I wrote a review of David Kuo’s Tempting Faith for Free Inquiry back in late 2007, and took a certain comfort in the idea that we might soon see
the end of this mad coupling of government and religion known as the “faith-based initiatives.” Looks like the “new boss” might have a lot more
in common with the “old boss” than we suspected from his primary-season rhetoric.
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.
Oh, this is discouraging news. I had such high hopes for him. I don’t imagine McCain will be much more reasonable on the issue, either?
There are a lot of problems with millions in taxpayer funds going to unqualified groups with no social service experience whatsoever, to “cure gays” and “save marriages” and “rehabilitate prisoners.” Blatant discrimination in hiring practices and distribution of social services should not be taxpayer funded!
Fight back against this abuse of our tax dollars, and put our money back with qualified, educated, social workers and therapists, click here for more information.
Obama is a radical religious nutjob who hangs out with other radical religious nutjobs such as Jeremiah ("The government made AIDS") Wright.
“We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.”
--Barack Obama
[And for those of us who don’t want to join his little kingdom, what? Will he force us to join? I have no doubt he will try to force us to pay for it.]
“When people work together there is nothing that can stop us because that’s God’s intention.”
--Barack Obama
[So now he knows the mind of god and will do whatever god tells him to do? Wait! I thought Obama was god?! His followers and the media (but I repeat myself) sure think he is.]
“What role does faith play [in my life]?’ I say it plays every role.”
--Barack Obama
[Every role? Even the role of Commander in Chief? Will he make Executive Decisions based on faith? By any definition of “every role”, then the answer is yes.]
“It’s [faith] what keeps me grounded. It’s what keeps my eyes set on the greatest of heights.”
--Barack Obama
[Apparently he won’t keep his eye on the Constitution.]
Obama has said he seeks to be an “instrument of God.”
[I guess being an instrument of the Constitution is out of the question?]
Barack Obama’s campaign has a “religious affairs director”
[As if the President of the United States needs one of those! Does he have a Constitution Affairs Director? I don’t know, but I’m willing to bet the answer is NO!]
In an Associated Press interview Obama was asked about walking the line between politics and religion. In the interview he said:
“There are no set guidelines or play book.”
[Yes there is. It is called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.]
This should not come as an enormous surprise: any of the “Obamaniacs” who actually took the time to read what Obama has written
(I have, and I’m not even a fan, I was an Edwards man) would know that where he stands on “faith-based initiatives” is not that far from
where the Bush administration stands. It’s one of the main reasons I wasn’t a fan of the guy, preferring my church and state kept comfortably
far apart from each other, thank you very much. I do enjoy the one saving grace of not suffering all the recent throes and spasms of angst and
gnashing and wailing that so many of the Obama fans have been going through. Having read the man’s work and knowing what he believed, I was
not surprised when he trotted the homophobe Lonnie McLuskin out on stage. Having read the man’s work and knowing what he believed, I was not
surprised to learn that one of his key advisers is talking about keeping 80,000+ troops in Iraq into 2010 and beyond. And, having read the man’s work
and knowing what he believed, I’m not surprised at this latest pronouncement on “faith-based initiatives.” Obama’s current behavior and statements
are totally consistent with what he’s written. The only place he told some of them little white lies was during the primaries, to get the “left-liberal base”
to turn out in droves for him. Obama’s a politician, and he’s gotten what he needed from the left-liberal base. He’s rowing hard to the right in preparation for
a hard-fought general election to come, leaving the “base” behind to licks its wounds and “get over it.” I’m one of that left-liberal base, but like I said,
I have this real bad habit—I read -- and so none of what he’s done recently came as a shock. To those who fell for Obama’s primary-season
left-leaning rhetoric, I’ll offer the immortal words of Johnny Rotten: “Ever get the feelin’ ya been cheated?”
I also would have preferred Edwards. I made my first contribution to his campaign shortly before he quit. Then I contributed to Obama’s campaign. Now, I’ll send a note pointing out that because of his anti-first amendment views on religion, I no longer plan to support him financially. The more of us who do that, the less likely he is to continue pushing that drivel, particularly after he gets elected.
Senator Obama’s Concession to Faith-Based programs unfortunate, says Council for Secular Humanism
The Council for Secular Humanism regrets that Senator Barack Obama has seen fit to affirm a willingness to extend the unconstitutional faith-based diversion of tax dollars to religious institutions as begun by President Bush. “This is basically religious pandering,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, executive director of the Council for Secular Humanism.
Faith-Based Initiative Should Be Abolished, Not Renamed
July 1, 2008 The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the nation’s largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), today condemned Barack Obama’s “gratuitous” pandering and his pledge to expand and rename George Bush’s faith-based initiative. The Foundation is a nonpartisan educational organization working to keep church and state separate, which has taken the lead in legal challenges against the faith-based initiative.
Just as seven years ago the Foundation condemned Pres. George W. Bush’s creation of his misguided “faith-based initiative,” today the Foundation protests the shortsightedness of candidate Barack Obama in endorsing its continuation.
This is the wrong direction for our country. The next president should have the integrity and courage to back off from Bush’s fiasco and abolish the so-called faith-based initiative. It has been a waste of taxpayers’ money, has injected religion into politics, deprived needy clients of the best help, and has punched a huge hole in America’s vaunted “wall of separation between church and state.”
Obama Promises a Constitutional Faith-Based Program: An Oxymoron?
“July 1 - In a speech today, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama announced plans to overhaul and expand President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI). Obama said his new program would be called the “Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships” and that constitutional problems inherited from Bush’s OFBCI would be addressed.
In this election year, the Secular Coalition for America is working with its allies to ensure that both presidential candidates are better educated on the issue of government aid to religious groups. The Coalition calls for the next administration to end, not re-invent, the flawed and failed experiment called the faith-based initiative. Twisting our Constitution to fit a “new and improved” version can’t change the fact that funneling tax dollars to religious organizations is, at its core, unconstitutional.”
Obama Support For ‘Faith-Based’ Program Is Disappointing, Says Americans United
But Watchdog Group Says Candidate’s Opposition To Religious Discrimination In Hiring And Publicly Funded Proselytism Are Steps In Right Direction
“Rather than try to correct the defects of the Bush “faith-based” initiative, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would do better to shut it down, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
I really don’t know what to chose in the poll, Steve. It seems he might be two-faced, yet he does need to pander to various groups of people in order to win the election, but that too makes him a stereotypical politician- thus we are right back to two-faced.
I really don’t know what to chose in the poll, Steve. It seems he might be two-faced, yet he does need to pander to various groups of people in order to win the election, but that too makes him a stereotypical politician- thus we are right back to two-faced.
I really don’t know what to chose in the poll, Steve. It seems he might be two-faced, yet he does need to pander to various groups of people in order to win the election, but that too makes him a stereotypical politician- thus we are right back to two-faced.
That’s an interesting point, Hypnos. The other week I went off on a rant (Or was it a diatribe? Never could keep those two straight ...) on that subject, the dearth
of choice in our American system. You got your Republican, and you got your Democrat. Pick one. I was over in France driving around Provence during their last
election and the breadth of choice they had available was amazing. Whatever your taste—from uppercase-C Communist to far-right National Front—you could
find and support a viable political party and set of principles that reflected your views. The American system, with its two meager choices, makes about as much sense in this day and age as the idea of having the kind of “super"markets they had when I was a little kid, where you only had a couple of brands of anything on the
shelves. Bread? You got your Wonder and you got your Bunny Bread. Soup? You got your Campbells. Ketchup? You got your Heinz. Want some mayo? Well, there’s
Hellman’s and there’s .... well, Hellman’s. Seriously, this is why “super"markets were much much smaller boxes when I was a kid, because back then (50’s - 60’s)
the choices really were that restricted. Well, our political system is still like that.
I was an Edwards fan too. In our system you keep picking from what remains. Europeans are (generally) big fans of Obama because he is different from the stale American politic of the last eight years. I’m also saddened by this latest development, but not enough to go over to the dark side.
I was an Edwards fan too. In our system you keep picking from what remains. Europeans are (generally) big fans of Obama because he is different from the stale American politic of the last eight years. I’m also saddened by this latest development, but not enough to go over to the dark side.
I’m with you there. Like I said, I’ve read his stuff so his “suddenly” centrist positions were no surprise to me. I consider them to be consistent with what he’s written over the years. His catering to the
inchoate aspirations of the left-liberal base during the primaries was to be expected; most Dems do it, because they know that these are the people who actually turn out for primaries (people who
are comfortably in the center do not turn out for primaries; only people who feel there are real stakes involved will turn out for primaries...). I just feel a bit bad for all those people who actually
believed Obama’s primary-season rhetoric; if they’d bothered to do a bit of reading, they could’ve avoided being disillusioned.
