Associated Press
Zanesville, Ohio – Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for expanding President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and – in a move sure to cause controversy – supported some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama unveiled his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday 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 said.
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 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.”
John DiIulio, who in 2001 was director of Bush’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said Obama’s plan “reminds me of much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore’s and then Texas Governor George W. Bush’s respective first speeches on the subject in 1999,” according to a statement from the Obama campaign.
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 said.
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 talked 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 said.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted July 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Hmm…this is intruiging. I think I would actually have these programs taken a bit farther, but Obama’s version sounds better than Bush’s in some areas.
Now I’m interested to see what some of this blog’s more liberal commentators are going to say.
God bless.
posted July 1, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Why wasn’t all this discussed in debates with Hillary Clinton? Very convenient to wait until he acheived the nomination.
Quote: “The challenges we face today are simply too big for the government to face alone,” said Obama.
Many of us thought we had a contender that would change the way our government has been spinning along. Now we find we’re going to continue with something that has had many bumps, and problems, as Rev. Barry Lynn pointed out in the article.
This is a great way to get the far rights vote though.
That Obama has the personal committment to Christ that he has is very commendable, but why does he think that many in the United States that he wants to be President of has the same personal committment? I thought he was going to be the “knitter” of all people in the U.S.A.
posted July 2, 2008 at 12:28 am
Faith based programs are a blessing and the country has been benefiting from Christian charities through the years and through many hard times. It would be wise to tap into such a loving and giving community especially since the government is headed for financial trouble and trouble in many of its foreign interests. The needed for Christian charities is huge and the not so funny thing about it is that Christian charities continue to do what it can for the country in spite of the recent hostilities in America towards Christians. I don’t see how Obama is going to work these relationships Bush failed because of the transparent falsehoods, I’m thinking Obama will also especially since he will have to please the big O.
posted July 2, 2008 at 10:59 am
I am an Obama supporter, but I do have some concerns about this proposal. I was – and continue to be – very skeptical of the program as established by “w”. However, I think he was urged into this by folks who saw the program as a way to build their own church’s presence in their community (as well as a way to swell their coffers a bit). Also nothing was done to effectively keep these faith-based programs from prosletyzing as well.
I do know that Obama’s history includes working with churches in Chicago, creating initiatives for community safety and development. These things can work, if the people involved accept that they are doing secular work in a a religious facility. There ARE a lot more churches than government offices, so getting the help to the people where they are – rather than where the agency offices are – has some sensibility to it.
I am reserving my judgement. This is in part because I would be interested in seeing an alternative suggested that would be as efficient (not a word usually associated with the Church in any form!).
posted July 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm
“(not a word usually associated with the Church in any form!).”
jest i am confused by this last part of your statement I’d like to gety a better understanding if you care to elaborate.
posted July 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I think the sooner we get rid of ‘flip flop’ Obama Hussein the better. It is scary knowing he is pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes and they fall for it. His dedication is to the Muslims and all he wants is to have the power to sell America down the river. God bless America one nation UNDER GOD forever.
posted July 2, 2008 at 1:10 pm
ck,
What I was trying to say is that “efficient” is not a word usually associated with churches
Dr Wayne,
You are so far behind the news that it gives me an ache. Obama is NOT a Muslim. That or you are simply too thick or slow.
And more news – “their” God is ours too. Go read Genesis again and then follow the story along. The God of Abraham is the God of Ishmael as well as Isaac. It is through Ishmael that Islam came (the Kaaba in Mecca was a weekend project for father and son, Abe and Ish – and it is toward the Kaaba that Muslims pray).
I beleive it was lack of planning on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers that has allowed much of America to float down the Mississippi.
posted July 2, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Not something I wanted to hear coming from Obama…expanding on federal money to faith based organizations. As Rev. Lynn mentions, it ought to be shut down, not continued. Separation of church and state means just that…not having the US Gov’t contributing to religion based charities.
Dr. Moses:
You actually believe Obama is a Muslim? It is sad that you have fallen for the trash being put out there. BUT if it was true, so what? All Muslims are not out to “get us” any more than the American Japanese were in WWII. Aren’t Muslims free in this country to believe what they want just like the Christians, Jews, Pagans, Atheists etc. are free to do? What difference does it make? A candidate’s religion should have no bearing on how the candidate will run this country should he/she be elected to that office.
posted July 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Thanks jest for the explanation and although it may not be a word associated with churches there are many very efficient churches and charities ran by churches some have existed because of their efficiency for many years.
I also think it was a sad day for America when a few individuals convinced a large portion of the public the church and state thing is an adversarial separation that was not the intention of the founding fathers.
posted July 2, 2008 at 7:28 pm
This doesn’t surprise me. I believe that Obama is a man of integrity, and a misguided one at that.
I only wish I could live another 300 years to see what our country turns into and how little it resembles the vision of our founding fathers.