Obama selects Pastor, 26, to Head Faith Office

[Critters2]

Source: Washington Post

By Michelle Boorstein and Michael D. Shear
President Obama has named Josh DuBois, the 26-year-old who ran religious outreach for his presidential campaign, to head the White House's new office of faith-based programs, a White House aide said today.

DuBois, who has worked as an associate pastor for a small Pentecostal church in Massachusetts and received a master's degree in public affairs from Princeton University, was widely expected to get the position and is considered close to the president, for whom he also worked in the Senate.

DuBois's appointment to run the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- first reported today in the New York Times -- is the first publicly known detail about the future of the office, which partners with faith groups on social service issues and helps advise them on applying for federal funds.

Obama aides have said the president's effort will expand the faith-based office at the White House. Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives made a priority of placing faith offices within federal agencies, but was criticized by some former high-ranking staff for becoming politicized.

Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/29/obama_selects_pastor_26_to_hea.html?wprss=44

[bluestateguy]

1. Watch the conservatives start tunring agianst this program

Why? Because the Obama Administration will likely make funds availible to liberal Christian churches, Muslim mosques, Hindus and other non-Western religions.

[Hardrada]

6. Or...or could we just start our own religions and get some

government funds for whatever programs we want to set up. My program would be hands-on training for virgins wishing to become temple prostitutes.

[aquart]

20. First National Church of the Exquisite Panic.

That was the bronze plaque on a building near me for decades. I always thought that sounded like a church I could join.

[southerncrone]

25. I actually hung out w/a group that did charter their own church in

the early '80's.

Their dogma consisted of going to the lake every Sunday & consuming bread, wine & beer.
Oh...and weekly self-Baptisms! LOL!

They were a very devout bunch! Enjoyed their church more than any I'd ever attended!

[Hardrada]

91. They had the right idea!

[No Elephants]

36. Shame on liberals for not screaming about this office when Dummya started it. Or as Obama continues

it.

[LostinVA]

44. I totally agree -- it ahs NO PLACE in our Government

[blues90]

87. I'll second that . How does this sort of office still stand

doesn't represent everyone and it has no place in the government let alone the whitehouse.

[bdamomma]

56. weird, I thought church and state was supposed to be separate?

what the hell?

[Zhade]

95. Um, I have, but most liberal believers won't accept that this is wrong.

Despite the fact that it is.

[Le Taz Hot]

96. I'm there

and screaming my head off but no one's listening. I hate that Obama kisses up to the hate mongers. So much for separation of church and state.

[marshall]

51. New Mantra: What happened to separation of church and state?

You can bet we'll be hearing it.

[FiveGoodMen]

69. And why shouldn't we?

[dixiegrrrrl]

68. President Obama is very good at hoisting the opposition on it's own petard, isn't he?

Clever move, once again.
Defining "faith based" broadly and legally includes more than fundie religons.

[Runcible Spoon]

2. Not a fan of having a Office of Faith Based whatever at ALL

Why can't they just call it the Office of Community of Initiatives and perhaps just allow churches to participate in the programs as opposed to fucking creating the whole office around religion? Ughh.

[Critters2]

4. That seems like a good idea to me. nt

[ixion]

13. Exactly: Separation of Church and State

get rid of "faith-based" BS.

[derby378]

3. WHY do we still have an Office of Faith-Based Programs?

Look, I know Obama is reaching out to evangelicals, but separation of church and state is more than just some sweet old-fashioned whimsy watchadoodle.

[harmonicon]

14. exactly what I was thinking

This makes me feel kind of sick. Tax dollars are going to pay for this..... right now!!! What a fucking waste, at the least.

[pacalo]

90. Agreed.

[askeptic]

5. How on earth did we ever survive without this before Bush?

Do we really need an office to oversee "faith-based" programs? In fact, there ought not to be any "faith-based" programs. This is a secular government according to the Constitution. I was hoping Obama would do away with this nonsense.

[earcandle]

9. Me too, this sucks.

The Hypnotist

so good, we give it to you twice! one (above) is rocking roll with distortion by X-tal and the
other (below) is sweet oboes and violins and harmonies by J Neo Marvin and The Content Providers.

The Hypnotist

on brainwashing of the sleeping sheeples

its free, feel free to share if you like them.

[terisan]

10. Obama pledged to expand Bush's faith-based programs and eight wing religious

think he will exempt them certain laws regarding personnel

Organized religions and Obama are building an alliance. They want money and their social agendas passed, he wants their ability to get out the vote for him in 2012.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Obama obviously didn't 't need

the nutso fundies in order to get elected as the recent election just proved. They sure as hell didn't vote for him. Reagan is the one who first brought the nutso fundies into the political fold in 1980 which gave them legitimacy -- something they had never had before (for good reason!). Separation of church and state is more than a slogan. The Founding Fathers KNEW what havoc religion plays in government and it certainly has NO place in a Democratic Republic such as ours.

[crikkett]

11. Perhaps they're not wanting to pull the rug out from underneath the

programs that are dependent upon Bush's system and the people who are dependent on those programs.

[Left Coast2020]

30. He should include it in something else unrelated to religion and....

Bush. Additionally, it was criticized as a waste of taxpayers money. Same with Homeland-F'd Up Security. Since when did we become a "homeland"? I don't want my tax dollars going into anything that criminal piece of crap from Texas created.

[crikkett]

50. I agree with all of it...

and now look at how much $$ is being sucked up by 'homeland' security.

When I was a kid in Hawaii we called it 'mainland'

So maybe with a Hawaiian President the names will change

[biopowertoday]

73. agree. the funds could be given to HHS to distribute to the states. Expanding is

office is very very troublesome to me.

[No Elephants]

39. No. Google David Kuo. Bush's counterpart of this office was a cynical farce.

[crikkett]

52. So there's no faith-based program in operation right now that's worth preserving? Not one that

actually helps real people in need?

I'm not sure, I bet you're not sure, and I bet Barack Hussein Obama is pretty sure he doesn't want to beat a fundamentalist wasps' nest with a stick by dismantling the office in his second week.

[No Elephants]

54. That is different from assuming that Bush had programs in place. But who says dismantling the

office ends funding for programs already in place? One does not follow from the other. Besides, this entire line of discussion seems beside the point. Obama has not given any indication that his actions are based only on not pulling the rug out from under existing programs. To the contrary, his campaign website had mentioned expanding fbi.

[kestrel91316]

7. I can just imagine what the Founding Fathers would think about a

faith-based office of ANYTHING in the White House..........

[Art_from_Ark]

28. I don't think too many of them

were particularly fond of government and religion getting too cozy with each other. I think Thomas Jefferson especially would have a fit. The Founding Fathers lived in a time when kings and queens in the Old Countries proudly proclaimed on the coin of their realm that they were specially chosen by God to be their countries' leaders. Moreover, there were official state religions in nearly every country in Europe, and nearly all of these countries had suffered from religious strife at one time or another:

For example,
Great Britain-- Catholics vs. Protestants
France-- Catholics vs. Hugenots
Spain-- Catholics vs. Protestants, Jews, Muslims
German States-- Catholics vs. Lutherans

[Owl]

41. Exactly right. This BS needs to go.

[southerncrone]

8. Instead of an appointee, this office should be closed.

It is in direct violation of separation of church & state. As a Constitutional Law scholar, I would think Obama would axe this immediately based on that premise.

These last few years we needed a Office of LACK OF FAITH! I suspect that's what most of us feel toward the government after *co.

[OhioChick]

12. Why do we need an" office of faith-based programs?"

I see no reason for it.
This coming from a Catholic. :shrug:

[DollyM]

16. "Faith based" programs encompass many charitable organizations.

All this does is level the playing field so that good organizations that may be church affliated can get government grants to continue the good work they are doing. Faith based organizations (aka churches, synagogues, etc.) have a long history of providing aid to the poor and needy, long before the government stepped in. All this does is recognize the work of those organizations and gives them the opportunity to apply for grants so that they can continue doing things like running food pantries, providing homeless shelters, afterschool programs, crisis pregnancy programs, teen mother programs, infant centers, and the list goes on and on and on. Also, faith based organizations often have a core group of comitted people already and can utilize those people as volunteers, stretching those dollars even further. We have a church in town that has offered a food pantry for the last four years. In a town of 1200 people, they serve over 200 families a month, some of them coming from towns 10 miles or more away. (My family volunteers for this food pantry.) The great thing is, this is a "no questions asked" pantry where you just show up and can get encouragement from voluteers and a couple of sacks of groceries at the same time. BTW, we are not even the same religion as this church, in fact, I would say there are many different religions represented by the volunteers but are all all united by the common belief that true religion is that which cares for the widows and the orphans, the hungry, the downtroden. They are doing a great deal of good and can provide something that no secular social service agency can, a sense of dignity without every aspect of your personal and financial life exposed to people who really, are looking for reasons to disquality you for services. If you don't believe that, go apply for food stamps and see what a degrading experience they will put you through for a few pitiful dollars of food.

[foxfeet]

21. I object to your characterization of "secular social service agencies."

I am a retired social worker. Believe me, none of that prying into clients' lives was put there by social workers. Means testing and eligibility requirements were put in place by lawmakers concerned about making sure the assistance went to the "deserving poor," as defined by the notion that some people just won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and others deserve no assistance at all. This was not accomplished in the spirit of stretching available dollars but as a means of appeasing those who object to secular social services in the first place.
When these "faith-based" organizations are required to account for the assistance they provide in the same way secular agencies are, I guarantee you their eligibility requirements will be a good deal more intrusive than they are now. It is for this reason that many such agencies choose not to participate in "faith-based" federal funding. Separation of church and state provides well-demonstrated benefits to both. I strongly object to the mixing of government and religion, including my own.

[DollyM]

22. having had the "opportunity" to use food stamps . . .

I know how degrading the experience was and yes, it is intended to weed out people but it is decent,honest people that get weeded out as well. My husband had lost his job and we went to apply for food stamps as we had nothing coming in. We were both taking a few college classes at the time, trying to better our lives in the long run. When we applied for food stamps were were told that we did not qualify because we were in college and if they allowed college students to have food stamps then all college students would have food stamps. (That ranks up there with one of the most stupid things I have ever heard!). I ended up dropping several of my classes so we could get a pitiful amount of food stamps but at least it was something. Ironically, then it took me longer to finish school so we were on the food stamps longer, how does that make sense? (If it had not been for our church, we probably would have starved to death as they helped with our bills and groceries for many months.)

As for social workers, I worked on both sides of that fence too, as a foster parent for 11 years, I saw kids and us get punished by vindictive workers who retaliated if we disagreed or complained about them. And trust me, some of them needed to be complained about! After finishing school I worked as a foster care licensing agent for the state and saw the dirty underbelly of the system from the other side when other workers and the agency director would complain that all foster parents were "in it for the money." Having done foster care for many years, I greatly resented that becasue I knew how many hours I spent cleaning up vomit and patching walls with holes from angry kids, did not nearly equal the "pay" that we received. I was also told which foster parents we needed to "get rid of" by finding something to write them up for in infractions. I finally left in disgust after a few months. I also had a friend that worked in foster care and then adoptions and she was a lovely caring person but she was also frustrated at the shackles of the system and tended to bend the rules to help people when she could. Not everyone can or will do that.
But back to the original point, faith based organizations do a good work for the poor who fall through the cracks and should be able to have the same chance to get grants to assist in their work as anyone else.

[Bette Noir]

24. I worked for a "faith based" social services agency

for a few weeks, several years ago. It was a scam that didn't provide the services it was supposed to, but only served to channel tax dollars to the church. Medicare fraud, anyone?

[EFerrari]

27. It's ridiculous to claim that somehow "faith based" organizations

have a corner on dignity.

[DollyM]

92. and it is prejudicial to assume that faith based organizations are all the same

eom

[No Elephants]

37. Churches and other religious organizations always had the same ability to apply for grants as any

other groups. This is not leveling the playing field, or there would also be an office to help secular organizations apply for grants, too, or maybe just an office that helps ALL not for profits apply for grants. As it is, people have to hire private consultants to help them.

Rather, this smacks of too much intermingling between government and religion. Just look what Bush did with it after Katrina. On the website of how to help Katrina victims, he listed ONLY fbi groups--and all Christian ones, too-- until there was an outcry.

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. Im in the catagory of "what the fuck do we need this

office for?"

[closeupready]

59. Amen. Totally unnecessary and stinks up DC. Get rid of it.

n/t

[Divine Discontent]

17. we all know this was a campaign promise. I don't like it, and I'm a person of faith, but this type

of office in the gov't can be used by a bad administration to push against open-minded rights of all people, one, and two, the money can be used inappropriately to focus on one religion or another. I just don't think an office of faith based initiatives is very appropriate, HOWEVER - as someone noted above - having churches/mosques/synagogues be a part of a community initiative and apply for grants for aiding their community fairly, and having their plans be fully described what they'll do, I'm okay with that.

It just seems like a bad idea though to have a head of 'faith based initiatives' in the US Govt. For Votes??? One would think!

[No Elephants]

38. What makes you think this office makes anything more " fair," rather than even less fair than

it has always been?

If I am a secular wannabe do gooder, which office exists for me, to help me get fedderal funds? As a secular do gooder, I have to learn the process or hire a consultant to help me through the grant application, or both. W

And as a secular do gooder, I am already at a disadvantage--no built in funding from my church congregation, no built in goodwill as, say the Catholic Church or the Methodist Church has. Geez, if churches know anything, it's fundraising. And they already have an institutional infrastructure, including their own lawyers. IMO, nothing is fair about giving places of worship an even greater advantage than they already have in our society?

BTW, I am a person of faith, too. I just also believe, as did Jefferson, that separation of church and state is better for both church and state.

[Divine Discontent]

94. we agree that they shouldn't even have that position in the WH. sad to see it, but we knew

he was going to do it. Sadly, I can see the conflict of religious-interest if the wrong pres (oh, let's call them Republican) gets in.

Yes, religious institutions already have great advantage in our society, good point, why give them a branch, so to speak, in the WH.

upsetting...

God bless

[Raineyb]

18. Why the hell hasn't this been shut down already?

Hello! Separation of church and state? I know Obama's heard of it.

Regards

[Art_from_Ark]

31. No doubt Obama's heard of it

But maybe he's one of those "strict constructionists" who believe that "if faith-based government handouts ain't expressly prohibited in the Constitution, then they're Constitutional, by God!"

[No Elephants]

55. If Congress can make no law "respecting" an establishment of religion, then how can Congress make a

law funding faith based initiatives?

It is our own fault. We should have raised Cain when Bush started his counterpart of this office.

[IndianaGreen]

19. That relic of Bush's Talibanism should be abolished outright

"Faith based" is total crap, another form of snake oil.

[Bette Noir]

23. Why do we need a faith office?

[Jawja]

40. We don't.

This is another one of the Criminal Bush Administration's ideas that needs to go.

[leftstreet]

26. This crap should be shut down, not expanded n/t

[pjt7]

29. There should be no religious office

in our Gov.

Period.

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. Instead, the President is going to keep yet another campaign promise:

Obama: Expand faith-based programs

By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY

Barack Obama, arguing that it makes sense for the federal government to join with religious organizations to solve social problems, said Tuesday that he wants to continue President Bush's initiative to promote "faith-based" social welfare programs.

"Few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques," the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said. Such partnerships can take place without violating the Constitution, he said. "I believe deeply in the separation of church and state."

Obama delivered his speech after touring a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. The speech, designed to showcase long-held views on the value of faith-based programs, came a day after he spoke about patriotism.

Obama acknowledged that he "did not grow up in a particularly religious household," but he said he changed because of his work as a community organizer in Chicago. "I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community."

more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-07-01-obama-faith_N.htm

[snake in the grass]

32. This office is useless...

...regardless of who leads it. Why not do away with it entirely?

[Hannah Bell]

33. wtf? why is obama expanding this program? why?

no more public aid for churches. no.

i think the gov't is pushing religion in concert with the economic decline. as an outlet for dissatisfaction & unhappiness.

[laconicsax]

34. So is Josh DuBois the guy who picked McClurkin and Warren?

[LostinVA]

42. Good question

[LostinVA]

48. Someone just told me "yes" re: Donnie

[laconicsax]

70. Why is that not surprising?

[No Elephants]

35. Under Bush, the FBI (faith based initiatives) office was a cynical farce. Obama will probably make

it much more meaninful. You would think a Constitutional law prof would dismantle it instead. And Pentecostal is not exactly a liberal, broad minded perspective. This is a disappointment.

[LostinVA]

43. Hey, it's only a two minute prayer

:eyes:

I'm 100% against a "faith-based office," but if he had to have one, why not decrease the programs and put someone like Jim Wallis in the seat?

[No Elephants]

57. Obama campaigned (via his website anyway) on INCREASING faith based initiatives, not decreasing

them. I guess the religous right neo theos win, even when they lose.

[LynnTheDem]

45. WTF is a "faith office" doing in US govt?????

And why is it we're supposed to hate and fear and wanna "free" Iranians and Iraqis and Afghanis and...???

[ismnotwasm]

47. How disgusting

Political expediency again. What the fuck is a "faith based" office again? And why doesn't it violate the Establishment Clause?

Maybe I'm missing something?

What would happen if we followed the money on this? What happens to that couple of billion a year? Who gets it? How do you apply? I suppose it's tax free? How are these funds held accountable?


Perhaps under President Obama, this faith based office will be more forthcoming with information and far more accountable than it was under that that asshole bush.

So, the government destroys funding for schools and needed social programs, then perpetuates the myth that--let's face it-- *Christians* are doing all that hard work and are the ones with the proper inclination of 'ministering to the needy'. A "compassionate conservative" faith based office is formed. One that hasn't been up front, oh no, not at all, and has been in trouble with bush's appointments being politically motivated (ya think?)

What to do with this quandary? Get rid of the office entirely? Modify it? Try not to appoint sociopaths who think women are brood mares and Homosexuality is a "lifestyle"? You know, the Saddleback types who truly believe that I, personally (if they knew me) will burn in hell forever and ever because I'm not saved? Forever is a long time to writhe and scream in torment.

Or, those who believe the Earth is under 10,000 years old, and 'Intelligent design' is valid science, and it's a just dandy idea to teach these things in public schools-- those same schools being the ones with the budget slashes to the point of teachers buying books and pencils.

Well to sum it up, in my unapologetic NOT humble opinion, in fact a pretty goddamed pissed off opinion, the faith-based office is bullshit, and violates the intent, if not the letter of the constitution. It's also wide open to all kinds of faith based abuses.

[Gin]

49. since I now fund banks...and will fund religious organizations I would never give money

to without this program...I created my own faith based organization and recipient.....ME!

[Phoonzang]

53. He should have selected a Buddhist monk.

That would have sent the media into a frenzy for at least a month. :rofl:

[Le Taz Hot]

98. I would have preferred a Wiccan.

The nutso fundies heads would have exploded in tandem. Rapture, here they come!

[No Elephants]

58. Make your voice heard. www.whitehouse.gov. The other side of this issue sure is vocal!

[Gormy Cuss]

60. A better move would have been to close the office.

Faith-based community works have been going on outside of the Federal government for a very long time and no doubt would continue without "faith offices" within agencies.

[Javaman]

61. un. fucking. believable. nt

[eowyn_of_rohan]

62. What life experience does a 26 year old pastor have?

Not impressed with the choice... BUT re his choice to have one at all -could this be another rope a dope (thanks to another DUer for that) on the Pubs? Obama is one tricky dude in a good way!

[kwassa]

63. Don't worry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29faith.html

Mr. Obama said in a campaign speech last June, “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.”

This has been standard procedure forever in federal dealing with religious charities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/opinion/29kuo.html

Politicians from both parties have come to realize that faith-based programs are indispensable even if they are not miraculous. America’s churches, synagogues, mosques and other congregations supply dozens of major social services — like day care, homeless shelters and anti-violence programs — worth billions of dollars each year, as Ram Cnaan, a professor of social work at the University of Pennsylvania, has proved in several studies. Dr. Cnaan is not even counting the work done by inner-city religious schools and other local faith-based programs. From coast to coast, the primary beneficiaries of these services are low-income children and families who are not otherwise affiliated with the religious nonprofit organizations that serve them.

The Constitution is no longer a potential obstacle to a successful faith-based initiative in the White House. In several cases decided since 2001, the Supreme Court has clarified that even “pervasively sectarian” religious nonprofit organizations remain tax-exempt and can receive government social service grants on the same basis as secular nonprofit organizations. Their eligibility is constitutionally secure so long as they do not proselytize or engage in sectarian instruction; serve all persons without regard to religion; follow applicable federal anti-discrimination laws; and use public monies only to serve grant-specified secular purposes.

1 2

[Karenina]

64. Not at all worried, just scrutinizing the chessboard...

Things that make ya go HMMM... :rofl:

[Runcible Spoon]

65. They can say that all they want. The reality is...

there will be 0 oversight for these groups as usual.

It's a chickenshit way to get around the lack of funding for social programs Repukes hate. Just throw money at the churches and let them handle it. :eyes: Wrong on many levels.

[kwassa]

66. How do you know there is zero oversight?

Source, please.

[Runcible Spoon]

67. So this is OK with you?

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=108

"$14 million in federal faith-based money goes to Pat Robertson
Televangelist's claim that Ariel Sharon's stroke was an act of God may have cost him the friendship of some Israelis, but it hasn't prevented his charity, Operation Blessing, from garnering faith-based grants from the U.S. government"

http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=113300014

"The report, funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation as part of the foundation's Assessing the New Federalism project, finds that many state and local policies lack effective oversight of religious content and program participants' ability to choose alternatives to faith-based service providers. Moreover, formal monitoring of faith-based programs receiving federal funds is generally restricted to financial audits, which also pay little attention to the program's faith content."

Just google it. There's PLENTY out there.

[kwassa]

71. Then the government should do its oversight job.

It is their job to do. It is not the job of the religious charities to police themselves, though they should follow the rules in good faith, or lose their funding.

I used to work for Catholic Charities, the largest non-government charity in the world. There was no religion requirement for employees, or for those served, and there was never any proselytizing of any kind. Just services for people in need.

[Runcible Spoon]

72. That's what I'm arguing for. Oversight never meant self-policing.

Catholic Charities has a good reputation, but many don't and squander or misallocate or outright embezzle those funds. I don't see why we need it to be faith-based at all. Religious orgs could ALWAYS apply for grants; we could just call that office "Community Initiatives" and let any organization apply for funding. That office should also have an additional apparatus for overseeing how the funds are disbursed beyond simple audits which don't analyze the actual programs.

[kwassa]

76. I'm not sure what the motivation is, either.

Religious charities have existed for a very long time, and received funding for a very long time. I don'tknow why they need to be held out from any other group applying for federal funds. I think it is window-dressing for both the Bush and Obama administrations to look good for religious voters, though it looks like Obama is moving the goal posts back to where they originally stood, and should remain. It is business-as-usual, only wearing new clothes, perhaps.

[biopowertoday]

74. and will Obama repeal this Bush related faith Exec order??:...

............It's still unknown whether Obama's faith-based effort will include the same amount of staff at the agencies -- including the Justice, Labor and Education Departments -- or how he will juggle concerns some faith-based social service groups have voiced about being forced to compromise their beliefs in order to compete equally for federal funding. Obama has come under fire for saying he would reverse a Bush executive order allowing faith-based groups to discriminate in hiring based on religion, but then largely halting comment on it.

[pleah]

75. This should not be a government office! Where is the separation of church and state?

Damn it!

[Sultana]

77. Faith Office?

I am Christian but this fucking ridiculous. Faith is a private matter it has no place in Gov't nor public life.

DuBois isn't going to pray away our national woes :eyes:

[earth mom]

78. So where's the money for agnostics & atheists, hmm?

If Obama is such a "constitutional scholar", than he should know damn well that a "faith office" has no business whatsoever being part of the United States government.

This crap is NO better than the crap * pulled. :grr:

[IndianaGreen]

84. Where's the money for followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

FSM is a god more merciful, caring, and dare I say more noodly, than the grumpy Jehovah.

[krabigirl]

93. Seriously. I think someone should demand money for its charities.

[anonymous171]

79. Oh gawd.

:hide: :popcorn:

[ColbertWatcher]

80. Why is there still a "Faith Office"? When will we finally separate church and state ? n/t

[nichomachus]

81. I really think we need to have a "reality-based" office

If I recall correctly, "faith-based" policies are the ones that ruined the country.

[PurityOfEssence]

82. Creeping theocracy

Shades of South Carolina and the "40 Days of Faith and Family" cavalcade.

He's said this from the beginning, and he's actively injected more religion into presidential politics than probably ANY other successful candidate in our history. ANY.

Does he really believe to this obsessive a degree, or is he just playing games to carve off off-the-rack support of large groups? Who knows? Perhaps, like much of life, it's a combination.

I actively resent and oppose this, and will endlessly repeat how it's against the law of the land.

Are we really going to not only CONTINUE to sanctify religion by giving it our money, but INCREASE our endorsement? This is a shitty and deceptive way to use other people's money to fuck with the unfortunate and make them think that good only flows from God. The safety-net services that will be provided by this money will have come from the pockets of the people through secular taxation. It's the worst kind of proselytizing lie of the soul, and it's held as some kind of virtue. People who engage in such ugly deception of the weak and unfortunate are either deeply mean and sick, or so imbued with their own self-image of virtue and certainty of a cosmic worldview that they're basically suspect in all they do and dangerous to anyone with a differing belief.

This is not a "little thing", this is a gigantic, disgusting extortion and duplicity.

[AnneD]

83. Thomas Jefferson ....

is rolling in his grave. I am a religous person-and go to church regularly, but a government office on faith is as useless as teats on a boar hog.:eyes:

[Terran]

85. People, answer this question please:

Religious organizations (I hate that term 'fath-based') have been receiving federal funding for many many years, and in fact provide the backbone of services for homeless people in this country. Do you feel that their receiving federal funding in and of itself is a 'violation of Church and State'? Because the only difference between having the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and NOT having it is that more religious agencies got funded with the Office than before it. There is no other difference. These agencies have always been entitled to apply for federal funding to do what they do.

One reason the OFBI is located in the White House is because the funding in question comes from half a dozen different federal agencies. While I might like it better if HUD handled this issue, it might then not address agencies looking for DOJ grants (such as domestic violence shelters) or SAMHSA grants (such as recovery support service providers). But then HUD is still part of the government, so I wonder if that would make any of you happier.

There is no violation of Church and State here because the government is not favoring one religion over another, and regulations prohibit using federal funds to proselytise. Is there a perfect way to make sure that doesn't happen? No. But I work with HUD and I know they audit grantees constantly, and these are program audits, not financial audits--they try to ensure that grantees obey the law.

What it comes down to, as far as this thread is concerned, is that 99.9% of you have no information about how any of this works, so you're pretty much shooting from the hip and missing.

[Runcible Spoon]

86. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread...

religious orgs could ALWAYS apply for those monies. Creating a special office is just pandering and the biggest problem is the lack of oversight of those funds when it comes to the activities of the organizations receiving funding. It effectively allows for the orgs to discriminate and prosthelytize.

The ADL has a pretty good rundown here:
http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/faith_based_initiative.asp

[Terran]

88. It's not pandering.

A lot of such agencies in the past would never consider applying for such funds because 1) they don't trust government, or 2) they think they're too small, or 3) they don't know how to do it and don't know where to go for help. And don't say none of that is any excuse, because these are facts; I work with these people on a routine basis. It's taken *years* to convince some of these agencies I work with to get involved with HUD funding. But now that they are, they do what they do for more people and do it better.

And as I wrote above, federal agencies (HUD, anyway, does) do program monitoring to ensure these regulations aren't violated. Your assumption of bad faith on the part of all religious organizations is not a very convincing argument.

[Runcible Spoon]

89. It's not an assumption. There HAVE been egregious misuses of federal funds.

There needs to be oversight, regardless. Putting religion into the mix merely creates new avenues for the funds being misused. I never suggested that ALL religious orgs functioned this way. If you had read the entirety of the thread as you indicated you had by coming up with you "99.9% of people on this thread are full of shit" comment you would realize that.

This is all besides the point anyway. That office is there for political pandering, pure and simple. Bush created it, Obama obviously wants to capitalize on it. And everywhere poor people suffer because private religious charities are expected to replace fundamental public programs that have been gutted by Bush, and yes, sorry...Clinton too.

[Political Heretic]

99. Source?

[Runcible Spoon]

100. Read the thread. Pat Robertson got $14 million.

That's one example. Google for more. Is it REALLY that hard to believe? Orgs getting this money throw it all into one big pot and the churches affiliated with them use it for whatever with almost zero oversight. I don't understand why we are all not skeptical; this was BUSH'S brainchild and just because Obama supports it, it's suddenly OK? Baffling.

http://www.articlearchives.com/government/government-bodies-offices-heads/775767-1.html

More pigs at the trough:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage/2145

[Political Heretic]

102. I just asked for sources - thats all

I don't have time to research every single thing out there - but if you're giving opinion about it, hopefully you have. You should be able to tell from my blog that I'm not adverse to doing my own research.

Thanks for the links. I may post about faith-based program and its problems on my blog in the future.

[Runcible Spoon]

103. Sorry to jump on you :)

A lot of the times when people say "sources?" they're being snarky and sarcastic. No harm no foul.

[and-justice-for-all]

101. This office should not exist...nt