You’d think that I’d be more than happy that Obama and Bush understood that the government can’t solve the problems of our society alone and need the help of faith-based groups (and I am) and when Bush first purposed this program, I was for it but then I started thinking what that money would do to those churches and realized it was probably going to be a corrupting influence. The congregations would no longer need to support their own ministries, why not just use the government’s money? Congregations should support the work of the church, not allow the state to do it. It’s not the job of the state to fund our ministries. And if the government gives you money, they call the shots. They can put any kind of conditions on that money and if you’re addicted to it, you’ll dance to their tune. It’s a little too much blending of church and state:
“The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Obama planned to say in a speech later in the day, according to a text of the speech obtained by The Associated Press. “We need all hands on deck.”
[...]
“Because they’re so close to the people, they’re well-placed to offer help,” he was to say.
So, for all the Obamanites out there who hated Bush’s faith-based programs, do you like them better now that they’re coming from your guy?
Obama is obviously trying to connect with the Evangelical voter who is up for grabs this election cycle. McCain won’t talk about faith and issues that effect Evangelical voters but Obama will. And since many Evangelicals see abortion as less of a priority (I guess they find the murder of 40 million babies acceptable), then they will have no problem switching to Obama.
The deck is really stacked against the Republicans this year with a candidate who will not talk about faith and the issues that people of faith want to talk about (the poor, healthcare, etc.), Obama has the field all to himself. And since McCain’s pro-life record is a little weak, he’s not even getting the support of the Evangelicals who still care about abortion. It’s a perfect storm for Obama, he is blessed to be the opponent of such a weak presidential candidate who doesn’t have the support of his base. Too bad he’s such an incredibly weak candidate on foreign policy and he’s been so open about promising to raise taxes (with all his new taxes the “rich” will be paying 60% of their income in taxes), it would have been a cake walk for him. Now, he’ll have to work a little harder to overcome those deficiencies.
posted July 1, 2008 at 9:55 am
“So, for all the Obamanites out there who hated Bush’s faith-based programs, do you like them better now that they’re coming from your guy?”
No. I like Obama less for this and see him as acting like a typical pandering politician.
My view has long been that this corrupts churches and the government, both. I think we need a thorough investigation of how these programs have been run. It seems from the little coverage we’ve seen that this is a massive patronage program for Bush’s religious right pals.
And the idea that these government dollars can be used in a discriminatory way is just shocking.
Very disappointing, Senator Obama. Funny how you didn’t bring this up in the primary.
posted July 1, 2008 at 10:18 am
Michelle wrote:
“I guess they find the murder of 40 million babies acceptable”
It’s statements like that one that make your blog so painful to read. So far I’ve resisted the urge to delete your feed from Google Reader (because I really am interested in understanding the views of people who think differently than I), but you’re making it tough.
Surely by now you can understand that there are a variety of strategies possible for reducing abortion numbers and that someone who supports different strategies than you do or who makes voting decisions based on multiple issues does not necessarily “find the murder of 40 million babies acceptable”. In fact, I’m pretty sure that no one finds “the murder of 40 million babies acceptable”. Therefore, I wonder if you include statements like that either out of old habit, intentionally to sabotage dialogue, or for some other reason.
Please show your readers more respect and consideration in the future and don’t sabotage the chances for healthy dialogue with such nonsense.
posted July 1, 2008 at 10:59 am
“So, for all the Obamanites out there who hated Bush’s faith-based programs, do you like them better now that they’re coming from your guy?”
I was originally for these programs. I’m not too thrilled with their implementation. Keeping these programs is not something I feel strongly one way or another. Except mabye on libertarian principle alone and the gov’t should butt out.
“And since many Evangelicals see abortion as less of a priority (I guess they find the murder of 40 million babies acceptable), then they will have no problem switching to Obama.”
I think you are missing the point. many evangelicals, mainliners, and progressives are saying that Christianity is not a one issue religion(or 2 issues for some). We cant fight on abortion and win only to lose on poverty. Thats what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.
Or haven’t you noticed all of the problems that have been happening lately that are not culture related?
Oh and please don’t assume that not being 400% against abortion means that we condone abortion.
posted July 1, 2008 at 1:35 pm
It’s statements like that one that make your blog so painful to read.
Yep, I imagine so, people would really prefer not to face the facts and think of abortion in those terms. Best and easiest to look away. Worked for the Germans living near camps too, from what I understand.
On topic: It was unconstitutional and wrong when President Bush decided to do this, and it would continue to be should Senator Obama be elected and do the same. Not because of 1st amendment issues, but because of 10th.
posted July 1, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“So, for all the Obamanites out there who hated Bush’s faith-based programs, do you like them better now that they’re coming from your guy?”
i’ll wait and see. when bush announced his initiative i had concerns with the blending of church and state, but was willing to let the faith community do their best. remember that there were already religious organizations that did well with the aid of the federal government even before bush opened the floodgates. obviously my concerns were confirmed. unfortunately, like many bush initiatives, he used the opportunity not to help people, but to push his ideological initiatives around the WORLD. for example, he refused to fund aids prevention programs that offered condoms (which research studies prove have a positive effect in reducing aids) and pushed for programs that were all about abstinence (which research studies prove are not very effective).
while i still have the same concerns, i’m willing to let a more competent person give it a try. the fact that bush blew it is hardly an indicator that everyone else will. i’ll withhold judgment until i see what obama does with it.
posted July 1, 2008 at 2:30 pm
more competent
Translation: more leftist.
posted July 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Christopher Taylor,
I’m fine with thinking of abortion in those terms, but not with me being characterized that way…because it isn’t true.
posted July 1, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“On topic: It was unconstitutional and wrong when President Bush decided to do this, and it would continue to be should Senator Obama be elected and do the same. Not because of 1st amendment issues, but because of 10th.”
WHOA! given your argument (which admittedly is hard to get the supreme court to agree with) then so is his nclb initiative and a slew of others.
in that case, would you support impeachment of presinut bush? his constant disregard for the constitution along with his abuse of power would qualify as “high crimes.”
posted July 1, 2008 at 3:38 pm
What very few people are talking about in all this is the fact that almost all of Obama’s work as a community organizer was through churches and other faith-based organizations. His first job in Chicago was with the Developing Communities Project, which worked with a series of Catholic parishes on Chicago’s South Side. He also worked for the Gamaliel Foundation, which is another faith-based group.
This faith-based initiative of his is merely an extension of all the community organizing experience that he keeps touting. No one should be surprised that he’s making this proposal at all. It’s a reflection of who he’s always been.
posted July 1, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“Translation: more leftist.”
if you say so, i won’t disagree. however the point that i was trying to make is that bush threw taxpayers’ money at problems using unworkable, unproven solutions that were driven by his ideologue-right-wing and not based on science, history, fact, or even proven evidence of quality of service or results.
instead, bush threw taxpayers’ money to his cronies and republican friends. there’s a lot of information available on this. back in june abc news just reported on some more of this.
that’s what i mean by letting someone more competent have a try, leftist or rightist.
posted July 2, 2008 at 11:29 pm
then so is his nclb initiative and a slew of others.
in that case, would you support impeachment of presinut bush? his constant disregard for the constitution along with his abuse of power would qualify as “high crimes.”
I would support impeachment of President Bush for his failure to uphold and protect the US Constitution. Along with almost all of congress. I’m serious, that’s the only charge you actually can honestly bring against him – and, oh, just about every President in the last 150 years.
Read the 10th amendment some time.
posted July 3, 2008 at 7:38 pm
chris, i know the 10th. and since this has been going on since … well for as long as i can think of in this country, i think it’d be a hard one to prosecute.
but at least you and i agree on this much. it’s refreshing to hear someone on the right who cares this much for the constitution. i salute you, sir.
posted July 3, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The Tenth Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Christopher Taylor and/or anonymous reincarnate: Who are “the people” that are referred to in the final phrase of this amendment?
posted July 7, 2008 at 3:47 am
… as in “we the people,” as in you and i… joe public.