NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

Well this was something I did not expect Obama to come up with.

CHICAGO - Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

The part I disagree with most however is the last part. That I do not agree with. But before people jump up and down and holler:

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.

So what do you all think?

I didn't know corporations have to hire based on skills/ability instead of faith/color/gender because they were funded by taxpayer's money.

Ugh.

As long as he's fair and impartial to all faiths, I see no problem. If he's only going to include certain Christian churches, then it's a problem.

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.

Where exactly does a religious institution would get money other than from taxpayers?

I know from volunterring at my chuch counting and organizing donations all of the money we recieve for operating the church, and various programs we support comes from someone that pays taxes. That means that all of our activities are supported for tax-payers. So if a southern baptist that adamantly disagrees with the Catholic churchs' philosophy and teachings applies for a job at a Catholic Church they have to be considered? Even if that person's adamant disagreement would make it a hostile working enviroment for their Catholic co-workers?

Where exactly does a religious institution would get money other than from taxpayers?

I know from volunterring at my chuch counting and organizing donations all of the money we recieve for operating the church, and various programs we support comes from someone that pays taxes. That means that all of our activities are supported for tax-payers. So if a southern baptist that adamantly disagrees with the Catholic churchs' philosophy and teachings applies for a job at a Catholic Church they have to be considered? Even if that person's adamant disagreement would make it a hostile working enviroment for their Catholic co-workers?

He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities

He means that if a church is participating in a government-funded faith based program, they're still a church - any people working on the non-government funded part of the church (i.e., the pastor, the clergy, the music director) can be required to be of that faith. Those people are paid out of the Sunday collections.

Where exactly does a religious institution would get money other than from taxpayers?
Suckers.

So if a southern baptist that adamantly disagrees with the Catholic churchs' philosophy and teachings applies for a job at a Catholic Church they have to be considered? Even if that person's adamant disagreement would make it a hostile working enviroment for their Catholic co-workers?
Why would he apply? Southern Baptists, as part of the evangelical movement, are obviously going to be making more money in their organization than as a secretary for a Catholic church.

Suckers.


Maybe, but then again, I can claim those donations on my income taxes, and they become discounted from my taxable income, therefore saving me money in taxes.

Why, oh why does this have to do anything with religion? I mean I presume there are non-religious charities in the US, and you don't need to make concessions to any group towards discrimination. The economic argument is just a pretext - this is plain straight kissing up to evangelicals.

Why, oh why does this have to do anything with religion? I mean I presume there are non-religious charities in the US, and you don't need to make concessions to any group towards discrimination. The economic argument is just a pretext - this is plain straight kissing up to evangelicals.
Bingo.
He should leave McCain to sinking his ship, the USS Maverick, by trying to pander to evangelicals and moderates instead of trying to down himself by playing to people who would never vote for him anyway. He needs to make it look like he is friendly to religion, not pander to evangelicals.

Exactly. If this blows sufficiently out of proportion he could very well alienate some of his own electoral base while chasing evangelical ghosts. It's quite likely he just shot himself in the foot here, and for being such an idiot, he deserves it.

Exactly. If this blows sufficiently out of proportion he could very well alienate some of his own electoral base while chasing evangelical ghosts. It's quite likely he just shot himself in the foot here, and for being such an idiot, he deserves it.

1. No matter what Obama says, his base will vote for him. He could say he wants to be Richard Nixon, and his base will vote for him. They'll just assume he's lying to get elected.

2. He needs the white rural voter he insulted in Pennsylvania - you know, the people who actually believe in religion, and own guns. Hillary had a good point - he can't win the election without them.

3. Therefore, he must pander. I'm waiting for him to get a photo op duck hunting (I bet he's never hunted in his life) just like Kerry did.

Diosgusting... simply disgusting.

As it has been said before... is Obama trying to reach the people that would never vote for him and alienate those that would?

Maybe he isnt... maybe because in the US, religion is way more important in politics that in other parts of the world.

Maybe because in the US people are willing to both for a "black" man but not for an atheist.

Were is the "help we are being oppress!" logo when you need it. :rolleyes:

wait a minute - the moderators explicitly told me that making any Obama thread is forbidden - that all Obama posts belong in the sticky election thread.

He means that if a church is participating in a government-funded faith based program, they're still a church - any people working on the non-government funded part of the church (i.e., the pastor, the clergy, the music director) can be required to be of that faith. Those people are paid out of the Sunday collections.

I agree, but the way I'm imagining it, I think you haven't taken it far enough.

Let's make an example: I think we can assume the Faith based Charity group is already in existence, it currently does 'aide' for 200 people (whatever the aide is) and it employees full time workers and volunteers from it's own church membership. If it receives enough government donations to increase it's service from 200 to 400, it doesn't have to change it's employment practice of hiring only people from it's own church UNLESS they grow so much that they have to hire people off the street to assist them do their work. If they have to hire new employees because of the new government aide, those new employees can't be paid with the government fund unless they are hired under equal opportunity employment requirements.

So, theoretically in my mind, I can imagine a scenario that all of the workers at a Catholic homeless shelter / soup line service etc., could receive government funds to increase the amount of food and beds they provide without needing to begin hiring non-catholics to dish out the soup or manage the shelter... thus some people are going to protests.

On Topic: I'm actually surprised Obama came out with this position on this issue. I'm interested in seeing if he keeps his position today intact, or if he modifies it, after a couple of weeks of attacks by the 'separation of church and state' far left political groups that so far have been on his bandwagon... Will he cater to his hard -supporters or continue to try to appeal to the moderate religious middle...

1. No matter what Obama says, his base will vote for him. He could say he wants to be Richard Nixon, and his base will vote for him. They'll just assume he's lying to get elected.

2. He needs the white rural voter he insulted in Pennsylvania - you know, the people who actually believe in religion, and own guns. Hillary had a good point - he can't win the election without them.

3. Therefore, he must pander. I'm waiting for him to get a photo op duck hunting (I bet he's never hunted in his life) just like Kerry did.

An a photo with soldiers wearing a military uniform would follow soon after that.

I think you are right. The people that think he "can-walk-on-water" would vote for him any way. Thats why he is attacking McCain "natural" voters. He said he was going to campaing in long life red states.

Will this strategy pay off? will it be his downfall?

2. He needs the white rural voter he insulted in Pennsylvania - you know, the people who actually believe in religion, and own guns. Hillary had a good point - he can't win the election without them.
You mean the idiots too stupid to realize he didn't insult them but are too busy listening to conservapundits spin bullshit to realize it?

EDIT: They very fact that people keep harping on it just serves to prove it true.

wait a minute - the moderators explicitly told me that making any Obama thread is forbidden - that all Obama posts belong in the sticky election thread.

When has that stopped you or Corneliu?

Why would he apply? Southern Baptists, as part of the evangelical movement, are obviously going to be making more money in their organization than as a secretary for a Catholic church.

They wouldn't, but someone from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, might apply for a job with the intention of not getting hired so that they can bring a lawsuit against the faith based group for non-compliance of equal opportunity employment...

1. No matter what Obama says, his base will vote for him. He could say he wants to be Richard Nixon, and his base will vote for him. They'll just assume he's lying to get elected.

2. He needs the white rural voter he insulted in Pennsylvania - you know, the people who actually believe in religion, and own guns. Hillary had a good point - he can't win the election without them.

3. Therefore, he must pander. I'm waiting for him to get a photo op duck hunting (I bet he's never hunted in his life) just like Kerry did.

1) Maybe but I doubt this base is 49% of the electorate so he could afford to pull this sort of stunts.

2) You can't win an election if you chase swing voters (i.e. maybe-s) by sacrificing core supporters (yes-s). And I'm pretty sure most atheists which will have an issue with this will have been supporting him, and now have second thoughts. I know I'd be in this position, if I were an American.

3) Of course he will, but such photo opportunities are less likely to alienate traditional supporters.

When has that stopped you or Corneliu?

You'll notice I'm not doing any more Obama threads.

1) Maybe but I doubt this base is 49% of the electorate so he could afford to pull this sort of stunts.

2) You can't win an election if you chase swing voters (i.e. maybe-s) by sacrificing core supporters (yes-s). And I'm pretty sure most atheists which will have an issue with this will have been supporting him, and now have second thoughts. I know I'd be in this position, if I were an American.

3) Of course he will, but such photo opportunities are less likely to alienate traditional supporters.

His core supporters will applaud this, and just think that "Obama is lying so he can get elected, and that's ok with us, because he would NEVER lie to us..."

I would also have second thoughs if I had a vote.... but then again democracy has become the game of chosing the less of two evils.

His core supporters will applaud this, and just think that "Obama is lying so he can get elected, and that's ok with us, because he would NEVER lie to us..."

I think you are overestimating the imbecility of the American public. Particularly since Obama's support is to be found in the slightly-less-imbecile-than-average quarters.

Where exactly does a religious institution would get money other than from taxpayers?


Donations/Tithes.

His core supporters will applaud this, and just think that "Obama is lying so he can get elected, and that's ok with us, because he would NEVER lie to us..."

It's not that at all, we're just not stupid enough to believe that we're going to agree with him on every single thing he does. I certainly don't agree with this, not even a little bit, because I think his caveats are unenforceable to the point of being just lip service. You can't get a highly religious person to buy a pack of gum without it being a religious experience, proselytizing the whole way through (praise God for the long lasting flavor I am about to receive, can I get an Amen!?!) It's bullshit. It's a scramble for votes that he would have gotten anyway-there is an erosion in the evangelical base and he didn't have to pander to get them. Fuck it, maybe he really believes that this is the best way to get assistance to those who need it, certainly church based charities are established, experienced, and extensive in a way that non-church ones may not be, I certainly haven't done the comparison. But with the 'wall' already as paper thin as it is I'm never in favor of it being poked through.

But, DK, your read is wrong as usual. You're actually telling supporters that they will say he's lying when they're tellling you they simply don't like it.

And yes, this belongs in the Election thread...someone else report it, though. I feel like a hall monitor every time I do it.

*in before "Obama is using this idea to secretly fund al-Qaeda training camps in the U.S."*

its not surprising obama is what you call a religious liberal.
religious groups are making a move toward the left recently because they favor social programs.
Liberals used to be dominated by the religious groups in the 20's and 30's. it is part of the reason the US never had a close brush with communism because the "opiate of the masses" doctrine turned off the groups that might have support such moves.

1) Maybe but I doubt this base is 49% of the electorate so he could afford to pull this sort of stunts.

2) You can't win an election if you chase swing voters (i.e. maybe-s) by sacrificing core supporters (yes-s). And I'm pretty sure most atheists which will have an issue with this will have been supporting him, and now have second thoughts. I know I'd be in this position, if I were an American.

3) Of course he will, but such photo opportunities are less likely to alienate traditional supporters.

those who think that obama is a closet atheist are as misguided as those who think he is a closet muslim.

he praised faith based programs in a religious forum a few months ago. at that time he said he was hoping to promote faith based programs that deal with poverty.

its not new and its unlikely to go away.

I'm directing this at supporters and detractors of both major candidates:

Do you honestly expect either candidate(or any candidate if you have the wit to consider third parties) to be a cookie-cutter fit to your beliefs, ideals and opinions? If one is, I suggest you brain yourself with a frying pan because the head trauma will do you no end of good.

There was a time when I would have settled for competence, integrity and a high regard for the will of the people. After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. :p

I'm directing this at supporters and detractors of both major candidates:

Do you honestly expect either candidate(or any candidate if you have the wit to consider third parties) to be a cookie-cutter fit to your beliefs, ideals and opinions? If one is, I suggest you brain yourself with a frying pan because the head trauma will do you no end of good.

There was a time when I would have settled for competence, integrity and a high regard for the will of the people. After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. :p

I knew one! Harry Browne, RIP.:(

I'm directing this at supporters and detractors of both major candidates:

Do you honestly expect either candidate(or any candidate if you have the wit to consider third parties) to be a cookie-cutter fit to your beliefs, ideals and opinions? If one is, I suggest you brain yourself with a frying pan because the head trauma will do you no end of good.

There was a time when I would have settled for competence, integrity and a high regard for the will of the people. After the last eight years, I'll settle for competence. :p

isnt that the truth!

i want a new directon for this country so much that i dont know that its possible for obama to do anything that would make me not vote for him.

anything within the realm of the possible that is. i wont vote for him if he shot a man in reno just to watch him die.

His core supporters will applaud this, and just think that "Obama is lying so he can get elected, and that's ok with us, because he would NEVER lie to us..."

You know my own thoughts better than I do? Are you God?

isnt that the truth!

i want a new directon for this country so much that i dont know that its possible for obama to do anything that would make me not vote for him.

anything within the realm of the possible that is. i wont vote for him if he shot a man in reno just to watch him die.

For me, it might depend on who he shot.

uhhh.....Nader 08?

I didn't know corporations have to hire based on skills/ability instead of faith/color/gender because they were funded by taxpayer's money.

I think that's only supposed to be there so that churches don't have to hire clergy who are not members of that faith.

If a church uses federal money to set up a food kitchen, then they should not be allowed to use faith as grounds to exclude Muslims from working as cooks and servers, but they should not be required to give that same Muslim equal consideration for the job as Pastor.

isnt that the truth!

i want a new directon for this country so much that i dont know that its possible for obama to do anything that would make me not vote for him.

anything within the realm of the possible that is. i wont vote for him if he shot a man in reno just to watch him die.

What if he shot a man in reno, but would not tell you why?

What if he shot a man in reno, but would not tell you why?

Well, that's just business as usual.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

Well this was something I did not expect Obama to come up with.

The part I disagree with most however is the last part. That I do not agree with. But before people jump up and down and holler:

So what do you all think?

Having read The Audacity of Hope, I don't find this very surprising at all.

And the stipulations you pointed out are the reasons I don't have a problem with it. As long as the government funds are not being used for proselytizing or paying for discriminatory hiring practices, I don't have a problem with the fact that the charity in question is religiously affiliated.

As a staunch atheist, I think it's a good idea. :eek:

After all, he won't win without the religious. Why do you think Kerry lost (minus the 9/11 patriotism blinding the Americans)? Bush fought harder for the evangelicals.

You know my own thoughts better than I do? Are you God?

Well, he is a supporter of the imbecile who claimed God wanted him to be President, not to mention his chosen zombie-shell successor.

I don't think it's a bad idea for Obama to expand this really. The gist seems to be he wants to make it a truly broad spectrum faith-based cooperative as opposed to the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Cash For Votes scam that it has been under Dubya's inept direction. Include any charitable religious group in the idea. And if Athiests want to form a charitable group, they should be able to get in on the action too.

I recognize a politician playing for votes. Simple as that.

One more reason $10 will not be leaving my wallet for his.