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

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: 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.

It really depends on the charity. Some are much more dirty than others, but I suppose the same can be said about each individual church that runs a soup kitchen. You got your good apples and your bad apples.

 

[Perknose]

The Associated Press reported that he supports letting religious institutions -- in the non-federally funded parts of their activities -- hire and fire based on faith, according to a senior adviser to the campaign who the news agency said spoke on condition of anonymity.

This, if true, I simply cannot endorse or defend.

Our Fouding Fathers explicity madated the strict separation of church and state for very, very good reasons.

No cause, no matter how noble, can or should trump this.

Edit: Sorry, having now read through this thread, I see I'm very late to the game.

However, this part: "in the non-federally funded parts of their activities" continues to bother me greatly.

I see this as pandering on his part. The first time he openly supports funding a Muslim charity, I'll consider changing my mind about "pandering", but I still consider this initiative dangerously wrong.

 

[jpeyton]

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students.

$500 million for children's learning initiatives?!? That's outrageous! I'd rather spend that buying another day of war in Iraq.

 

[Drift3r]

The only assistance religious organizations ever needed from the Federal government is to be tax exempt. The Bush inspired "Faith based" welfare/tax is a load of crap and frankly Obama supporting it is just him trying to pander to the religious right in this country.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: 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.

Imagine people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson making the candidates bid for their support with commitments to faith-based funding which they get a big cut of.

It's the introduction of a dangerous type of corruption, despite the fact that the lower level people in these charities are just good people trying to help others.

Unfortunately, they're also happy to make people like Dobson and Robertson their leaders and powerful, an politically influential. That's a mistake to mix tax dollars with them.

Like many things, it's not that this can't be done in a harmless, constructive way; it's that it's next to impossible to prevent the chance of corruption if you allow it.

 

[nageov3t]

so how soon till Fox News starts claiming that Obama's faith based initiatives = madrassas in Idaho and muslim terrorist training camps in Nebraska?

 

[Corbett]

Combine this with the fact that Obama now SUPPORTS the overturning of the DC gun ban and I guess you could say Obama is trying to "cling to his guns and religion"

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Combine this with the fact that Obama now SUPPORTS the overturning of the DC gun ban and I guess you could say Obama is trying to "cling to his guns and religion"

That's the wittiest post I've seen from you. Not bad, and sadly not without a grain of truth.

 

[nonameo]

Let the people give the religious institutions the money themselves. No need for the govt to do it for us.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: 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.

Preach it brother...

Tho, I think he's doing this to get the religious votes. Face it if your not on the religious bandwagon your gonna get clobbered at the polls. 80-90% of americans apparently want the insanity to continue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Separation of church and state is a good deal for churches too. There are people already looking to sue churches to force them to perform gay marriages. They can't directly compel because of freedom of religion BUT some churches take money for adoption services, feeding the poor, rebuilding homes in New Orleans, etc. Because there federal dollars involved in these activities, they are using that as the excuse. There was something about this a few weeks back on NPR.

The state and church ought to beware of each other.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

The answer to your question is that the govenment should not support them because their help always comes with religious strings attached. They give help to people to convert them to their religion. The U.S. government should not support these activities. Especially since some of these religious organizations attempt to undermine science education in this country.

This country was founded on the concept that state supported religions were not good. Separation of church and state is not about charity. It is about good and fair government that treats all people equally.

Originally posted by: 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?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The answer to your question is that the govenment should not support them because their help always comes with religious strings attached. They give help to people to convert them to their religion. The U.S. government should not support these activities. Especially since some of these religious organizations attempt to undermine science education in this country.

This country was founded on the concept that state supported religions were not good. Separation of church and state is not about charity. It is about good and fair government that treats all people equally.

Originally posted by: 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?

Obama is all about CHANGE-ing his mind..... it's only words...

 

[herm0016]

there are no religious strings attached to a habitat for humanity home, only a requirement that you live there for a set amount of time and volunteer to build other houses.

separation of church and state is about the church not getting control of government, look at history, this is what the statement is based on, not things like funding of programs or banning christian prayer in schools.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Separation of church and state is a good deal for churches too. There are people already looking to sue churches to force them to perform gay marriages. They can't directly compel because of freedom of religion BUT some churches take money for adoption services, feeding the poor, rebuilding homes in New Orleans, etc. Because there federal dollars involved in these activities, they are using that as the excuse. There was something about this a few weeks back on NPR.

The state and church ought to beware of each other.

This, this, this! :thumbsup:

 

[quest55720]

I hated it when bush did it and hate obama wants to do this. If people want to give money to their church to help people good for them. It is not the job of the government to give money for churches to spread their word. Is obama going to give money to all types of religions or just churches of his religion? The idea of the government giving money to wright or James Dobson and Pat Robertson to spread their word makes me personally ill.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Originally posted by: herm0016
there are no religious strings attached to a habitat for humanity home, only a requirement that you live there for a set amount of time and volunteer to build other houses.

separation of church and state is about the church not getting control of government, look at history, this is what the statement is based on, not things like funding of programs or banning christian prayer in schools.

Habitat for Humanity does good deeds and should be supported by private funds.
But, according to the Habitat for Humanity web site there are religious strings and conditions attached when they accept government money.

This is what they say:Habitat For Humanity web site

"How does Habitat work with the government?
Habitat for Humanity International welcomes partnerships with governments that include accepting funds and other resources to help provide houses for God?s children in need, provided these partnerships do not limit our ability to demonstrate the love and teachings of Jesus Christ,..."

 

[Socio]

ZANESVILLE, Ohio - Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.

Sounds like a big fat door opening that will allow Federal money to legally be used to finance Islamic fundamentalism among others, just what we need.

 

[JS80]

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.

So you're for it but then against it....nice.

Obama apologists FTL.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JS80

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.

So you're for it but then against it....nice.

Obama apologists FTL.

So someone is an apologist when he takes a position in opposition to the person he's supposed to be apologizing for? Your reasoning is truly mind boggling.