Obama to expand Bush's faith-based programs

[RobMoney$]

Link (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080701/D91L4RNO0.html)


Jul 1, 11:28 AM (ET)

By JENNIFER LOVEN

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."

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 that are traditionally loyal to Republicans and oppose Obama on other grounds.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a protest from those in his own party 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.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

"I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

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.

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.

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 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.



You know one of the main reasons I never vote Republican is because I can't stand politicians who want to tell me what morals I should live my life by. If this is what Obama is moving towards, I see less of a reason to be so opposed to the thought of voting for McCain.

I guess he's "Changeing" because he's been told he needs the evangelical vote. I'm just wondering if this guy's ever met an entitlement program he didn't like?

I'm interested to hear what you left-leaning anti-Bush people here have to say about this.

[yeahwho]

I touched on this topic quite a bit over in the Wal Mart page, I have no problem with Obama bringing Faith into his campaign, politicians do this stuff, the smart politicians. Why should Republicans own the faith based vote? For the America I would like to see Churchs have a role. They are a major meeting place for inspiration and spiritual growth. Dude is just doing what should be done.

[saz]

OBAMA CAMPAIGN REJECTS AP REPORT


UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:


"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."


The Politico, meanwhile, describes Obama's new plan not as an expansion of Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, but as an effort to tear down what Bush created and establish a new program with a new set of goals:


Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) slammed President Bush's faith-based program as "a photo-op" and a failure on Tuesday, and said he will scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a "critical" part of his administration.

Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush's faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives - which Bush founded during his second week in office - "never fulfilled its promise." [...]

Reaching out to evangelicals who are non-plussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: "I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership - not a photo-op. That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."

"The new name will reflect a new commitment," he continued. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration."


link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/obama-plans-to-expand-bus_n_110140.html)

[JohnnyChavello]

You know one of the main reasons I never vote Republican...

If this is what Obama is moving towards, I see less of a reason to be so opposed to the thought of voting for McCain.

I'm interested to hear what you left-leaning anti-Bush people here have to say about this.

Well, my left-leaning, anti-Bush self wishes you'd quit trolling as a "Democrat" and just come out with your love for all things Sean Hannity.

[RobMoney$]

I touched on this topic quite a bit over in the Wal Mart page, I have no problem with Obama bringing Faith into his campaign, politicians do this stuff, the smart politicians. Why should Republicans own the faith based vote? For the America I would like to see Churchs have a role. They are a major meeting place for inspiration and spiritual growth. Dude is just doing what should be done.


Sometimes I think you just like to play Devil's advocate just to try to get a rise out of people because there's no way you can be serious.

[yeahwho]

Sometimes I think you just like to play Devil's advocate just to try to get a rise out of people because there's no way you can be serious.

I am serious, Barack Obama would never of became the candidate he is without his own Faith. If your running to be the President of the United States and your ignoring religion then you've just wasted all the money given to you by your campaign contributors.

Tell me where I'm wrong. When I think about Barack Obama I see a deeply religious man. It's been the talk of the town, even before he became embroiled in inflammatory remarks and accusations over his own church. His whole candidacy and political resume involves faith based activities from his volunteer community work right on up to this current proposal.

He is doing what should be done, no harm, no foul.

[yeahwho]

The difference with this faith based proposal and the Bush faith based proposal from a past Bush supporter, Andrew Sullivan. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/07/obama-chistiani.html)

[afronaut]

If the government is going to spend money anyway on social programs, I think any organization making a real effort to make significant positive changes in their community should be eligible for federal funding as well. I don't support discriminatory hiring practices or funding something that is essentially an evangelical front, but I don't see anything wrong with helping some organization help their community. In fact, I think this could possibly be a way to help communities on the micro-level in a more effective way than government programs ran by bureaucratic government agencies. In theory at least. As much as I have against organized religion, I don't think we should turn a blind eye towards the positive things that the faith based community can achieve.

[RobMoney$]

If the government is going to spend money anyway on social programs, I think any organization making a real effort to make significant positive changes in their community should be eligible for federal funding as well. I don't support discriminatory hiring practices or funding something that is essentially an evangelical front, but I don't see anything wrong with helping some organization help their community. In fact, I think this could possibly be a way to help communities on the micro-level in a more effective way than government programs ran by bureaucratic government agencies. In theory at least. As much as I have against organized religion, I don't think we should turn a blind eye towards the positive things that the faith based community can achieve.


Who decides what's an evangelical front and what's not? Call me cynical, but I have zero faith that federal dollars will go to the people who deserve it. What you're proposing is an engraved invitation for corruption. Maybe Bush wouldn't have given federal funding to any group who was Pro-Choice, would that be fair?

Take Obama for instance. It's been suggested that the main reason he joined Trinity Church was because it benefitted him politically. Now if he were legally able to give federal money to Trinity as the President under the guise of it being for "Community Improvements", that would give Trinity even more political leverage and make it almost impossible for anyone who wanted to become a politician in the Chicago area to be forced to alaign themselves with Trinity. You're basically giving Trinity the ability to hand pick politicians in the Chicago area.

[RobMoney$]

I am serious, Barack Obama would never of became the candidate he is without his own Faith. If your running to be the President of the United States and your ignoring religion then you've just wasted all the money given to you by your campaign contributors.

Tell me where I'm wrong. When I think about Barack Obama I see a deeply religious man. It's been the talk of the town, even before he became embroiled in inflammatory remarks and accusations over his own church. His whole candidacy and political resume involves faith based activities from his volunteer community work right on up to this current proposal.

He is doing what should be done, no harm, no foul.


Nobody's suggesting politicians shouldn't believe in God or religion, just that one politicians religion shouldn't be able to benefit in the form of federal dollars or federal jobs for it's believers over another religion.

[afronaut]

Who decides what's an evangelical front and what's not? Call me cynical, but I have zero faith that federal dollars will go to the people who deserve it. What you're proposing is an engraved invitation for corruption. Maybe Bush wouldn't have given federal funding to any group who was Pro-Choice, would that be fair?

Take Obama for instance. It's been suggested that the main reason he joined Trinity Church was because it benefitted him politically. Now if he were legally able to give federal money to Trinity as the President under the guise of it being for "Community Improvements", that would give Trinity even more political leverage and make it almost impossible for anyone who wanted to become a politician in the Chicago area to be forced to alaign themselves with Trinity. You're basically giving Trinity the ability to hand pick politicians in the Chicago area.
I don't disagree with you. I support the general concept behind these faith based programs, but like you say, you can never be guaranteed that government money isn't just going to programs that exist simply to fill the pews, or even more sinister, more church influence in politics.

I don't think it's impossible for these programs to be implemented correctly, and I can only hope Obama does a better job than Bush. Though I really doubt that anything the government gets it's hands into will be run rationally, efficiently, and fairly; which is actually the main reason I'm not against faith based programs in the first place. I'd rather the government support programs enacted by responsible community members rather than have the welfare of our people in the hands of another government bureaucracy.

But I am woeful for the fact that we have to depend on something faith based to look after the less fortunate in our communities.

[saz]

personally i think this is dumb, as obama is clearly courting evangelicals with this move. these programs should be scrapped altogether, and let the government run them, as they should be. and complaining about the government and government-run programs is a right-wing cliche. medicare and social security should never be tampered with.

[afronaut]

I don't want to see the government out of our communities welfare, but there are many things that can be done to help communities on the micro level that most current government programs don't address. On top of that, government programs are nice, but charity and personal acts of social consciousness should not have to go directly through the government. Helping communities organize themselves should be vital in dealing with our social ills, as charitable organization on this level addresses these ills in a smaller, more nuanced, and more personal way that is often lost in other programs.

Of course I don't know if any of this really applies to their programs, as I was never entirely educated on them in the first place. I support a general idea of government encouraging and helping communities organize to battle their social ills and lend a helping hand.

The government should be there for it's citizens, especially it's less fortunate, but it's equally vital for us, as individuals, to be there for each other, and to organize ourselves. And now that I think about it, I resent the assumption these programs make that we must rely on religious institutions to help those less fortunate. Secular society is just as capable of being charitable and doing good deeds.

*Edit: Also, while most conservative cliches are quite ridiculous with little founding in reality, in the case of this one, I don't think the sentiment is entirely unfounded. If the War on Poverty is going to be ran the same way as the War on Drugs, I definitely hope we live in an altruistic society as well as an altruistic government.

[yeahwho]

The republican party has exploited religion in the most heinous bizarre possible ways possible the past 3 decades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_organizations_in_the_United_ States). Obama is doing all the dirty, nitty griity work that snags votes, democrats complained when Gore and Kerry neglected doing this sort of thing during their bids for President. He is doing it before McCain does it, which of course is brilliant, for obvious reasons.

He is an intelligent person asking good questions of people committed to their religious perspective. I doubt he's going to start a crusade or commit to international policy because "His God" told him to, that was pretty much proven with Reverend Wright. That is one difference between Obama's faith and the Bush, Carter style faith.

It's smart, very smart of Obama to embrace and engage the religious people of this Nation. That is a start.

[Echewta]

Ugg. I just dislike the idea of government money going to anything faith based. Especially since they don't pay any taxes. There are plenty of "good" people that could be hired to do "government jobs" to run the programs that they somehow feel the church can only do.

And I'm sure, as we've seen with the Bush admin., the money is given to other religions besides just Christian based. Oppss.

Close the office down.

[Documad]

Close the office down.

I agree. It's a smart political move for Obama to try to get in bed with evangelicals, but the program is bad government.

This thread reminds me that I meant to read David Kuo's book. I'm downloading a sample from amazon right now. :)

[yeahwho]

This is an odd dichotomy being presented here, not only is this issue sort of a non-issue, it is more about how federal funding is used to actually help people. A grassroots issue that looks at Churches, Synagogue's, Temple's, Mosque's, Hof's or any denomination, it's a numbers game sure the Christian denomination will receive more by the sheer amount of Christians here in the USA.

It isn't about federal spending on war, it isn't about federal spending on secret courts and it isn't a program designed to decrease federal funding to other grassroot programs already in place that do help people in need of help, such as and not exclusive to,

* Aid to Families with Dependent Children
* Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant
* Child and Adult Care Food Program
* Community Development Block Grant
* Conservation Reserve Program
* Federal Pell Grant
* Food Stamp Program
* Head Start
* Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
* Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
* Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Sure churches are tax exempt (churches are not the only tax exempt orgs. in the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_exempt#Non-profit_organizations)) and many already are flush with cash, but you know what, not all of them are, many are struggling just as some of us here at this board may be struggling... I've volunteered for years with various organizations because sometimes I have more time than money...

So I think what really bothers people about this is either

a. you would not like to have faith based charities help you, they're creepy.
b. secular non- profit funded people have larger hearts and non agenda bread.
c. Barack Obama is an ass to actually expand on a Republican idea.
d. it blurs the constitutional separation of church and state.

d. is the hardest pill to swallow, yet...

Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.

Mr. Obama is also proposing $500 million per year to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps for students. He proposes elevating the program to the “moral center” of his administration, calling it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

He called for rules to make certain the new council wouldn’t violate the separation of church and state. Groups receiving money, aides said, would have to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.

If Obama doesn't do this he gains what? Some sort of liberal leftist street cred and a ride home to Chicago? Then we end up with what? Another 4 years of the reign of error?

Time to whore out and if your going to do it, well this isn't so bad. Not all evangelicals are enamored with this, he isn't technically expanding the Bush program (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02obama.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=washington) (which McCain is planning) and at the same time he is addressing a very large reason liberals, democrats and a whole different political ideology has been shunned the past 30 years.

[yeahwho]

I agree. It's a smart political move for Obama to try to get in bed with evangelicals, but the program is bad government.

This thread reminds me that I meant to read David Kuo's book. I'm downloading a sample from amazon right now. :)

I was writing my response while you posted babe, sorry.. it was intended for chew.

[Documad]

Wasn't this a Bill Clinton thing in the first place? Along with midnight basketball.

I have no problem with the idea of the government funding some social programs through charities, but there are problems because charities can have an agenda that I don't agree with. I don't want government money to be spent on sex education programs that teach abstinence only for instance.

We have a local catholic charity that does amazing work for the homeless, including homeless drunks, without a heavy religious agenda. But then there are other christian programs in town that are simply foul.

[yeahwho]

Wasn't this a Bill Clinton thing in the first place? Along with midnight basketball.

I have no problem with the idea of the government funding some social programs through charities, but there are problems because charities can have an agenda that I don't agree with. I don't want government money to be spent on sex education programs that teach abstinence only for instance.

We have a local catholic charity that does amazing work for the homeless, including homeless drunks, without a heavy religious agenda. But then there are other christian programs in town that are simply foul.

It started with George Washington "Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle blah, blah, blah and has been spun until today.

This is an old game and part of the political landscape of America, nobodies completely happy and yet so far, nobody has been told to stop bitching 232 yeas later. The way I see it is this, McCain will expand the Bush program and Obama will expand the Obama program.

six, one half dozen, the other take your pick.

[Documad]

I meant that it was Bill Clinton's faith-based program before it was Bush's program. I guess the current president gets to change the rules of the program though, and Bush allegedly used the money to fund programs for more overt political purposes -- to court republican votes. Perhaps Clinton did it to. I have no idea. I wasn't paying a lot of attention during his last term.


What is confusing to me is that right-leaning websites are saying that Obama isn't really supporting the existing program. They say that Obama will add requirements so that the religious groups have to hire people who aren't a member of their religion if they're going to get the money. The article Rob quoted seems to be saying something else.

I'll be less disturbed by sending money to religious charities if the charities cannot discriminate against people of other religions in their employment practices. But then many religious groups will probably get mad. (I'll bet that my pet catholic homeless charity hires people who aren't catholic whereas the similar charity that I don't like does discriminate.)

In a nutshell: Anything the Heritage Foundation is against, I'm for. So well done to Obama this time.

[afronaut]

The more I think of it, the more I resent a line being drawn with "faith-based." Churches certainly have a role to play, but what needs to be done does not begin and end at the church.

There are plenty of "good" people that could be hired to do "government jobs" to run the programs that they somehow feel the church can only do.

I may just be reiterating myself here, but there are many ways social ills need to be addressed that government programs simply cannot or do not address. There is an entirely different level beyond the level social programs operate. You cannot hire someone to do charitable work. You cannot hire volunteers to organize within their community and take care of the less fortunate, yet these are all things that play an important role in battling social problems; and not just for helping people, but also for the general "social psychology" of a community, and these are all things that the government can help support.

I don't want to see the government not provide for it's people, I want to see the government address our problems more comprehensively and lend their support to this micro-level of social charity.

Furthermore, while the two political parties have a partisan ideological war, our communities sit on the wayside waiting for government to actually take some effective action at combating our social ills. We can sit by the wayside and wait for government to get their act together and actually help, or we can start helping ourselves. And in the meantime, while we fight for issues such as universal healthcare, the government can bypass all the red tape and opposition, and start lending it's support behind our efforts.

If the government support of grassroots charitable organization really takes off, it has the chance of also affecting a change of attitude within society as well. A society where altruism and charity is valued, encouraged, and supported on the community level by the government is most likely a society that supports an altruistic socially aware government, as opposed to a neocon warhawk government, where failed and irresponsible foreign policy is the main concern. Socially aware politicians will not only be lent more support, but society would produce more politicians who care about community welfare.

What society can accomplish for it's poor and weak (and for itself) does not lay solely in the hands of government. Government and society have an entirely symbiotic relationship. Societal attitudes influence government policy and leadership, and government policy (and propaganda) influence societal attitudes. We, society, are not the underlings at the mercy of government. We are equals, and we both create a single entity. Government has a responsibility to care for it's citizens, and society has the responsibility to care for each other, and to care about what the government does and affect change within that government when they fail. Which they will, on some level.

I'm going into sociology, and I cannot look at our social problems through some sort of politically orthodox viewpoint. I'm not sure when individuals helping other individuals became such a no-no to us lefties (I never realized this was actually the case until now), but it's sad, because we're ignoring this one level that government needs to lend it's support to. The leftist movement desperately needs to expand their view and to generate new ideas if we're to make a serious comeback within politics. The next great leftist thinker will not become so by reiterating all the things previously said.

Now, with all that said, I am against "faith-based" programs, now that I really think about it. It is an unfair distinction to make, and is not nearly comprehensive enough. For Bush, it was a way for him to weasel out of actually caring about our communities, and for Obama, I am disappointed for him to keep the distinction of "faith-based" to court the evangelical demographic. But then again, I realize that sticking to ones ideals will not win an election, which is why I have decided that this is the last election year where I will support a mainstream candidate (unless one of the parties actually nominates someone outstanding.) I'm still for Obama now, though.

[afronaut]

^Christ, didn't mean to get so long-winded. Theres no real reason to read any of it anyway, just me venting my mind.

[yeahwho]

T
Now, with all that said, I am against "faith-based" programs, now that I really think about it. It was a way for him to weasel out of actually caring about our communities, and for Obama, I am disappointed for him to keep the distinction of "faith-based" to court the evangelical demographic. But then again, I realize that sticking to ones ideals will not win an election, which is why I have decided that this is the last election year where I will support a mainstream candidate (unless one of the parties actually nominates someone outstanding.) I'm still for Obama now, though.

we're so close in our thinking it's scary and brilliant. I agree whole heartedly with this last paragraph.

*documad* quit trying to trick me into Obama discussions you wascally wabbit.