... I can still call you that, right? It's not bad to call an atheist an angel, is it?

at all the people who claimed, yelled, screamed, that Barack was the more "progressive candidate".  And here we are, and it's plainly evident that he's NOT.  Fuck.  This is so depressing.  PS: haven't talked to you in a bit--hope you are well--I've been lurking around here--took me 'til tonight to comment much.  I'd gotten on the "unity" bandwagon....but this makes it really hard to stomach.  I'm depressed about it too.

Sricky just compare my diaries with yours and you will feel great.

I was much more upset at FISA and the Clark thing (which I feel like he fixed).  I never got as riled by the government funding faith-based programs (which existed before Bush, albeit in more roundabout ways), and always knew that Obama would likely be comfortable with it since his own faith is clearly important to him.

But I can certainly understand the frustration and anger---FISA felt like a stomach punch.

A few days ago, I saw this great graphic that had the slogan "Get Disappointed by Somone New" with the Obama "O" symbol in the O's of someone.  The person who made the graphic pointed out that it was actually a pro-Obama symbol, saying they were voting for him no matter how much he disappoined them.

Religious groups do some awfully good work out there.  IIRC, studies show they get a lot more accomplished with a lot less than many secular government-funded programs.  The conscientious religious groups must understand what they can and cannot do with public funds.  The government could send a rulebook along with the cheques and create a first-amendment-protection hotline for complaints about proselytizing or discrimination.

Of course, administring such a program honestly could turn out to be a nightmare.  There was a stink a while back about a government-funded Catholic group in MA denying adoption services to gay couples.  Since it was in MA, the good guys won (Romney got some egg on his face).

I'd personally prefer these groups raised and spent the money locally, but that's not always feasible.  The politicized faith-based corrupt program we have now must be done away with, but that doesn't mean churches can't render unto God and Ceasar effectively at the same time.  I'm merely arguing that in with better national leadership and administration, religious groups can be made to understand that their own religious freedom is at stake if they misuse taxpayer dollars.

If you can't see that this is a SERIOUS violation of progressive principle then you are blind.

but the problem is, money is FUNGIBLE.  What they (churches) don't have/choose not to spend on their "social outreach" WILL be directed into proselytizing.  

Given that more people have been murdered, raped, tortured, ostracized, etc., ad nauseum, in the name of "God", than anything else (except communicable diseases), I think it is absolutely wrong (and unconstitutional (yes, for you who want to argue Con Law with me: I've read the opinions, and I still hold this opinion notwithstanding the edicts of our Justices)) for US tax dollars to be funneled to churches.  

it is all about courting the religious voters! He's opened a pandora's box which we'll regret in the years to come! Can't get the white blue collar workers and elderly so go for the religious - it's called opportunism, clear and simple and it's sickening! His idea of change is changing the party to republican "lite"!

Obama is being pragmatic.  He wants to set all these programs up but he has to do them within the budget.

I think people are missing the pragmatism in this initiative and, no, I don't mean politically.

Trinity, the most hated of all churches in the right wing, has received tons of money through programs and been able to give low income housing, day care, nutritional programs for poor children... Basically all the good stuff we want money to go towards. That's where Obama went and it's somewhere between possible and likely that he saw the good faith based initiatives can do.

And, let's be honest: people go into ministry because they want to help people.

Most religious authorities aren't the greedy idiot Bible thumpers you see on TV. They didn't get into the service because they want the biggest megachurch and the biggest blimp that advertises their Easter Sunday Pay Per View Service. They want to save people, to help the helpless.

Yes, they want to save their souls, but they also want to save them from pain. You can't turn away thousands of willing helpers simply because they believe in God. What Obama's suggesting is the public service version of "Don't ask, don't tell". We're not going to change who you are, but don't go around trying to convert us.

and I agreed with it.....I needed to post my own perspective.  I will vote for him as well...though not because I want to.

Forget that silly Constitution. We don't need it. We haven't used it much in years.

Here is the problem, that started under Reagan.  If you give the faith based programs money to use, and even though you tell them they can't discriminate, etc., etc. as stated above they will use it!

How do you know exactly what they're spending it on, if you don't disperse monies or audit their books?

You don't.  You won't.  And any attempt to change the mission of the churches/synogogues/mosques/community programs will be met with difficulty and they will engage in methods to circumvent the stated positions and do the work they believe in.

HE knows this.  It's a common problem and is regularly encountered in the grass-roots level, especially during the 80's.  This is lip-service, and we will just end up giving away billions of dollars with only about 60-70% justified expenses.

I would also like to monitor how many "faith based programs" administrators get new homes or cars or apartments.  New furnishings for offices or pews or bibles/Quran's/Torah's.  Memberships in country clubs, lobbying firms or put retainers out to expensive influential law firms.

And my main worry...Real Estate.  

We have to be able to watch, audit and demand a reciept if you will of the monies we dispurse.  Anything else, and it might as well be Baghdad and were giving away bundles of money in 100,000 packs.

If you wanted to do this, you'd have to give money to ALL the churches that apply and appear to meet the criteria.

That would include the evangelicals--and since they've been doing it with Bush, they're all set up to appear to be conforming with the rules.  Unless you want to set up a huge & expensive bureaucracy to assure the megachurches are meeting the rules, a lot of crap will surely sneak by.

So we'll be funding Christian bootcamps, faith based contraception (abstinence education), and bullying pregnant women not to get an abortion once again--even if we don't fund them directly, we'll pay for their soup kitchens, and they'll use the money saved to continue to fund the bootcamps etc.

It should also include mosques, Wicca groups, Buddhist temples, and Indian gurus.

You can't pick and choose your churches or you're setting up a state church.

he'd be DISGUSTED by his followers.  I don't think he was the son of God--but I do think (especially for his time) he was an extraordinarily decent man.  I imagine he would be horrified by the atrocities that have been committed (and continue to committed to this day, in this country, in his name).

but it's kind of tiresome to see so many people making the case that religion=hate. Ever heard of Jim Wallis?

There are good and bad religious organizations, just like there are good and bad secular orgs. And to assume that Obama would handle the program in the same way as Bush or McCain is just ludicrous.

"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," Mr. Obama said. "Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs."

Mr. Obama's position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

I'm not thrilled that Obama has chosen to address this so early on, but hopefully we can get this out of the way and get on to bigger priorities. That said, I trust just about any Dem to run the program over any conservative. To wit:

A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain "disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight."

I want us to have a discussion.  This is (and other issues) too important to just "sit out" and not comment on.  It's not (life/this election) just about winning something: if you win but you have lost your soul, have you not but won nothing?

I'm somewhere to the left of Emiliano Zapata and I can see the virtue of this idea (I'm so far to the left I can see the Ron Paul people sometimes on a clear day.)  From reading some of the comments in this diary I am guessing that some self-identified atheists, agnostics and deists are just as convinced about their beliefs as are the congregations of more traditional religious denominations.  They are all denominations to me, I would have to self-identify as a 'pagan' if anything but can debate scripture with Jehovah's Witnesses when the occasion demands.  They are way too committed to Revelations, incidentally, I tend to stick to the Synoptic Gospels myself.

The point isn't about God-loving conservatives or humanist progressives vying for advantage.  As a poster mentioned above this is about community organisations, something of an endangered species in our post-modern society, and rebuilding the 'village' connections which our societies have evolved with.  He is simply acknowledging the role of these intrinsic connections at the 'grass-roots' community level and reinforcing them, because as any community organiser he recognises that we are suffering a famine of this kind of social instrument in the fabric of our modern society.  Obama's position is clear and goes back to his Call to Renewal speech in 2006:

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Senator Barack Obama - Call to Renewal Keynote Address 28 Jun 2006

This is a universalist and non-denominational message.  And it is a bit rich to make the assumption that deism, atheism or agnosticism is the one true faith, isn't it?  Kinda' the same trap we have fallen into, socially, in the past.

I am constantly reminded at just how little some of his natural constituency apparently 'get' Senator OBama.

but the point at which I have to sell my soul to win a fight is the point at which I draw my sword.

Obama, as quoted above:

I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Frankly, despite his great Planned Parenthood and NARAL rating, this quote gives me no comfort at all that he will appoint prochoice judges.

I was always and HRC supporter (check my comment history) but I got on board with Obama once he clinched the Nom and Hillary conceded.  Unfortunately, we have to make due with what we've got at this point.  But we can, we need to, let Barack know that this kind of Republican wing-nut pandering is NOT acceptable.

Sheeeit, I'd be ecstatic with Colin Powell. He's the guy who left the Bush administration on principle after he'd barely started his second term. Pro-choice, self-described as moderately in favor of gun control... where is the bad part?