Obama would EXPAND Bush admin's faith-based programs...

[kage69]

[/quote]Story

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

I understand his sentiments, but I feel this is a bad move on his part. Maybe this is an attempt to quash those Muslim rumors and/or appeal to those who vote with their bibles, but no way does Obama get a thumbs up for this from me. I'm not comfortable with my tax dollars being used this way.

People need help - got it, then let's get that funding to orgs who don't maintain an idealistic religion as their guide to action. It's asking for trouble, and against the established concept of separation of church and state IMO.
While the article states "Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet."

But then that is followed with:

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.

Hrmmm.

Having known a lot of politically active holy rollers, I have a huge amount of skepticism over Obama's wishful thinking being heeded. Religion needs to stay in the church, and out of the schools and government. Pretty straight forward really - sorry to breach the "Obamessiah" bubble that so many like to point at. This is a great example of how no one in politics (or anything for that matter) is perfect.


*Note: This story was the result of the AP getting a text of what Obama is planning to say - he hasn't actually gone on the record with it yet, so this needs to be kept in mind.

What's your collective take on this, P&N?

 

[fskimospy]

Wait, so what's the problem? There's no religious test for recipients of aid, and no religious test for those working with the federal government to help out. I don't see how this fails the test set up in Lemon... seems pretty reasonable to me?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

:thumbsup: for Obama. This is good news...these organization are very effective in helping people.

 

[Genx87]

I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

 

[Xavier434]

I really do not understand your concern here. You fear that his position on the matter will reduce the separation of church and state yet your quote shows that the only "non-taxpayer funded" activities can be effected by such things. That means it will not have any effect on schools or the government. The money is just going to go towards these people helping others which heavily reduces the cost of labor and logistics that would be needed for the government to do it themselves. They have proven to do an excellent job in the past despite where your faith may lie. Am I missing something here?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

 

[DealMonkey]

We ALREADY assist religious orgs unfairly by granting them tax-exempt status. That said, F Bush's faith-based nonsense, F it in it's stupid ass.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

Second the seconding of GenX's OP.

 

[Xavier434]

I do not understand why so many are against this. Perhaps I am missing some key information that one of you can provide. I realize the whole "it's just not fair!" thing, but aren't the results of what these organizations have proven they can do to help others in the past good enough to support such things? These people tend to be very generous. Not only with money, but with time. They basically use money to help others and dedicate their time either for free or at a very low cost and they are really concerned with quality because they take their jobs to heart. It is very tough to find such a thing elsewhere you know.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

Second the seconding of GenX's OP.

But they are being required to stick to government employment laws with everything they do with the government's money?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

Second the seconding of GenX's OP.

Thirded.

This may be the first time all of us are in agreement.

Obama has really fallen off the wagon in the last couple weeks with me, I don't know who he is trying to please or what he is trying to accomplish other than to get elected.

But getting elected by selling out everyone who put him in the position that he's in is extremely dirty politics.

The enthusiasm for him has waned considerably basically since he locked up the nomination, since then he has supported right wing Supreme Court decisions, thrown Wes Clark under the bus, flip-flopped on FISA, etc.

These are not centrist positions, they are far, far right.

Supporting GOP positions isn't what got him his enthusiastic support and he needn't pander to them. In case his handlers forgot, the R's got creamed last time around in the Congressional elections running on the same platform they are now, namely fear and that's about it.

There is no reason to believe that somehow given that such policies are even less popular now, that he will leave himself vulnerable to attack. Unless he rights the ship however his support will continue to wither and he COULD potentially lose the election out of sheer stupidity a la John Kerry.

That is the only thing D's need fear in this election, fucking it up on their own, the R's don't have a hand to play. Unfortunately we all know how likely that is to happen because Democrats no longer have an identity and couldn't find their way out of a four sided cardboard box.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

Second the seconding of GenX's OP.

But they are being required to stick to government employment laws with everything they do with the government's money?

I thought these efforts were 99.99% volunteeer based...I never heard of these organizations hiring people to do their charity work for them. If they did, then of course they should conform to employment laws. Not sure where you're coming from here.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
I thought these efforts were 99.99% volunteeer based...I never heard of these organizations hiring people to do their charity work for them. If they did, then of course they should conform to employment laws. Not sure where you're coming from here.

I was under the same impression. The logic that those who oppose this idea are applying here seems to fit, but the reality in the way I understand how the system works makes that logic unnecessary. I really am wondering if I am missing a key point somewhere.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I thought these efforts were 99.99% volunteeer based...I never heard of these organizations hiring people to do their charity work for them. If they did, then of course they should conform to employment laws. Not sure where you're coming from here.

That what Obama is proposing does not run afoul of the legal precedent governing church/state interaction and so the hand wringing over this seems overblown.

 

[kage69]

I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization.

I have to say, good post Genx. My feeling for the most part as well, the bolded portion is a major point in this IMO.

But they are being required to stick to government employment laws with everything they do with the government's money?

And what is done with money from the "other category"? Who gets to ride herd on these tax exempt church groups when they're operating under the auspices of our government? There is a huge potential for abuse here, you really don't see it? Maybe my skepticism comes from knowing too many politically active holy rollers; they always seem to desire a government and political culture that falls more in line with their own personal beliefs.

Why not just keep it simple, secular, and let Americans send all the money they want to the religious aid org of their choice? I don't see the problem there, weren't the right wing conservatives just patting themselves on their backs over their superior donation history?

 

[Lemon law]

Funding religious based social aid programs can be a good idea. Its one of those, the devil is in the details. I would trust someone like Obama far more than I would trust someone like GWB to put the regulations in place and prevent the potential abuses.

But still, I am opposed to it in principle. Even if some leader does not abuse it, its inevitable that some future leader will. And the best way to avoid slippery slopes is don't go down slippery slopes.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Funding religious based social aid programs can be a good idea. Its one of those, the devil is in the details. I would trust someone like Obama far more than I would trust someone like GWB to put the regulations in place and prevent the potential abuses.

But still, I am opposed to it in principle. Even if some leader does not abuse it, its inevitable that some future leader will. And the best way to avoid slippery slopes is don't go down slippery slopes.

QFT

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I thought these efforts were 99.99% volunteeer based...I never heard of these organizations hiring people to do their charity work for them. If they did, then of course they should conform to employment laws. Not sure where you're coming from here.

That what Obama is proposing does not run afoul of the legal precedent governing church/state interaction and so the hand wringing over this seems overblown.

Hasn't precendent already been established? I don't see Obama proposing anything radical here.

"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."

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am not a big believer in govt funneling cash to religious organizations on any level. It isnt the govts job to prop up religious organizations. But if these organizations do recieve aid they should be required to adhere to the same equal employment laws as any govt contractor or govt funded organization. I dont buy into the splitting of the funds. Either they are on, or they are off the wagon.

Once they are off take that money and give us a tax break so if we want to prop up our own religious organizations we can with money not taken by the govt.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem with aid/charity but we're talking about the government giving money to religious organizations that don't pay taxes on their own 'income'. They should be required to stick to employment laws as well.

Second the seconding of GenX's OP.

But they are being required to stick to government employment laws with everything they do with the government's money?

From the article:

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.

Last I checked employers were not allowed to use religion (or lack thereof) in hiring practices.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Funding religious based social aid programs can be a good idea. Its one of those, the devil is in the details. I would trust someone like Obama far more than I would trust someone like GWB to put the regulations in place and prevent the potential abuses.

But still, I am opposed to it in principle. Even if some leader does not abuse it, its inevitable that some future leader will. And the best way to avoid slippery slopes is don't go down slippery slopes.

This I agree with for the most part. Regulation is necessary for sure. However, even with the current lack of regulation or the potential realistic amount of regulation should Obama call the shots on this, it is very important to also consider how much of that money is not being abused. I do not know the figures as I am sure no one else here knows either, but I do know that I have seen a lot of that money be used for great causes that helps a lot of people. I guess what I am trying to say here is that despite a percentage of those funds being abused, the juice may very well still be worth the squeeze.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: eskimospy

But they are being required to stick to government employment laws with everything they do with the government's money?

From the article:

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.

Last I checked employers were not allowed to use religion (or lack thereof) in hiring practices.

Here's a good excerpt from the US Department of Labor on the subject:

If a faith-based organization (FBO) receives financial assistance from the federal government to provide services... can the FBO use religion as a criterion for hiring and other employment decisions?

It depends on the employment position or positions involved. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) bars recipients of financial assistance under the One-Stop Center system from discriminating on the basis of religion in employment, but only in the administration of, or in connection with, the programs or activities that received the financial assistance. So the FBO may not use religion as a criterion for employment in the programs or activities that receive the financial assistance, but may hire, promote, or make other employment decisions on the basis of religion for other programs or activities.

This seems to be exactly what he was/is planning on saying.

 

[SSSnail]

The wheel of pandering spins spins spins, tell us the lesson that we should learn...

 

[lupi]

I'm torn. Do I laugh at the Obamabots flinching yet again after BHO opens his mouth or do I go with the fact that this action is well within the first amendment.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: lupi
I'm torn. Do I laugh at the Obamabots flinching yet again after BHO opens his mouth or do I go with the fact that this action is well within the first amendment.

Tax payer funded discrimination is a first amendment issue?

News to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: lupi
I'm torn. Do I laugh at the Obamabots flinching yet again after BHO opens his mouth or do I go with the fact that this action is well within the first amendment.

Tax payer funded discrimination is a first amendment issue?

News to me.

For like the 3rd time he is not advocating taxpayer funded discrimination or anything even close to it.