Steven WaldmanThursday July 3, 2008 @ 4:24pm

The Constitutional Right to Government Dough

By: Steve Waldman

One of the most controversial parts of Obama's faith-based plan - and Bush's - was the question of whether faith-based charities could hire or fire people on the basis of religion. I wroter earlier that there's less here than meets the eye but there are some important principles at stake.

First, there are some points that people actually agree on. A religious group can hire and fire people based on their faith for pretty much whatever they want, if they're not taking government federal money.

Also, a religious group can get government funds and still hire by faith for anything related to "ministerial functions" (i.e. worship, Sunday school etc).

The question is whether that group can discriminate by faith for other functions. A Catholic Church is surely allowed to only hire Catholics to teach the Sunday school - everyone agrees on that -- but can they turn down a protestant who's applied to work at the soup kitchen.

The reason this doesn't come up that often is that most faith-based charities decided that they want to reach as many needy as possible and that for most activities, being of that faith doesn't matter. If the YMCA is helping inner city youth get off the streets, it's not important that the basketball coach be Christian.

But sometimes it is. There are some faith-based programs where religion is central to success. A prison ministry might teach inmates that they can turn around their lives because of Christ's love. It's hard to convey that message without mentioning religion or without having the volunteer be Christian.

"The reality is an Orthodox Jewish group ceases to be Orthodox if they have to hire atheists or Southern Baptists," said Jim Towey, the former head of the program under Bush. "What Senator Obama is saying is groups will have to secularize if they play ball with government and receive federal funding, and that flies in the face of what many small groups want."

I'm sympathetic to the conservative argument on this, up to a point. Some programs really will lose something special if they secularize their approach. Sometimes it's not jsut about the soup; it's also about the Spirit. And if Obama wants especially to help the small groups, aren't these the ones most likely to have faith pretty intertwined with with they do (and least likely to want to hire a lawyer to help them navigate the rules?)

But here's my question: if that's the case, why take the money? Why "play ball" as Towey suggests? What's wrong with having government money go to those that have a secular mission and private money go to those that don't? Why the compulsion to force government into doing what it's not good at and which may do harm?

Conservatives are acting as if it's discriminatory for the government to say, "there are some thing the government shouldn't spend money on." Didn't that used to be the conservative position? I remember that liberals used to argue that if abortion is legal then the federal government had an obligation to fund it through Medicaid. But that never made sense to me. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it always makes sense to compel taxpayers to fund it.

Here's an example for conservative Christians to ponder: what if a Muslim group had an effective prison ministry program emphasizing prayer and Qur'an study. In fact, they could double the number of prisoners they taught the Qur'an if only they had more money. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to help spread the Muhammad's teachings?

Comments (0)

Filed Under: barack obama, casting stones, faith based, hiring issue, prison ministries

Permalink Email This Add to:

PontificationsThursday July 3, 2008 @11:43am

The Battle for the Catholic Voter

By: David Gibson

Barack Obama is in a virtual tie with John McCain for the Catholic vote, the "Holy Grail" of the campaign, as Amy Sullivan puts it in her analysis of TIME's latest poll which shows 45 percent of the 47 million Catholic voters--concentrated in key swing states, as TIME's map shows--versus 44 percent for Obama. This is an unexpectedly good showing for Obama. But Sullivan leads with yet another story about Doug Kmiec, the Reaganite Roman Catholic turned Obamacon. How much mileage can we get out of the "Kmiec Catholic," as we must now dub him, as if he were a new discovery like Australopithecus africanus, an elusive missing link. Or is he actually Piltdown Man, an elaborate hoax?

Here is Sullivan:

A new Time poll of Catholic voters reveals that Kmiec is part of a broader pattern. Although Obama was thought to have a "Catholic problem" during the Democratic primaries, in which Hillary Clinton won a majority of Catholic votes, he has pulled even with John McCain among that constituency--Obama now polls 44% to his GOP opponent's 45%.

There are 47 million Catholic voters, and while they are too numerous and varied to speak of as a monolithic Catholic bloc, they have long been a kind of holy grail for presidential candidates. The winner of eight out of the past nine elections has captured a majority of Catholic votes (they voted for Al Gore in 2000), and there are large Catholic concentrations in key states like Florida, Ohio and New Mexico.

The trick is figuring out what Catholics want...

Indeed.

PS: Check out the nifty graphics.

Comments (0)

Filed Under: casting stones

Permalink Email This Add to:

Casting StonesThursday July 3, 2008 @11:38am

The Second Amendment, guns, and the Supreme Court

By: Dr. Richard Land

The verdict is now in from the U.S. Supreme Court--the Second Amendment means what it says. In a historic 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that no government entity--local, state, or federal--can totally ban handguns from law-abiding, local citizens.

As Associate Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion, "The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. Those include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Scalia's majority opinion is a masterpiece of jurisprudence and sound legal reasoning. In the future, when anyone asks what someone means when they say they want federal judges who are "strict constructionist, original intent jurists," one need simply refer them to Justice Scalia's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller as the prime example of what such a jurist's opinions will look like.

The delight of those who believe that the Second Amendment does guarantee the individual right to "keep and bear arms" is tempered by the fact that four justices (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) disagreed vehemently with the majority (Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito). The stark reality is the individual right to "keep and bear arms" rests currently on the fragile foundation of a single Supreme Court justice's vote.

The next president could quite possibly nominate judges who fill up to three Supreme Court vacancies--yet one more issue for American voters to ponder as they prepare to cast their ballots for the 44th president of the United States this November.

Comments (1)

Filed Under: casting stones, richard land, supreme court

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingThursday July 3, 2008 @ 8:04am

Is the Christian right ready to unite behind McCain?

By: Michele McGinty

Looks like Obama has scared the Christian right into uniting behind McCain:

At a meeting Tuesday in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted, marking the latest in a string of movements that bode well for McCain's general election prospects among the Republican base.

[...]

A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."

Even though the Evangelical vote is fractured this year between those who oppose abortion and gay marriage and those who want to focus on the poor and the environment, the support of the Christian right leaders could actually help McCain if they can energize their organizations as well. Their organizations are a good source of grassroots support, which were used by the Bush campaign to get Evangelicals to the poll and they are also a good source of campaign workers, working the phones and going door to door. When they're energized and working to get someone they believe in elected, they will work diligently. But I'm not sure they will be able to get behind McCain the way they got behind Bush given McCain's treatment of them and their issues. I guess the way they'll energize the base is in opposition to Obama, not really support of McCain (that's what Dobson did).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in November, won't it?

Comments (9)

Filed Under: casting stones, Christian right, McCain, presidential election, Republicans

Permalink Email This Add to:

Windows & DoorsThursday July 3, 2008 @ 7:00am

Obama Unnerves Liberals and Conservatives with Faith-Based Plan

By: Brad Hirschfield

How do you get a single item to both shrink and grow at the same time? Ask Barack Obama, who did exactly that when he suggested that the Bush initiatives didn't go far enough. The expansion comes in his commitment to investing more dollars in faith-based institutions addressing big social and environmental issues.

"The challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone," Mr. Obama said outside a community center here. "We need an all-hands-on-deck approach."

» Continue Reading This Post

Comments (2)

Filed Under: casting stones, Christian, Conservative, Faith-Based Initiatives, Jewish, Liberal, Obama, Richard Cizik, Richard Land

Permalink Email This Add to:

Steven WaldmanWednesday July 2, 2008 @ 5:18pm

The Great Secret About Faith-Based Hiring

By: Steve Waldman

The most disconcerting part of Obama's faith initiative is that they didn't seem to be aware of the volatile politics of one provision: whether faith-based groups can hire and fire according to someone's religion. "Any religious organization that does not want to comply with that requirement simply doesn't have to take the money," said law professor and Obama advisor Martha Minnow. "I don't think there's anything too controversial about that."

Not controversial, eh? Writing that Obama's proposal was a "fraud," the Catholic League's Bill Donohue declared, "If a customer walked into a New York deli and said, 'Let me have a hot dog on a roll--hold the frankfurter'--he'd likely be thrown out. That's what the public should do to Obama's faith-based initiative: since he wants to gut the faith from his faith-based programs, he should be told to junk it."

Or, from Family Research Council's Tony Perkins: "Obama's interpretation would be a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds."

Worst of all for Obama, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals -- a moderate -- said, "That's extremely disappointing."

In a later post I'm going to dive into the actual law but here I want to simply draw attention to a portion of Tempting Faith, the book by my Beliefnet colleague David Kuo, who was the deputy director of the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives under Bush. He describes how the Bush White House wanted to make a big deal about federal rules preventing programs from hiring on the basis of faith. They instructed the staff to find outrageous examples of religious charities being forced to abandon their principles:

"There was only onne problem. Hundreds of calls were made and not one additional example was found."

Why? Because "most of the faith-based groups that did contract with the federal government were large and well lawyered" and therefore skillful at working around the law so they could get the money.

Kuo tried to convince his colleagues that it was a minor issue and that downplaying it could help them forge a consensus. But, it turned out, building consensus really wasn't the goal. "Jim [Towey, the office's director] was fully engaged in West Wing politics and smart enough to know how best to tickle political fancies. The religious hiring issues was polarizing... More action on the same subject would mean more attention for Jim's efforts. Therefore the religious hiring issue was good."

In other words, the religious hiring issue is one of these classic Washington creatures that interest groups care more about than those on the ground. Liberals loved it when Bush moved the line because they could claim he was gutting separation of church and state. Conservative activists love it that Obama has taken his position because they can claim he's gutting faith.

The reality is that the rule - though dealing with some interesting and important principles -- affects few groups in the real world. The test for Obama will be whether he can keep this particular red herring from blocking real progress that would help the poor.

Comments (5)

Filed Under: barack obama, casting stones, church and state, david kuo, faith based

Permalink Email This Add to:

Windows & DoorsWednesday July 2, 2008 @11:45am

Who's A Terrorist

By: Brad Hirschfield

Something is really off when everyone from CNN (look down to the World section) to the news on the AOL homepage (see the Top News) describe the attack on public bus in Jerusalem as the work of a "terrorist", using quotes because of their apparent discomfort with calling this an act of terror and labeling this murderer, a terrorist. If that is not terror, what is? And yes, I already imagine the litany of description of Israeli military activity that this question invites. And I have no interest in that debate right now. I want to understand why, even for those who would make such counter charges about Israel, what this man did is not terror.

And the BBC is even worse. Check out the clip that they posted as the news broke, and you will see something disgusting. Not disgusting because of blood and guts, which are happily not to be seen (even this murderer has a family and the pain that they will feel at his loss, should shape the images the press will use). It's because of their choice to open their video coverage with the smiling face of a bearded skull cap-wearing man with a pistol. They have zero coverage of the damage done, and like all the press this morning, are placing quote marks around the word terrorist when describing the driver who rolled the bus and killed at least three civilians.

I am the last to cry "anti-Semites", and am not even doing so now. But something here is very wrong and I hope you think so too, whatever your politics may be.

Comments (10)

Filed Under: anti-Semitism, aol news, bbc news, casting stones, cnn news, Israel, jerusalem terror attack, moral equivalency, news coverage of terror, terrorism

Permalink Email This Add to:

Reformed Chicks BlabbingWednesday July 2, 2008 @ 8:57am

Obama's move to the right

By: Michele McGinty

Is not going over well in the left side of the blogosphere. Kos has decided not to send him any money:

[T]here is a line between "moving to the center" and stabbing your allies in the back out of fear of being criticized. And, of late, he's been doing a lot of unecessary [sic] stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That's not an indictment, just an observation.

[...]

Ultimately, he's currently saying that he doesn't need people like me to win this thing, and he's right. He doesn't. If they've got polling or whatnot that says that this is his best path to victory, so much the better. I want him to win big. But when the Obama campaign makes those calculations, they have to realize that they're going to necessarily lose some intensity of support. It's not all upside. And for me, that is reflected in a lack of interest in making that contribution.

So don't despair Obamanites, Obama still stands with you on these issues he just has to pretend for awhile that he doesn't. He knows you'll understand. He knows, like Kos, you never really fell for all that "new kind of politician" crap.

Comments (21)

Filed Under: casting stones, Democrats, derisive, Obama, presidential election

Permalink Email This Add to:

Steven WaldmanTuesday July 1, 2008 @ 6:22pm

Obama: Bush's Faith-Based Plan Didn't Go Far Enough!

By: Steve Waldman

What will the liberals who criticized President Bush's "theocracy" make of Sen. Barack Obama's speech yesterday -- which argued that the problem with Bush's faith-based approach is that it didn't go far enough?

In his speech, Obama said Bush's office of faith-based aid "never fulfilled its promise" because the programs were underfunded and used for political purposes.

"Well, 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," Obama said.

Let's look at Obama's speech substantively and politically.

Politically, it operates on several levels. First, as has been much noted, Obama is making a major play for evangelicals. His faith-based plan will help that endeavor. But many forget that the main political target of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" (the centerpiece of which was his faith-based program) wasn't evangelicals but centrist Catholics. Obama needs them, too.

Second, Obama gets the benefits of being attacked by the left. "[Bush's] initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "I am disappointed." It provides Obama a low-cost way of showing himself not to be a standard-issue liberal (whatever that means these days).

Third, faith is Obama's way of countering the charges of elitism. Hillary Clinton and many Republicans have cast him as culturally out of touch with the mainstream, and they had plenty to work with: low bowling scores, Ivy League education, a seemingly anti-American pastor, his preference for arugula over cheese whiz. (Obama plays basketball well but the campaign kept that under wraps until Indiana (a basketball-crazed state) out of fear it would play into racial stereotypes. )

For Obama, the ticket to middle-American trust is in part through religion. By talking about his faith and showing through this proposal that he's faith-friendly, he casts himself as part of the mainstream. Obama may not be able to bowl, but he sure can pray. And he can't possibly be a Harvard elitist if he's a Man of Faith. Can he?

How does Obama's approach differ substantively from Bush's? Obama says Bush underfunded the programs but then offers no proposal for increasing the funds, except one summer-reading program and a general promise that it will be "central" to his administration. Obama emphasizes better coordination of federal and local faith-based agencies,fine in theory but hard to assess in the abstract.

The plan does grapple with one of the central paradoxes of the faith-based charity world: Many of the best programs are effective because they're small; but because they're small they don't know how to apply for aid or administer a grant. Obama focuses on "training the trainers" -- helping large national nonprofits, such as Catholic Charities, to train the small groups on how to apply for government aid. This may not be sexy, but it's a sensible focus.

But most important element of Obama's plan may be the one that will get the least attention. Bush had promised that programs would be funded on the basis of "results" but then did little to evaluate whether programs were working. Obama says he would change that.

All of this gives a glimpse of what kind of liberal Obama is. Much of his emphasis is better coordination, training and evaluation, not money. It's worth remembering that the bulk of Obama's work as a community organizer wasn't drawing together national groups in grandiose efforts or lobbying drives. It was connecting one church to another, a dozen residents of a project here with a dozen over there. In that sense, he is more like an early 1960s liberal (the sort who focused on fight poverty through local community organizing) than he is a 1970s liberal (which emphasized large scale national programs). Or, more accurately, he' is a hybrid of the two that we're just beginning to understand.

Finally, one of the tragedies of the Bush approach was that he took an idea with strong bipartisan potential and crafted it in a way designed to polarize. David Kuo's insider book about the Bush faith-based effort described how the administration chose to pick fights rather than join forces with those across the aisle. By contrast, Obama's plan was praised by Kuo and Bush's first faith-based chief, John DiIulio, who called it "a principled, prudent, and problem-solving vision for the future of community-serving partnerships involving religious nonprofit organizations." By saying he would build upon rather than scrap a major Republican initiative Obama is trying to offer a model of his bipartisan impulse.

Adapted from "Political Perceptions" the Wall Street Journal Online's center for political analysis.

Comments (13)

Filed Under: Barack Obama, casting stones, evangelicals, faith based

Permalink Email This Add to:

Crunchy ConTuesday July 1, 2008 @ 6:16pm

Good Christianists vs. Bad Christianists

By: Rod Dreher

Uh-oh, now that Obama has come out saying he approves of and wants to extend Bush's government backing for faith-based initiatives, what in the world is Andrew Sullivan going to do? He's one of the blogsophere's most prominent Obama enthusiasts, and the man who invented the sneer term "Christianists" to describe believers who bring their faith to the public square.

Well, not much, Andrew doesn't seem to know what to say, except to offer a weak response suggesting that Obama is more interested in the social activist side of things than the theology..Though at least he admits that Obama is guilty of Christianism. I'm with Ross and Daniel: this should make Andrew realize that the term "Christianist" doesn't mean much in a country in which religion is so historically a part of public life. Neither man is holding his breath. Here's Larison, taking it further:

The difference in tone and attitude towards left-liberal "Christianism" compared to Sullivan's dire warnings of fundamentalist takeover is remarkable, but not surprising. It is consistent with the sort of criticism of religious conservatism that Sullivan has been making for years, which is centered around rejection of any politics that would put religious imperatives into action in public life. That rejection does not include political action inspired by religious imperatives that are broadly in line with a socially liberal and activist politics. The rule seems to be something like this: the less orthodox or traditional the religion or church, the more acceptable its "interference" in political life.

It's always been clear to me that liberals don't really object to religion in public life; they object to conservative religion in public life. Church-state, "Christianist" talk is just rhetorical expediency. After all, how many liberals would have objected to the Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicating obstreperous segregationist politicians in the 1960s?

But here's something worth considering. Obama has recently declared himself opposed to the attempt to amend California's constitution, or the U.S. Constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. He says that each state should make up its own mind, but that's entirely disingenuous, because what he really means is that each state Supreme Court should make up its mind. If he were really in favor of the state making up its mind, he wouldn't oppose this ballot initiative. Anyway, here's the thing. If gay marriage gets read by SCOTUS into the US Constitution as a fundamental civil right, as Obama no doubt wishes, I'm pretty sure that no religious organization that adheres to the traditional Christian/Jewish/Muslim teaching about same-sex marriage will be eligible to receive taxpayer funds as part of any faith-based initiative. So his proclamation today that he will support and expand federal funding for faith-based initiatives would, in that case, mean that he would in effect support federal funding for liberal faith-based groups only. The only churches, synagogues, etc., that would be eligible to receive federal funds would be those that have abandoned traditional teaching on homosexuality. Right?

I know that's a lot of ifs, but it's something that conservative Evangelicals thinking of voting for Obama, and finding his comments about faith-based programs today to be encouraging, should think about.

Comments (32)

Filed Under: casting stones, gay marriage, Obama

Permalink Email This Add to: