PDA

View Full Version : Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs


MadsenOMC
07-01-2008, 10:28 AM
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 47 minutes ago

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."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, 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.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

Homyrrh
07-01-2008, 10:46 AM
If there's one thing I'd talk to this guy about, one-on-one, it'd be his faith.

MadsenOMC
07-01-2008, 10:49 AM
If there's one thing I'd talk to this guy about, one-on-one, it'd be his faith.

What would you ask him?

Homyrrh
07-01-2008, 10:54 AM
What would you ask him?
I can't honestly tell whether he's entirely honest or entirely pandering.

It'd be one thing to ask him the infamous Paris Hilton question: "What's your favorite Bible passage?", but I'd be really interested in hearing how his faith was formed, whether or not it's scriptural, how he incorporates it into his politics or else how he manages to keep the two separate, whether or not he was actually baptized....etc.

It'd be intriguing more than anything.

MadsenOMC
07-01-2008, 10:59 AM
I can't honestly tell whether he's entirely honest or entirely pandering.

It'd be one thing to ask him the infamous Paris Hilton question: "What's your favorite Bible passage?", but I'd be really interested in hearing how his faith was formed, whether or not it's scriptural, how he incorporates it into his politics or else how he manages to keep the two separate, whether or not he was actually baptized....etc.

It'd be intriguing more than anything.

Those are good questions. I wonder if they are addressed in his first book at all? I have not read it. I read The Audacity of Hope but I don't remember what he says about his faith.

He's been a churchgoer for a long time. I think it would be extremely cynical and unfair to say that he started going to church all those years in order to claim to be a man of faith in case he ever ran for public office.

Homyrrh
07-01-2008, 11:17 AM
I feel one's faith, especially that based on biblical theology, shouldn't be worn on one's sleeve mroe than it has to. Obviously, however, an election for the msot powerful elected seat in the world just may requrie scrutinization of every element.

I want to credit Obama for everything he claims, and I am sure it is most likely honest, but the reputation of his political predecessors more than precedes him.

Brando @$$ Fat
07-01-2008, 02:11 PM
What he's talking about is just an alternative form of pandering that isn't quite as bad but not exactly good. I mean, how many people who are not of faith apply to religious charities? It gives him an opportunity to talk about faith, which is rarely held against any candidate in this country. Of course, he might need to considering that some people in this country still think he's a Muslim.

MadsenOMC
07-01-2008, 05:03 PM
In an ideal world:

Put Them Out to Pastor

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, July 1, 2008; A11

The pilgrim is making little progress. In a futile effort to convince faith-voters that he is one of them, John McCain paid a visit to the Grahams of North Carolina -- father Billy and son Franklin. After the meeting, not a word was said about the Grahams' past indiscretions concerning Muslims or Jews, and neither, for that matter, was an endorsement proffered. The next guest was country singer Ricky Skaggs. He did better. He got lunch.

McCain plods a cruel treadmill. He has thus far sought the endorsement of the extremely purple Rev. John Hagee and the equally purple Rev. Rod Parsley. Both of them were later asked to unendorse on account of offensive things they've said. But to paraphrase Hyman Roth in "The Godfather," this is the business they're in.

Billy Graham's observations about Jews were made a long time ago and were imparted in confidence to Richard Nixon and his secret White House tape recorder. The two ruminated about the power and influence of Jews, with Graham adding a bit of original investigative reporting: "They're the ones putting out the pornographic stuff." Had he peeked?

Graham apologized for such remarks and said he no longer held such views, and everyone, including me, takes him at his word. His lasting damage, I offer as an aside, was to persuade the young George W. Bush to abandon his wastrel ways, at which he excelled, and instead seek the path that has led him to where he is now, a calamity for the nation and the world. Graham's burden is heavy indeed.

But the transgressions of Franklin Graham are much more recent and more to the point. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Franklin Graham called Islam a "very evil and wicked religion." As preachers are wont to do, he amplified his remarks to include "mainstream" Islam, alleging that the Koran preaches violence. He is known throughout the Muslim world for these remarks and therefore is hardly a figure a presidential candidate should visit.

Erich Segal's line from "Love Story" -- "love means never having to say you're sorry" -- really applies to faith. If you proclaim it, you are forgiven almost anything. In Franklin Graham's case, his piety excuses his ignorance and intolerance -- his slap at a worldwide religion of almost 2 billion because of the horrendous acts of a few. What could a Muslim say about the massacres of the Crusades? What could anyone say about the wars between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572, when possibly 100,000 French Huguenots were slaughtered? France is Catholic today partly because of the sword.

It would have been very McCain of McCain to skip this meeting in the cause of religious tolerance. It would be very McCain of McCain to forcefully denounce the persistent rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim -- whenever it comes up. (It would also have been wonderful of Obama to have excluded Franklin Graham from a meeting of ministers he convened in Chicago last month.) Both presidential candidates are over-pastored.

For too long now, the term "faith-based" has been synonymous with dumb. It's dumb to speak of Islam as if the terrorists are its true representatives (F. Graham). It's dumb to think the Holocaust was God's way of getting the Jews to return to Israel (Hagee) or that Catholics are not true Christians (Hagee, again) or that "Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends through violence to conquer the world" (Parsley).

It's dumb to reject evolution when all of science thinks the opposite, and it's dumb to oppose sex education, as if knowledge was by itself a sin. It was beyond dumb for the Rev. Pat Robertson to predict a natural calamity for Orlando because of Disney World's policy regarding gay men and lesbians. Yet, the endorsement of such clergymen has been sought by virtually every Republican presidential candidate of our times. To pass this kind of muster is very disquieting.

The liberal clergy in this country is a faded force. Gone are the days when ministers did such things as leading the civil rights movement and marching to end the Vietnam War. Now, the ones with political clout are too often small-minded men who swaddle their bigotry and ignorance in the soothing word "faith." And John McCain, like a spiritual beggar, goes from one right-wing minister to another, ignoring their previous statements of intolerance and hoping for an endorsement. The other day, he didn't even get lunch. He deserved humble pie.

Homyrrh
07-02-2008, 08:33 AM
Hell, doesn't matter who you are, Billy Graham is 500,000 votes right there...maybe mroe if he endorsed Obama. Otherwise, that article's honestly hard to read, especially with such flaws in understanding toward the end.

Brando makes a good point.

MadsenOMC
07-02-2008, 10:51 AM
What are the flaws in understanding?

QUENTIN
07-06-2008, 10:42 PM
I can't honestly tell whether he's entirely honest or entirely pandering.

It'd be one thing to ask him the infamous Paris Hilton question: "What's your favorite Bible passage?", but I'd be really interested in hearing how his faith was formed, whether or not it's scriptural, how he incorporates it into his politics or else how he manages to keep the two separate, whether or not he was actually baptized....etc.

It'd be intriguing more than anything.

He talks about it to some extent in Dreams From My Father, but here's a choice quote about how he came to be a Christian:

"I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. [...] In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. [...] It was because of these newfound understandings–that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved–that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

Homyrrh
07-07-2008, 08:49 AM
What are the flaws in understanding?
Actually, you're kind of supposed to have the truth prior to the baptism...

Erich Segal's line from "Love Story" -- "love means never having to say you're sorry" -- really applies to faith. If you proclaim it, you are forgiven almost anything.

Madsen, this is biblically incorrect.

MadsenOMC
07-07-2008, 11:13 AM
Actually, you're kind of supposed to have the truth prior to the baptism...



Madsen, this is biblically incorrect.

I never said anything about Love Story.

Homyrrh
07-07-2008, 12:18 PM
I never said anything about Love Story.
You asked what was theologically wrong with the article. The author made an error about the fundamental application of Christianity.

MadsenOMC
07-07-2008, 12:22 PM
You asked what was theologically wrong with the article. The author made an error about the fundamental application of Christianity.

Is that it? Seems pretty minor if that's it, and obviously it's a debatable point.