I agree that the proposal seems to move in the right direction. What was always troubling about the Bush administration’s (otherwise laudable) faith-based initiative was the concern that it was nothing more than a smoke-screen for right-wing proselytizing. It would be wonderful if there were a way to let religious communities play a broader role in these areas. (Then again, maybe this just means that I trust Obama more than Bush!)

Ironically, what upset Conservatives who casually paid attention to this issue was the wrong problem. They liked that Bushh extended protection for in-faith hiring, but felt he could have done more for their churches. Some Conservatives thought that this would be a great way to funnel money to churches. The money never showed up, so they were disappointed. But Christian Conservatives who were more involved came to realize that the real failure of the Faith Based Initiative was that it was never going to even do the good works it was designed to do, but rather act as window dressing to garner Christian votes in states like Ohio and Texas. It was Rovian cynicism at it’s worst, which is one reason why some church groups are up for grabs this election.
It would be disturbing if Liberals were so opposed to religion in general that they failed to see the merit in Obama’s proposal, but I think that their knee jerk suspicion of handing money over to religious institutions has some merit if you reread your next paragraph, where it seems that some churches in fact may have some unacceptable ideas of what to do with the money.
Your penchant for poking holes in the false piety of others is welcome, but you need to extend it to yourself if you think that Liberals as a group are so “hostile to religion that the very idea that religious institutions will grow,” when in fact their suspicion of handing money or privileging those institutions may in fact have some basis in past experience.
Of course there are dogmatic people on the Left, but there are many who are not, and their caution is well earned. In a sense, hat is what Obama is addressing, as you eloquently pointed out.

The best part of Obama’s proposal is that he makes clear that religions can no longer discriminate based on out-dated ideas. A religion cannot run a faith based program which imposes anti-abortion policies on people nor may the religion push its anti-Gay views. The only way to make certain the faith based religion is not promoting its religious agenda is to make certain that they hire Pro Choice staffers and openly Gay staff members.
Hopefully, enough religions will become sufficiently financially dependent upon the federal funds that they can be ordered to change their unacceptable doctrines. Right now the federal government can order States to adopt certain policies or lose federal funding and the same can be done with institutions which have backward ideas. How can one know that a faith based program is not secretly pushing Creationism on young minds as long as such beliefs are part of the religion? The only reliable solution is to make certain that the religion receiving federal funds officially delete such ideas from their theology.
This turn of events can be especially helpful to Jews as the more Orthodox are an embarrassment with their dogma that the Torah is literally true, etc. Once they are dependent on federal money, then we will have leverage to force them to join the modern world.
It is good that Obama has finally taken the first step to allow us to counter-act the religious right wing’s pernicious influence on American civic life. The task may take years, but as Mao said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step.”

just remember…….obama is competing with McCain……NOT Bush……
and there is no question about Mc’s support for Israel…….and there
are BIG questions about Obama……
there IS a possibility that Obama is a Muslim plant…….we really cant and dont know…..and IF there is that possibility, ALL Jews
MUST do everything they can to defeat him……
as well as ALL the other questions about Obama……
McCain IS a hero……there is no question about that……
what is Obama??

I find this article interesting, but would add a simple twist. The Obama goal is to bait and switch. On the surface his rhetoric would appear to meet the desires of the conservative Christians, ie. provide more federal support for their outreaches. However by taking away the ability of these groups to exclusively choose who they want to help administer the outreaches, many of them will choose to decline the Federal assistance. This is a win – win for Obama. If the Christians in general fall for this – He Wins, because they will end up fighting law suites to keep from having to hire any and all who may apply to work and don’t hold to their beliefs.If they don’t buy into it – He still Wins, because he may loose the Conservative Christian Vote (which many seem to think McCain doesn’t have either), but will Still (with this new proposal) build the “Good Guy – Help the Poor” image that will bring over many of the non-committed, uninformed, middle of the road, or hate Bush, voters… Win-Win.

Obama is a socialist full blown. He is like a new Hitler. He tell you what you will think and makes you believe it. He is a disease. Young people flock to him but he will send us to another war because he has never seen the carnage and would not know how to react. And Gen. Clark was not a soldier but a political puppet. McClain is not a hero but a soldier who endured years of captivity at the hands of a manical enemy. He is the real deal,a patriot who will lead us back to the great nation we once was. He supports Israel and our culture. Any Jew who cant see this is a sheep to the slaughter.

I am new to this newsletter and must say that it is difficult to take information out of context and read things into it that may or may not be there. When I resd the quote and the interpretation it is difficult to believe that there is no bias involved. Quite honestly, I am disappointed.

Obama relly scares me, he has not come up with any decent plan on anything. I too believe he is a Muslim plant, you can’t change the ideas he picked up from Rev Wright over numerous years of sitting in his church listening to him. I too am afraid that the media will lead all Americans to the slaughter, they just LOVE Obama, and are promoting him to the hilt. We need to get rid of the media we have today. I watch Glenn Beck and he tagged Obama for what he is, a long time ago.

With all the attention being centered on the Future election, it seems that we have forgotten that we have 10 to 12 million ILLIGAL aliens running around this country, I think the worst part is that there are people all over the world who have waited for entrance visas. These are people that will CONTRBUTE to this country, not a bunch of illiterates from south of the border who come to take advantage of the “FREE” that is offered.Those who champion their cause say that these people do the jobs that others will not do. My question–how did the work or jobs get done BEFORE we have been invaded??????

I was struck by how Rabbi Hirschfield’s views paralell mine, a United Methodist Christian pastor and how much I differ from the views of the Christians referenced. The Rabbi is a brother, one that appears much closer to the teachings of Jesus than many who claim his name.
For those who express irrational fears about Obama, read his books. You might still disagree with him, but then at least you would be disagreeing with him and not somebody else’s distortions of him.

The greatest danger in mixing religion and politics is that ultimately, the political part of the equation begins to erode the religious part. I echo the sentiment that Barack Obama is a socialist, whose financial backing has yet to be disclosed. If, as has been suggested, George Soros is one of his financial strongholds, then religious leaders have much to fear. Soros is an avowed atheist, despises all religions in the most vehement way, and is especially hateful toward conservative and orthodox Judaism (there are allegations that his survival during WW II was due to his collaboration with the Nazis.) There should be healthy skepticism on the part of faith-based organizations with regard to anything promised by a political candidate whose base consists of radical feminists insistent on the right to murder unborn children, homosexual activists who want to normalize their behavior and demonize heterosexuality,and environmental extremists who have made an idol of Mother Earth.

Thank you, United Methodist Christian pastor, Gary Schrag, for a comment that is simple, basic and yet as audacius as hope. I am pleasantly shocked that with all my literary accomplishments and escapades, I cannot add or subtract a word from your last two sentences:
…… READ his books. You might still disagree with him, but then at least……………..and NOT someone else distortions (caricatures?) of him

I don’t care about Obama’s Ethnicity, his Religious beliefs, or who his financial backers are. I have listened to, and read his words – Barack Obama is a Socialist, and an Anti-Capitalist. If he becomes President, he will make 60% of the population dependent on Government, which cause an unstoppable slide away from Capitalism and the end of the country as we know it.

I do not trust Obama. I think he is very smart, very glib, in short, a typical orator. It is no wonder he has gathered votes. Look what the totally inept inarticulate border-line intelligent bush was able to do with his lack of command of the language.
One reason I have such a distrust of Obama’s veracity and position on where he really is stems from my feeling that this war between Rev. Wright and Obama is a “staged” war to convince voters that Obama is ok. Why after Obama left the church, and denied influenced by that rabblerouser Wright, did Wright then fire his very public volley? To fool us.
I also distrust Obama because I do not think he is the voice in his family. I think his wife is. I think she will be the power behind the throne and will use it through Obama he is elected. She also stayed in that church with Wright for all those years. If she had been offended, she would have left, dragging Obama behind her. She REALLY frightens me.
I believe this whole thing is a plan to get a Muslim sympathizer in the White House.

I am an employee of Catholic Charities of the Omaha Diocese. I am not Catholic or even Christian. While the Catholic church has a rather bloody history in it’s relationship to those who do not believe the way the current Pope dictates or the Bishop dictates, Catholic Charities at least in this diocese is not that closed minded. We already receive federal funding and all mental health and chemical dependency clients are informed in writing that we do not push an belief system on them.
On a personal level, I have only encountered one staff member who was disrespectful toward me because I was not Catholic.
As a therapist, I would welcome more funding for treatment coming from the federal government. I agree with Obama’s thoughts that those religious agencies must not discriminate in their hiring practices. Bush was specific when he said the money was NOT to be used to promote the doctrine of the religious agencies that received the money.
While this is one point in favor of voting for Obama, there are many other reasons that will keep me from voting for him including but not limit to his stance on illegal aliens.
Ron Paul may not be running any more but I support more of his ideas than either Obama or McCain. Both of them scare me.
Deb Amburn
I am the wife of a Jewish German immigrant.

I agree with the Rabbi’s discussion and conclusion.
I was, at first, very upset that Obama would even consider continuing Bush’s “faith based initiatives”. It was my own knee jerk reaction to anything Bush. After actually reading more and investigating, I agree that Obama is trying to “build a bridge” over the objections of all “Dogmatic sides”.
He is correct when He says this is a time for “an all hands on deck” kind of effort.
Just goes to show that “simple” and “simpler” are NOT the same thing. Complex issues are never simple.
A simple concept- allowing a joining of Government and Religious organizations for a common goal cannot be made “simpler” through words or legislation.
Only the “red tape” involved with the allocation and USE of funds can be made “simpler” by clearly identifying the “common goals” it is to be used for and the measuring stick that will determine if progress is being made. Complex issues can only be made “simpler” to a limited degree-as in breaking down a plan into component parts. Once broken down this way, then a “simple solution” may indeed be found – to that part of the problem.
I hope that Obama can get his own words out in front of all of those who want to tell us what he said or what he meant.
I fervently hope that what I hear in his vision of change to take us BACK to what this country stands for in order to make real progress continues without being distracted by all those “helpful” people trying to tell Him and all of us just what He means or intends.
He would do well to remember that he is where he is because, He said he would Change the way things are done in Washington. He must be wary of the seductive call now to “compromise a little” because we have to win an election. When was the last time a “Compromiser” actually won anything?
That’s right compromise is made during negotiations, leadership is what gets one to a position of power in order to negotiate.
This is why I cannot support McCain because He has compromised on all the issues that made him “The Maverick” in 2000. I wince every time I hear him use the Bush method of repeating “talking points” -whether they fit or not. I like McCain personally and his Mother is his best asset but, He really hasn’t learned as much as he thought from his involvement in the Keating 5 scandal. He still believes in that old military and political idea of the “scrounger’s warehouse” – where one has “needed items” or favors to “trade” outside of approved channels.
It is taking this to extremes which has resulted in the corruption – political, judicial,moral and ethical which permeates our Federal Government activities and actions today. This must change!
After listening to both campaigns, only Obama has consistently said his goal is to change Washington. WE must not let him “back slide” to use an old Baptist term. We must give him the power to stand up to the “insiders” who really fear change because that threatens THEIR power and their economics. This really is about whether we want OUR Government to be based on trust of our citizens and their “Freedom to choose” or FEAR of everything that is not tightly controlled by …. whom? or what?

Barak Obama’s plan has two basic flaws with it. First, he is probably not sincere about it; if he were, why not mention this during the primaries? This sounds like a way to buy off organizations more interested in receiving federal money than in religion, to convince some people to vote for him, then when he becomes president, “Oops, sorry, couldn’t get it through Congress. Suckers!”
Second, to the extent he is sincere, this sounds like an attempt to get more federal supervision over religious organizations, under the guise of making sure federal money is not being used for proselytizing and, more to the point, that there is no employment discrimination going on. Thus, churches and synagogues would not merely be required to employ nonmembers of their religion, but those that oppose homosexuality would be required to employ open gays. Thus, this is an attempt to damage any non-PC religion.

It s interesting that people label Obama as a Socialist. These people prefer to ignore O’s rhetoric and focus on his actions. But is O a Socialist?
From looking at his actions, one might also conclude that he is a Narso-psychopath (combo of DSM IV-TR 301.81 and 301.7). He is not wedded to his prior positions. His actions indicate that he endorsed the socialist, liberationist rantings of Rev Wright because it served his own ends, not because he had any commitment to them. The death penalty is ripe for expansion and gun control is unconstitutional. Free trade is good as is isolationism and high taxation. Don’t look for consistency of ideas — the only stable aspect of O is that O will do whatever O thinks will personally benefit him. He’s kind of a Scalia, Nixon, and Karl Rove rolled into one.
The real concern is McCain’s increasing ineptitude. The sad thing is that so long after the Keating Affair, McCain is still in bed these these same reprehensible scum suckers. O does not have to do anything to prove his point that McCain is Bush III. Almost everyday, McCain is shedding his maverick clothing and to my disappointment, he’s showing that he is the latest front man for the myopic and incompetent Republican oligarchy whose unchecked greed screwed up the war and is destroying the economy.

Some of the comments here are truly amazing –
“Obama is a Muslim plant” in the same post as saying that his wife (who has *no* Islamic connections whatsoever, other than her husband!) is the real “voice” in the family. Smearing Obama as a “Muslim plant” and at the same time lashing out at his connection to Rev. Wright, who is many things but most emphatically *not* a Muslim!!
Using DSM IV numbers and terminology to “diagnose” Obama — it is either unprofessional (to do so publicly, and with respect to a person one has never examined or treated) or ignorant (if the author is not a trained mental health professional, which is unrevealed), if not both. In either case it is, in my opinion, despicable. Have we forgotten, so soon, how the old Soviet Union used “mental illness” as a weapon against dissent?
Obama has a working relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu, and has introduced legislation (for divestiture of investments in companies that do business with Iran) that came from that relationship. Can we *please* drop the Obama-is-dangerous-to-Israel nonsense already?? I am the son of two Holocaust refugees, I have relatives on both sides of my family in Israel, and I take Israel’s safety as seriously as anyone here.
If there are *any* rational voices among the Palestinian leadership (an entirely debatable point, I know!), they *must* know that if they are to have any chance to be heard by an American President, Obama is their once-in-a-century chance — and Obama has already made it clear that he will not entertain the absurd and outrageous demands they have been making for decades.
Thank you, Rev. Schrag, and Amen!
To get to the point of the Rabbi Hirschfield’s original post (finally), the idea is to distribute federal funding for the poor and underprivileged more efficiently than through governmental welfare organizations, while maintaining the essential and constitutionally-necessary separation of government and religion. Those who argue that this program would force religious organizations that are anti-gay to hire gays (whether they argue this as a good thing or a bad thing) are simply wrong. It means no more and no less than, as pointed out above, you don’t have to be Catholic to be hired by Catholic Charities. Is it such a terrible idea, if a Jewish organization is (for example) running a program to deliver hot meals to shut-in’s, for a non-Jew to be allowed to earn a living helping to prepare those meals — and to work with caring and compassionate Jews on a daily basis and see that we really do *not* wear kipot just to hide our “horns?”
John McCain does not understand that having hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq — and saying publicly that he contemplates keeping them there for a hundred years — is one of the best “recruiting posters” the Islamic terrorists have. Does anyone here really think it was merely coincidence, that the most recent “intifadeh” and the election win by Hamas came *after* we invaded Iraq? John McCain would continue to further the government of this country by the rich and for the rich, and we simply cannot afford that any longer.

“And I’m certain that it wouldn’t be less Jewish if it were a Jewish program. In fact, it might make it ‘more Jewish,’…”
Exactly so.
Clearly thought through and well stated, rabbi. This is a fine example of precicely where the “focus on issues” needs to be.

Barack Obama is a very good orator. But just as McCain’s heroic military service does not prove he would make a fine president, Obama’s over-blown stardom cannot make him a fine president either. Inviting the participation of religious institutions in the healing of homeless people, people in need of health care, jobs, hope, and self-respect, etc., etc., etc., is stupid–for now. McCain has been endorsed by Dubya and Obama is saying he will adopt Dubya’s plans about involving churches et al into the mix of what is turning out to be our governments own failure to take care of it’s own citizens. I’m not a socialist, at least, not yet. And I’m not necessarily against religious institutions wanting to contribute their share of assistance to people who need their assistance, but if a Jew is a helping Jew in a synogogue and helps to feed some hungry children, I don’t care if she’s Jewish, straight, purple, or a man. Churches can hire and bring in volunteers of whomever they choose, and that will make any programs the government encourages to be a little more honorable as long as the people receiving the religious institutions assistance are like I was. Starving in the 1970s, I went into a Catholic church and I was given a big bag of food to take home. Given, not sold, of course not sold. It was a Catholic church that really served our suffering little community. Yes, they had clothes, too. If a nun gave a little Islamic child a sweater to cover her cold shoulders, then a human being would be helping another human being. And well, that’s about all I have to say about this–for now. L’Chaym! (Did I spell “To Life!” correctly?)

Ah yes, mixing politics with religion and vice verse. Where’s Islam? When were Christians pillaging and destroying non-Christian territories? Israel is superior to Palestinians? The three most powerful religions in the world are making a living hell out of the world because Israel is not about Judaism! It’s about politics mixed with “Judaism.” “Palestine” if ever there were such a place, is not about Islam! It’s about land–politics–just like Israel. Christians? In the U.S. is it Christian to use secular government for it’s own agendas? The U.S. is a Christian nation. So, I have heard. And, so “If not now, when?” First Christianity needs to liberate itself from the constraints of governmental political agendas or it will and it is now being squelched very steadily and very constantly and enough so that it will bleed to death and become subordinated and subjugated to political ideologies devoid of any spiritual humanity.
So, yes, religious institutions, help. But since when have rel. insts. not helped? The best Obama can do is encourage RIs to continue their good work. Giving money to them seems absurd especially since the governmental programs for human services have not been working well anyway. So why don’t we put the money into improving these services? Oh, right. The government is too ignorant to run services for the citizens it serves. Huh?

Some thoughts:
Most Muslims (and Christians, Jews, members of other faiths, atheists, etc) are peaceful!
Candidates for office must appeal to a very diverse population with opposing viewpoints in order to be elected and effect any change.
No human alive is totally virtuous, no matter what, if any, faith she or he is aligned with.
There is something to be said for a leader that is intelligent, well-meaning, compassionate, consensus builder, would choose diplomatic action prior to violent action, and is an excellent orator.
Hey, we’ve already had an actor as President (Ronald Reagan).
There are valid points for and against government intervention.
It seems obvious that smaller organizations are easier to manage than huge ones and can be very effective.
As a member of a faith community, working with interfaith groups on social justice and other issues, I see the effectiveness firsthand.
Anyway, no candidate is going to be perfect.
I have issues with all of them – whether Bob Barr (Libertarian Party), Ralph Nader (Green Party), John McCain (Republican Party) or Barack Obama (Democratic Party) or any of the others.
A lawyer family member of mine informed me that compromise is reached when all parties are equally unhappy.
The question then is, what are we willing to compromise on?