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

[Xavier434]

It seems like a lot of posters here are misinterpreting the article.

 

[child of wonder]

The government should not officially recognize any religions at all outside of viewing them as businesses and taxing them appropriately.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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.

Which is all why McCain will win easily.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Which is all why McCain will win easily.

Still with this huh? McCain's winning so easily that in most polls he's losing by anywhere from 5-15% depending on the question asked! Maybe you were right, if he stopped campaigning he would do better.

 

[Butterbean]

People don't realize how slick Obama is. On one hand this idea of his will make him seem more midstream to some. On the other hand he can uses the same programs as cover for his own weid shiz. Its his United Church of Christ (larger congregation Trinity belongs to) that uses SIECUS guidelines to teach 5 yr olds about homosexuals and masturbation. I can see Obama getting all sorts of bilge pumping into society via his version of faith based intiatives. As well as teh gay stuff I can see him saying we have neglected our mulsim brothers and sisters in our faith based intiatives and now we will need to "expand the conversation". Remember first and foremost Obama is a snake in the grass.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: 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.

Tax exempt charities, to be legal 10% of what they collect must go to the charity and the big boys get the rest in CEO wages. Volunteer on the base, money in the pocket on the top. Oh, they don't want to follow Federal employment rules? Too bad!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
People don't realize how slick Obama is. On one hand this idea of his will make him seem more midstream to some. On the other hand he can uses the same programs as cover for his own weid shiz. Its his United Church of Christ (larger congregation Trinity belongs to) that uses SEICUS guidelines to teach 5 yr olds about homosexuals and masturbation. I can see Obama getting all sorts of bilge pumping into society via his version of faith based intiatives. As well as teh gay stuff I can see him saying we have neglected our mulsim brothers and sisters in our faith based intiatives and now we will need to "expand the conversation". Remember first and foremost Obama is a snake in the grass.

Sigh.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: 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.

Tax exempt charities, to be legal 10% of what they collect must go to the charity and the big boys get the rest in CEO wages. Volunteer on the base, money in the pocket on the top. Oh, they don't want to follow Federal employment rules? Too bad!

I'm talking about faith-based charities (i.e. churches)...what are you talking about? A specific example of what you're talking about would help for starters.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM


Tax exempt charities, to be legal 10% of what they collect must go to the charity and the big boys get the rest in CEO wages. Volunteer on the base, money in the pocket on the top. Oh, they don't want to follow Federal employment rules? Too bad!

I have never heard of a faith based charity doing what you describe. If they exist, they must be an extreme minority. This topic is in regards to faith based organizations and nothing more.

 

[jman19]

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.

Agreed completely, Genx.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's a simple fact that people of faith give more and are happier than people who don't have faith and don't belong to some religious institution. Practically tho only people helping poor Africa are Christians.

I know religious people are nuts and that they only help people to get into heaven and add more members to their church and all that sort of shit, but the starving and hopeless don't care. Real food and aid from shit heads is a lot better than the indifference of smart people.

 

[Moonbeam]

I forgot------------> Go Obama!

 

[RKDaley]

Supporting GOP positions isn't what got him his enthusiastic support and he needn't pander to them.

I don't think he's pandering to them.

As I understand it, he's long talked about the role that faith-based institutions should play in the public sphere, and wrote about it in his book "The Audacity of Hope."
He was also a community organizer that worked with churches.

I don't agree with him on this issue but it does seem since he has expressed this before that this is of some interest to him.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I think it's a bad idea....I don't think tax dollars should be used to help churches brainwash people...that should be left up to our schools ....In all seriousness though I think this is a horrible idea and just totally opens up a can of worms for all of us...We don't need Govt. meddling in our Religion and we don't need Religion in our government being entangaled in any way period...

Boy alot of things keep popping up in which I disagree with Obama...I guess the honeymoon is over...I'm thinkiing about getting this whole relationship annulled...
Starting to look like a case of "meet the new boos same as the old boss"....more and more....ah well atill better than W. nobody can possibly fuck up as much shit as W.

 

[kage69]

I know religious people are nuts and that they only help people to get into heaven and add more members to their church and all that sort of shit, but the starving and hopeless don't care. Real food and aid from shit heads is a lot better than the indifference of smart people.

Hands that help are better than lips that pray, as Sai Baba said - quite so.

Which is why I give to UNICEF, as I am indifferent to say the least over the need for a middle-man bearing a cross and a flag.

This isn't enough to shake my support for Obama, far from it, I just feel this knocks him down a couple of pegs. Wasn't expecting this from him after his quite candid and commendable run-down on faith in politics, among others.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Too much grey, you can't have it both ways, that's what I'm getting at, who's going to be auditing these programs? The orgs themselves, please. :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
-snip-
Tax exempt charities, to be legal 10% of what they collect must go to the charity and the big boys get the rest in CEO wages. Volunteer on the base, money in the pocket on the top. Oh, they don't want to follow Federal employment rules? Too bad!

I'm a tax CPA who does quite a bit of work with non-profits (mostly section 501(c)(3)'s).

I believe you have been mis-informed about the rules applicable to them. Also, bear in mind that there are about 20-30 different types of non-profit oraganization authorized under tax law. They all have different pruposes and therefore operate differently.

Fern

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Too much grey, you can't have it both ways, that's what I'm getting at, who's going to be auditing these programs? The orgs themselves, please. :roll:

I don't think that anyone is arguing that such a thing can and will be abused to a degree. However, that fact should not dismiss the other fact which is that most people who volunteer their time and money to faith based organizations feel moralistically obligated to do the right thing. They want to do the right thing. There are enough of these people involved that a great portion of the regulation will occur from within the organization. Again, that will not stop all of the abuse, but the juice may very well be worth the squeeze when you consider the alternative which is handing money to non faith based organizations which think more like a business than a charity quite often. That or you can dump the money into what so many people on this forum like to call "entitlement services". Your final option is to not help at all.

So, in the end, you gotta pick what you believe is the lesser evil which may not be faith based organizations and I cannot say I blame you for that decision. Just remember that none of your other options are peechy clean either.

 

[herm0016]

faith based orgs, like most homeless shelters, habitat for humanity, salvation army, etc etc.. are the main way that people in need get what they need. why not support them?

 

[RKDaley]

UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Religious programs use federal money for non-religious work: soup kitchens, homeless shelters and after-school programs. Typically, all labor is volunteer which substantially increases efficiency of the effort to help needy people...please note...we're talking about hundreds of thousands of real people with basic survival needs. Knowing we live in an imperfect world...I'm sure there's an example of an abuse or two somewhere...but this is where the bulk of the money goes...helping people that are hurting.

OK...take away the money used to help these people...let the government run it as well as extremely inefficient secular charities...use a little imagination to forecast what happens next. While we're at it...let's tax the crap out the churches and see how many can still survive.

And when it's all done...take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about how you helped humanity and this country. An honest man couldn't look in the mirror for a second. :disgust:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Religious programs use federal money for non-religious work: soup kitchens, homeless shelters and after-school programs. Typically, all labor is volunteer which substantially increases efficiency of the effort to help needy people...please note...we're talking about hundreds of thousands of real people with basic survival needs. Knowing we live in an imperfect world...I'm sure there's an example of an abuse or two somewhere...but this is where the bulk of the money goes...helping people that are hurting.

OK...take away the money used to help these people...let the government run it as well as extremely inefficient secular charities...use a little imagination to forecast what happens next. While we're at it...let's tax the crap out the churches and see how many can still survive.

And when it's all done...take a good long hard look at yourself in the mirror and feel good about how you helped humanity and this country. An honest man couldn't look in the mirror for a second. :disgust:

good points.

I imagine this is how most services are setup with churches and such. I can't imagine all of these different church programs for kids and for the homeless or for rape victims, abuse victims, substance abuse assistance etc etc etc are all funded through tithings/donations...

 

[kage69]

Thanks for that update RKDaley, good news to be sure. I had an uneasy feeling about the initial article which is why I made the notation I did in the OP.

Here's hoping your source is the accurate one... :thumbsup: :beer:

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: RKDaley

UPDATE: An Obama campaign official told the Huffington Post that the AP's claims about Obama allowing hiring or firing based on faith are false. From a portion of Obama's speech today:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

You see? A bunch of you guys were getting your panties all tied up in a knot over nothing. I realize this is going to be quoted by those who do not believe a word that Obama says but what else is new?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
OK...take away the money used to help these people...let the government run it as well as extremely inefficient secular charities...use a little imagination to forecast what happens next. While we're at it...let's tax the crap out the churches and see how many can still survive.

How can you say that secular charities are extremely inefficient compared to religious ones, the transparency just isn't there to make that kind of claim.