Rater than being pissed first, Why not read up on what he wants to do. Then if your pissed fine. My sense is you are reacting to three words "Faith Based" and Bush rather than facts in evidence.
First his consistent position on the issue and if you thought it wasn't you were not paying attention.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2758
Next this is not a strictly religious initiative, it is secular as well. Hence the reason it is titled Partnership for Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that they're better at lifting people but. But what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Obama's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will help empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet these challenges.<?
Next it is non discriminatory.
The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices--including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Hope this helps.
"First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion."
And how the hell will the federal government be able to check if this is being followed?
This is total BS. I don't want my tax dollars to go to the religious groups, who have been consistently anti-gay and anti-choice.
There are also non-religious organizations that do the work in communities-- why not give them more funding, or if they are not enough, the federal government ought to encourage such organizations by making funds available to them.
Religious groups can do whatever they please-- so long as they're not benefiting from my tax dollars.
Consistently anti-gay and anti-choice? Perhaps those groups participating in the Bush administration's program are, but there are pro-gay and pro-choice religious organizations out there.
Obama's community organizing experience has taught him that often times the groups that know the community the best, who have the network, space, and resources to provide services most efficiently, are religious groups. If they're going to follow all the guidelines, why should they be disqualified from receiving Federal funding simply on the basis of their religious ties?
Obama's community organizing ought to have taught him that religious groups have a hidden agenda THAT IS NOT SO HIDDEN IF YOU JUST OPEN YOUR EYES.
They're religious groups-- hello??? Even if they don't speak about their religious convictions explicitly, those that they help will tend to be influenced anyway.
This is among the issues that I despise about the Bush administration. And now Obama wants to EXPAND it?
Yes, they're consistently anti-gay and anti-choice. I bet those religious groups who are pro-gay and pro-choice number below 10%. The evangelicals that Obama is courting misguidedly are certainly the worst of the lot. The Catholic organizations are also consistently anti-gay and anti-choice, and I believe they'll benefit the most from the expansion of this faith-based initiative.
Is Obama running for Bush's third term too?
As a member of a religious group, I take offense at that. Many religious groups do good simply for the sake of doing good, or because they feel a moral imperative to serve the poor, the homeless, the sick, those who need help. I think your attitude toward religious groups is a bit narrow-minded, to be perfectly frank.
You're calling me narrow-minded?
Look in the mirror, will you.
Let's line up your religious heroes, and let's see who's narrow-minded.
a bit. It's the definition of narrow-minded to see all people in a diverse group as having the same set of characteristics, ideological or otherwise. Not all religious groups are bad in the same way that not all secular groups are good, and there are myriad differences to a person within groups as well.
I don't think this was the right thing for Obama to inject into his platform when there are so many other concerns that deserve more priority, but this chicken little shit is getting tired.
I'm amazed that progressives have swallowed hook, line and sinker the idea that the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson types represent the majority of religious thought and institutions in America. "Oh no, it's a religious group, that means it's oppressive and evil and always votes Republican!"
No, not at all. And I say this as someone who's pretty much an atheist, although if there's any religion I kinda sorta buy into, it would be Buddhism.
Speaking of which, people do realize that Jewish and Muslim groups could do stuff as well, right? It wouldn't just be the JesusCamp folks, right?
BTW, how long before some rightwingnut picks this up and runs with the narrative that it's just a trick so Obama can funnel US government funds to Islamic Terrorist Madrassas or something, thus further proof that he's really The Muslimian Candidate.
going to any religious organization.....ANY.
And once precedent is set, it is a slippery slope. It is against every liberal/progressive ideal. It is wrong.
Wow assumes alot. That the only churches out there going community outreach are anti-gay, anti-choice And this program will be helping non religious/community organizations as well. This you would know if you had read.
The program should help only non-religious and community groups.
Period.
This is along the same lines of what gdub and crew said about their "faith based initiative". It is barely different.
There is absolutly NO reason our government should in any way be involved in supporting religion in any way. If you give TAX dollars to a religious group, you ARE supporting them.
PERIOD!
You are entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree.
go and read the news articles and such back from 2000 concerning bushes faith based crap.
this is not "opinion", it is FACT.
Yes it's a fact about Bush's program, but it's an opinion about Obama's
So because Obama comes out with a program using in part a similar name it is exactly the same? My sense is really haven't read Obama's ideas on this. And have decide out of hand there is nothing good about it.
While I think disagreement is great and needed disagreement on the facts make for better arguments.
by their very nature they discriminate on the basis of religion.
Glenn Greenwald puts it this way:
It's true that Obama's program would prohibit the use of religion for hiring purposes with regard to programs funded by the Government -- the topic of prior controversies -- but it would allow religious entities that receive federal funding to use religion as a factor in hiring practices with regard to non-government-funded programs. In other words, Obama's plan allows religious organizations which discriminate to receive federal funds. Whether that distinction is important is something everyone can decide for themselves, but the AP article -- while confusingly obscuring this important distinction -- isn't wrong, strictly speaking, when it reports that Obama's plan "let[s] religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions."
In other words, Obama's plan allows religious organizations which discriminate to receive federal funds. Whether that distinction is important is something everyone can decide for themselves, but the AP article -- while confusingly obscuring this important distinction -- isn't wrong, strictly speaking, when it reports that Obama's plan "let[s] religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions."
Digby puts it this way:
Money is fungible. Catholic charities using "government money" for child care but using "their own" money to discriminate in other areas is an accounting method not a meaningful distinction. Until very recently it was understood that the state financing religious activities and religion financing state activities would be violations of the constitution. Churches were not asked to pay for the upkeep of the state as are other institutions and Churches did charitable work in return. It was a fair and practical division of labor that did not require anyone to fund religious activity with which they did not agree and neither did churches have to fund state activity that offended their beliefs.
key phrases-non-government funded programs
Churches have been getting money from the federal government for programs long before Bush. "Until Recently" seems pulled squarely out of someones rear.
Obama said today he wants to expand faith-based funding. But to ensure our tax dollars are only being spent in good faith, there needs to be expanded oversight. How do you pay for expanded oversight? Tax dollars.
