.

[AZ Criminal JD]

33. You are wrong. Taxing would violate the 1st Amendment

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. It was a bad idea then too n/t

[katandmoon]

7. Exactly - I do not want one cent of my tax money to go to a religious group

They should not be performing GOVERNMENT functions.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

8. fair point, tho i have two questions for you

1: Until the government has the facilities and people do do the job who should do it?

2: should the fact that its a religious group that arranges/is behind an sectarian public service mean that they should be refused financial help, if yes then isn't that discriminating the religious groups?(in that you are purposefully deny them funds that you would give to a group doing the same thing that was *not* religious)

[TechBear_Seattle]

9. Consider: Secular groups doing exactly the same work do NOT qualify for government funds

As long as the money goes to religious groups and not secular, it is wrong no matter how incompetent our government is in providing necessary social services.

[ellacott]

10. That's not true

I've worked with many secular groups that have received federal funds. Groups who didn't get federal funds may not have known how to apply for them. A grant writer might have helped them.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Religious groups are being singled out through the "faith based" program

Money that is given based on the work being done goes to both secular and religious organizations. "Faith-based" monies go exclusively to religious organizations; secular groups are explicitly excluded from participation.

[ellacott]

19. But there is proportionate money out there for secular orgs.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. No, there is not

Most government funding programs benefit both secular and religious charitable organizations equally; all that matters is the work being done. "Faith based" programs benefit only religious charitable organizations; secular charitable organizations are excluded. There are no programs which benefit only secular organizations while excluding religious organizations.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

[ellacott]

22. Because it's not logical

There is money out there for all. Secular orgs. are not getting money taken away from them because of this program. Just because they don't qualify for this program doesn't mean they are losing money.

Why is THIS so difficult to understand.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. I never said anything about anyone "losing money"

Religious charities have two sources of government funds: those funds available to all community service organizations, and those which provide only to "faith based" programs. Secular charities have only one source of government funds: those funds available to all community service organizations.

Why are religious organizations being singled out for special treatment? Can you answer that?

[ellacott]

34. Yes I can

A lot of the funding that goes to community service organizations exclude churches. Many of the tutoring, after school programs and soup kitchens don't receive federal funding. They are paid for by the church and many of he workers are volunteers.

[Terran]

41. Wrong again

Only about 20% of all federal assistance dollars go to faith-based organizations.

[Terran]

40. you are wrong

Even programs that target faith-based orgs are available to non-faith-based agencies. This is typical ignorance of how all this actually works.

[katandmoon]

37. In response:

1. Here's a question in response to your question. How do we know ANYBODY Is doing it? Who is monitoring these religious groups to make sure they are doing it, or doing it the way they're supposed to be doing it? Over and above that, who is selecting these religious groups in the first place and what criteria are they using?

2. Huh?

[Duder]

18. So you're opposed then to...

Federal student loans, medicare, and medicaid, since tax money sometimes goes to religious hospitals and universities.

[katandmoon]

36. Actually, yes, I am - I don't think federal money should support any religious institution

[mloutre]

11. K ampersand R

[JerseygirlCT]

12. Thank you

But I'm afraid injecting anything sensible into this conversation here seems to get you nowhere. People are enjoying their indignation too much, it seems.

[Hugin]

13. It might be okay, if at the same time funding is restored to real science.

Which has been incrementally starved and privatized starting with the Republican Congress and ultimately almost
zeroed out under Bush.

Basic Research is a category of faith based funding I'd like to see restored.

Only one of many areas which have been left to go to seed.

[demokatgurrl]

14. That doesn't make it right, or Constitutional

and I for one had hope that, with a Democratic administration, we might get back to running a legal, Constututional, secular government. The kind that a "Constitutional scholar" would appreciate and favor.
Dems have been pandering to the religious right for years, just to keep up with the Repugs

[JVS]

15. It's O.K. if you're not Obama

[Solon]

17. Bad idea then, bad idea now, why is it that people find it acceptable when Dems do it...

but not Republicans?

[ellacott]

20. I think it's the purpose that they use it for

Bush was using it to buy off a voting bloc. I don't think this is the motive for many Dems.

[Solon]

35. So? What does motive have to do with it when it was a bad idea in the first place?

Besides that, the motives are actually far more insidious, its an attempt to gut public social programs and replace them with private charities instead.

[ellacott]

38. Motive has a lot to do with it.

They aren't trying to gut public social programs. No one is talking about taking anything away from.

[Solon]

42. The money has to come from somewhere...

if not from social programs, then from where?

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

23. Sadly this post will go unnoticed

to the people who pretend to support Obama while they feign outrage at every turn. Hopefully some around these parts are actually here to get informed and will read this - thanks for posting the facts about Obama's stance and how he's not what the MSM is trying to make him out to be. You do a great service to Obama and his true supporters.

[Tim4319]

24. I believe this is a good idea.

I see a lot of people are not in agreement with federal money going to Faith Based or religious organizations. I believe if these organizations are closely monitored and abide by the rules of receiving funds it will work out great.

Billions of dollars are going to fund the occupation in Iraq. Why not use some of that money to fund programs here in the States, even if a Faith Based organization falls under that umbrella. I was raised in the church, and I have seen what good things churches can do in their respective communities. I'm not sure what the fear is all about! If the money is being used for good, regardless of the organization that is handling the responsibility why is there so much concern?

[dsc]

25. there is actually a big difference that I have yet to get an answer too

by putting the modifier religious before discrimination, Obama muddies just what discrimination he would forbid. Are gays covered here or not? Are unwed couples covered here, or not?

[seasat]

26. He hasn't released a detailed plan yet...so don't know yet.

The reason that line was included in the speech is that it was one of the safe guards that the Clinton administration had in place when supporting some of the religious charities. Bush pulled that safeguard out so he could target funding to partisan groups that support Repubs. Barack Obama is supporting what the previous Democratic platforms have supported with safeguards against partisan abuse or proselytizing. I think that statement on banning religious discrimination was included solely as a pledge to put back in place the safe guards that Bush removed. It was not as a statement of their complete policy on hiring by these groups. We'll have to wait and see the details of his plan.

I have mixed views on this issue. Religious based charities can do some social work effectively and cheaply. They subsidize their work through donations from their members and have volunteers that work for no pay. They are community based and usually better understand the needs of the local area better than other groups.

However, as seen under the Bush administration, there is a lot of potential for abuse. Like you point out, some of the groups may discriminate based on sexual orientation. While large faith based charities have worked with the federal government throughout the entire history of the country, there may be some problems with small groups that get added into this mix. There is a greater potential for fraud like we've seen here in Florida's voucher program. Relying on any private group to do government services does not provide the transparency about their operations that is available through government programs. Obama addressed some of these issues in his speech but I'm waiting on a position statement on his website before I draw my final opinion on the matter.

[dsc]

28. I will withhold my judgement

until this is clarified. But frankly, his history doesn't help him here. Had Dean or Kerry said the same exact thing I would be a bit more willing to cut them some slack.

[MadHound]

29. Just because the Democratic party endorses FBF doesn't mean that we should blindly follow

Sorry, but would you apply the same logic to slavery? After all, the Democratic party endorsed that also, should we all have gone along for that ride?

Sorry, but parties take stupid, foolish and unconstitutional positions, we are not obliged to follow them. In fact when they get waaaay out there, as with this current position, we are obliged to rein them in.

[ellacott]

30. Slavery is SUCH a bad, bad example

No one said anything about blindly supporting. What is amazing to me is the fact that there was no outrage until Obama decided to do it. You are holding him to a higher standard that all of the other Democrats.

You will never agree with everything a person or candidate does. That's to be expected.

[Runcible Spoon]

31. oh please. there was PLENTY of anger about faith based bullshit every time a big program went up

for funding...and outrage at the Dems who voted for those programs too. That we are holding him to a different standard is a canard; he is running for PRESIDENT and these are HIS policy decisions so of course he is going to generate more heat than other Dems. When/if they vote on it, they will get shit too.

Haven't paid much attention, have you?

[ellacott]

32. Oh please to you, there was not plenty of outrage

I remember when Clinton proposed and there was not a lot of outrage. Most of the outrage was directed at a portion of the welfare reform but not the faith based initiatives. When Gore proposed it there was also not a lot of outrage. Gore and Bradley were going at each other about how proposed it first.

Yes, I do pay attention.

[Occam Bandage]

39. Beyond that. It was Clinton who started the idea of considering effectiveness instead of ideology

when allocating federal financing to charities.