Kerry is for faith-based initiatives

[Dardi]

Just saw this:

"Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said he would expand faith-based initiatives if elected president.

Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, would establish a presidential advisory group to expand participation of faith-based groups in government programs, according to a campaign document published this week."

More:

http://www.jta.org/brknewsticker.asp?id=113411&ref=JTA

Does anyone know if this is true? If so, who the hell do you have to vote for to get separation of church & state in this country?

[bigbillhaywood]

1. Goddammit, it better not be true!

[hansolsen]

7. Kerry can pander with the best of em

I'll still vote for him (ABB), but damm, this guy is setting records for blatant panders per campaign. I suppose he wants to take away Shrub's ammunition, and he probably believes some kind of faith based initiative passes muster, but this is too much. Yuk.

If John Kerry were'nt running against George Bush, the worst incumbent in the nation's history, I doubt he could get elected dog catcher running on the Democratic ticket. I swear.

[Dardi]

9. "this is too much"

Apparently it's not too much since you say "I'll still vote for him (ABB)."

I wonder if there is a point where it's actually too much and, if so, where that is.

[Imperialism Inc.]

18. The point where Bush and the rest of his minions all resign.

[Dardi]

21. I think you misread my post

I was wondering if there was anything at all that Kerry could do or any position that he could take which would cause him to lose the ABB vote.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Kerry can take any position at all with impunity as far as your vote is concerned.

[Dhalgren]

49. At this point, yes,

I would vote for a mangy dog that had just eaten her own puppies, before I would vote for George "Caligula" Bush! Kerry could openly admit that he and Edwards were in love and that he is saving money for a sex change and he wants to abolish all income taxes and I would still vote for Kerry! "ABB" means "any body but BUsh" - "body" in the the sense of a breathing (maybe) human being (maybe)!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

52. And I think you posted that article without doing any research to....

...determine whether or not it was grounded in fact, fiction, or somewhere in the middle. Read my post #13 and you will quickly ascertain that the article you posted clearly took information out of context for a purpose, or purposes unknown. That's why most DU posters do their homework before posting.

[Dardi]

63. I posted an article that was LBN

and asked if anybody had information as to its veracity. That IS doing research since there are few resources as to Kerry's positions better than the collective minds of DU readers and posters. As for information taken out of context, I read your post #13 and the accompanying link. It does not discuss the campaign document cited in the original post. The best you could do is to assert that you don't have any information about that, and that's fine, but let's not act as if your lack of information one way or another disproves the original article.

[mzmolly]

73. Can you fix your link or provide another?

THANNNNKS. ;)

[Dardi]

80. See below

It seemed to be broken at the source. It's a javascript link now.

[SunDrop23]

2. I am tired of seeing the word PRESUMPTIVE

[Dardi]

3. What's wrong with "presumptive?"

Until he's offered and accepts the nomination, that's exactly what he is. That will happen at the convention.

[UpInArms]

4. Welcome to DU SunDrop23!

:hi:

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. It is the correct term

He is not nominee until he is nominated by the convention.

[Fenris]

5. And Lincoln didn't run on an abolitionist platform...

And George Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and a moderate. The point: politicians often change directions after taking office. This is probably just rhetoric.

[keta11]

6. What the hell is

wrong with this guy at all? He is taking this triangulation thing to the extreme.

You turn around everytime and he is sounding like GWB.

[AndyTiedye]

17. He Has to Buy off the Xtian Churches

If the churches all stump for Bush*, Kerry cannot possibly win, nor
could anybody else. I suppose he is hoping to buy them off with this.

The quickest way to get rid of the "faith-based" initiatives
might be in the guise of expanding the program. The current program
blatantly discriminates in favor of evangelical/fundie xtianity. This
is obviously illegal (obvious to any Attorney General who is not John
Ashcroft anyway). Surely the only way that this could be
Constitutional is to open it to any religious (or atheist or agnostic)
group that requested funding. As soon as they were forced to fund a
madrassa, Congress would lose its enthusiasm for the idea.

[Malva Zebrina]

43. that is a possibility, I agree

but I do not think it Constitutional. It could go to the SC at one point if this indeed does become that much of an issue. If this is what Kerry thinks, and he wins, and appoints judges--well it is absurd to even be speculating on this. As it is, we fund the Catholic Charities and the Salvation Army.

However, we have seen the Christian sects, the most influential and the most organised and the most likely to get the largest portion and of course the door will be open to all sorts of bribery, greed and government interfering in the running of the church and next the religion. Churches could turn toward organisations such as the fascist Opus Dei, politically influential, with many in high level places, and many wealthy and influential people as memebers.

Bush tried that--I do believe some of the discretionary money he personally handed out on his own to faith based groups, was given to the SBC. I know some was given to Robertson . Now we see the government demanding that churches hand over their member registers--and we see the SBC balking at that--will the President then cut off his generosity to the SBC? Or any other that goes against him. Given the well known habit of this Bush toward exacting revenge and vindictive punishments on those who he perceives humiliate him, I would say yes.

.

[PassingFair]

44. What a spin!

Are you sure you're not Karl Rove?
Calling Dr. Dean, calling Dr. Dean...HELP!

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. He is running a DLC-style campaign

It worked for Clinton.

[salonghorn70]

8. Kerry's AME Speech

He says he wants to do it in a way that supports the Constitution and civil rights laws.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0706a.html

[JDPriestly]

12. Traditional partnership of church and state

Kerry seems to be talking about continuing the traditional partnership between church sponsored and government sponsored social service programs. That is OK.

Bush allows government money to fund programs that That is not allowed by the Constitution.

[Dr Fate]

23. Let's read exactly what he said:

"And I invite churches and faith-based institutions to continue to play the role they have always played – as leaders, teachers, and guides in our communities. I know there are some who say that the First Amendment means faith-based organizations can’t help government. I think they are wrong. I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

[oasis]

27. "support for your efforts....in a way that supports our Constitution..."

The original poster assumes Kerry is in some way crossing the line :shrug:

[mac56]

47. I agree.

I fear we may have been punked by a troll again..

[PartyPooper]

10. Say it ain't so! Please, let's keep God out of our government!

:argh:

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. There are already tons of these faith based things going on

and always have been. Bush simply co opted the idea and made like it was something new and different. Any faith based charity that is deductible - and how many aren't? are essentially getting government funds.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. Before you stroke-out, here's the ACTUAL quote...

Kerry touts Edwards pick
<http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/07/07/news/top_news/c4ec072874c4ddbe86256eca000b9780.txt>

Excerpt:

"Kerry spoke to the annual convention of the African Methodist Episcopal Church about a 'new era of responsibility' and criticized the Bush administration for not telling the truth about why U.S. troops are at war in Iraq. He also urged delegates of the church, whose more than 2 million members make it the nation's largest black Methodist organization, to share the burden of supporting fatherhood and faith-based initiatives."

Read the entire article...there is nothing here that supports the wording of the article in JTA.

Additionally, I could find NOTHING to support JTA's contention on the Kerry/Edwards website.

[DS1]

14. Sounds more like...

"Do your f*cking jobs*

[mzmolly]

100. Kinda what I thought ... more distortion and panic from some on the left.

who feel Kerry is out to get them.

Thanks for the truth. :hi:

[schultzee]

15. This is too damn much. We now have bad and worse?

[Dardi]

22. Yeah, but you're still going to vote for Kerry

It's "too damn much" when you say that you won't vote for him. Until then, it's just enough. He's getting voters on the right without losing voters on the left.

[Pastiche423]

33. "...without losing voters on the left"

Says who?

[DaveSZ]

53. Damn

It's getting harder to vote for him, but Bush is such a danger to the survival of our country that it's needed.

I had read some months ago he was against the entire thing, but yeah I'd say he's pandering.

[bambo53]

16. Wonderful,

Just fucking wonderful.
911 was a "Faith Based Initiative"

[GaryL]

19. Hate ta tell ya folks.

This is nothing new. I've worked for state government training and education programs doling out funds and churches were and always have been regular service providers. They did have to adhere to strict guidelines but, for the most part, this was fairly successful. Where bushco differed was advocating unfettered funding of religious organizations. They didn't have to meet social program guidelines. I suppose they were offering this as payola to fundie churches to get out the vote. Regardless, Kerry is advocating resuming programs that I worked for 20 years ago but were killed by our rethug buddies since they helped poor folks. Relax folks!

[Malva Zebrina]

45. Catholic Charities and Salvation Army are two that were funded

by tax payer money. They are held closely accountable, it is said, although I do not know what that entails. However, look what happened as the Christian fundamentalists extremists became stronger and more influential over the past twenty years--we saw the Salvation Army take thousands of those dollars and use it to lobby congress when it was brought to the forefront that it discriminated against homosexuals in it's hiring policies. They won.

In a congress that is influenced by a rabid, delusional Christian fundamentalist President and AG, these types of faith based things will be passed, no matter what the Constitution says.

Many are helped and aided by church social programs and that is a good thing, both for the one being helped and the one doing the helping. Their religion teaches they do so. I think they should pay for those programs too because all too often, a proseletyzing goes along with the dessert. In some it is imperative that it be so.



They may have been nice in the past, but times are a changin and the religious right has infiltrated the government--indeed students at several right wing Christian schools are primed explicitly for a career in government

[Emillereid]

20. I listened to a speech of Nader's today -- and I agreed with everything

he said. I am working for Kerry and have given to his campaign, but I just don't know if I can pull the lever for him -- it seems I wake up every day with some new assault on my integrity from him. This 'me too' thing of his has gone too far! I want to believe that Kerry would be different from Bush, but I'm not convinced that he would be substantially different -- just a change of window dressing. I mean I think back when the dems were in charge -- and they gave us Scailia and Thomas on the supreme court (check out the votes), they gave us welfare reform and nafta, and they never delivered on a health plan, etc. Why do we delude ourselves? We progressives have got to go green!

[Corby]

26. Go Green on November 3.

Lookit, a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. That's fact.

I will pull the lever for the Green Party when the Green Party starts running some Congressional, State, and Local candidates. This running for President bullshit by the Greens accomplishes NOTHING. If the Greens are serious about enacting an agenda, they need to quit grandstanding on the presidental stage and get serious about congress.

Can you imagine the clout a Green senator would have in a Senate split 50-49-1?

Kerry gets my vote, this time. (I agree we've got to dump Daschle and the meekass dems on the national scene asap.)

[Robeson]

35. I Couldn't Agree More

Not only are they grandstanding when running in the Presidential elections, buy they are taking valuable - and scant - resources away from the local elections they should be more involved in. The Greens say they are grassroots. Then start acting like it. Run for school boards. Run for city aldermans. Use resources to do research in towns and cities to see what city positions are out there that most are even unaware of. Example: There was a city in the state I live in that had the position of "constable" on the books from the 1800's. No one had been a constable for years. The city leaders didn't even know it was on the books. But a person did some research, had it put on the ballot because it was legal, and now is a constable! He is provided an office, budget, and a sounding board. Start thinking out of the box.

While Greens may have a "right" to run for President, they certainly aren't very pragmatic in doing so. As stated, at this point, it seems to me to be a waist of time, energy, and strained resources, when those very things could be used to actually build a grassroots party. This pie in the sky - and frankly, nihilistic - attitude of the Greens only marginalizes them, and scares off the very progressives they hope to convert.

[MadHound]

40. Beg pardon friend, but the Greens are running in local and state elections

Go check your '02 ballot. I know that here in MO the Greens were on virtually every spot, from govenor on down to city council. And they won some too.

In the current two party set up, Greens have to run for national office, for two reasons. The first is to keep getting national exposure, the second is to stay on ballots and receive that matching campain funding.

They are exercisin their right to run for office, what is wrong with having more choices?

[no name no slogan]

59. One more reason

In MN, the Greens are one of our four "major parties", along with the Republicans, DFL (our Democrats), and the Independence Party (Jesse Ventura's party). To maintain their major party status, the Greens must have at least one candidate running for statewide (or higher) office that gets at least 5% of the vote, every four years. If they fail to reach that mark, they lose their major-party status in MN.

Our state also has a check-off on our state income tax forms that lets you donate $$ directly to the MAJOR parties via your tax return. We also have a $50 "rebate" that allows you to direct up to $50 in state $$ to a candidate or party of your choice. If a major party loses their status, they no longer qualify for the check-off on the tax forms.

That was one of the reasons the Greens ran a candidate against Wellstone in 2002, although there was strong sentiment among many Greens to not endorse a candidate and support Wellstone.

[Robeson]

79. And could you imagine

if they spent the resources on those local elections that they are spending in the national campaign, just how much more they might win?

And again, when many progressives view them as nihlistic - which they do - they will turn those progressives off, not on. A Green at the National Convention said herself, and I paraphrase, that the Greens need to realize that there are more progressives in the Democratic Party than there are registered Greens.

As for their right to do so? I have a right to jump off a bridge. But it is counterproductive for myself and family to do so. The issues are far more complex than to just say they have a "right" to do it. It is just as important to know when to exercise those rights.

[aquart]

34. Assault from Kerry or people looking for an easy mark?

Nader is lovely with words. Too bad he does so much lying.

[Classical_Liberal]

98. OK but only in a safe state

don't be a suicide bomber. We want to hurt the bad guys without hurting ourselves and the good guys.

[The Flaming Red Head]

24. I had to pray for food stamps

I applied for food stamps while I was in nursing school and they made me take two days off of school so I could sit in a room and have a woman tell me and other women that we should find a church to attend and look for a husband while we were there as one way of getting off the dole.

What a fucking bunch of bullshit!

[truthisfreedom]

25. "Kerry said he would rewrite the orders to ensure that money not go to

proselytizing."

this is alright with me.

[Dardi]

68. How on earth would one enforce such a requirement?

It's impossible. The organization would simply shift its other funds to proselytizing (which would have otherwise been used for whatever the government is now funding). That's the problem. Money is fungible. All of the talk of not using government funds for proselytizing is BS which is meant to pacify the separation of church and state advocates.

[oasis]

28. "A campaign document published this week"? What document? No

direct quotes from the "document" itself.

This article should notbe taken at face value considering the obvious religious bias of the publishers.

[Dardi]

29. "This article should notbe taken at face value"

"considering the obvious religious bias of the publishers."

Come again?!?!?

[oasis]

30. The "Star of David" is prominently displayed on every front page article.

Maybe you missed it in your haste to pin a bum rap on Kerry.

[Must_B_Free]

32. What could that have to do with telling obvious lies to manipulate people?

[oasis]

36. It's going to be a loooooong hard campaign.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

50. I think you may have answered your own question.

[Dardi]

62. I still don't get it

What does the fact that there is a Star of David on the front page have to do with the veracity of the story?

Should all sources that bear the Star of David be regarded with scepticism and suspision? Does this apply to other religious, cultural and national symbols (and the Star of David is all of these)? I wouldn't want to make unwarranted assumptions about your meaning, so perhaps you could clarify.

[oasis]

82. Jerry Falwell also has a publication but most prefer other news sources.

Get it now?

Why does your news source for this "faith based" article not provide a direct quote from the "document"? Are we to rely on the interpretation of the biased publishers of JTA?

Are you an advocate of "faith based" journalism?

[Dardi]

83. You're comparing the JTA with a Falwell rag?

Have you looked at the JTA? It is NOT a religious publication. It is a publication that prints news that is of interest to Jewish people. That includes Hassidic Jews, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Atheist Jews, Zionist Jews, pro-peace Jews and every other type of Jew. You apparently object to that and compare it to a publication that pushes a religious viewpoint. From the JTA "About" page:

"JTA is an international news service that provides up-to-the-minute reports, analysis pieces and features on events and issues of concern to the Jewish people.
JTA correspondents in New York, Washington, Jerusalem, Moscow and 30 other cities around the globe provide in-depth coverage of political, economic and social developments affecting Jews in North and South America, Israel, Europe, Africa and Australia.

Our daily reports include the latest information about the Middle East peace process, political developments in Washington and Jerusalem, the activities of anti-Semites and other hate-mongers, trends affecting Jewish life in North America, security incidents in Israel, and conditions for Jews in Eastern Europe, Latin America and far-flung communities around the world.

Throughout its history, JTA has established a reputation for journalistic integrity, outstanding reporting and insightful analysis. Over the years, the Jewish community has come to rely on JTA as the single most credible source of news and analysis available about events and issues of Jewish interest anywhere in the world.

Headquartered in New York, JTA is a not-for-profit corporation governed by an independent Board of Directors. It has no allegiance to any specific branch of Judaism or political viewpoint. "

Sorry to see that the mere sight of the Star of David has so clouded your judgment.

[oasis]

85. Where's the direct quote from the "document" mentioned in the article?

"Reliable" news sources provide direct quotes.

Better yet, let's see the document.

[Dardi]

86. Answering a question with a question

How very Semitic of you. And, btw, that's a compliment (or, at the very least, not an insult). And no, "reliable" news sources do not always provide direct quotes. Sometimes they quote trusted sources in order to get a story out first. This is true whether it's JTA or The New York Times or the BBC. Part of the industry.

[oasis]

Question with a question? Post #28 asks you a question. No answer yet?

[Dardi]

90. You're asking the wrong person

You should be asking the person who wrote the article. I never claimed first hand knowledge. Just the opposite, in fact (just look at the original post).

[oasis]

87. Here's 2 more questions: Do you have another news source? Why not?

[Dardi]

89. Answers

1.No.

2.Because it was the only source cited by a poster at a site that is not to be discussed at DU. Somehow, I don't think that that particular poster is part of the PNAC-neocan cabal.

[oasis]

99. "a site that is not to be discussed at DU"? Please clarify.

[Swamp Rat]

31. This is BS from a religious newspaper

Kerry said in his speech last Tuesday at the AME Convention, "I want to offer support for your efforts, including financial support, in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights laws and values the role of faith in inspiring countless acts of justice and mercy across our land."

***in a way that supports our Constitution and civil rights***

Check it out for yourself.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0706a.html

[MessiahRp]

93. Just a thought...

I totally believe Kerry wants more seperation of Church and State (especially after how some in the Church are treating him and his communion), but does this help us at all? I mean even if the article is wrong, doesn't it make a lot of Churchgoers think we'll swing their way more and if they disagree with Bush on other stuff, this might help bring them around?

I mean I don't believe there's any validity to the article at all, but I can't help think that it, even if it's completely false, won't hurt us that much.

Rp

[Hippo_Tron]

101. I think if people vote based on faith, they will vote for chimp anyway

As far as faith based initiatives go, I think that there are good intentions behind them, but unfortunately they do borderline violating the constitution.

[Guaranteed]

37. WHY???? Does he think CHURCHGOERS are going to vote for him?

Fuck the religious in this election, man! They're all voting for Bush?

Why is he kissing the asses of those who will NEVER vote for him?

[CWebster]

42. kissing the asses of those who will NEVER vote for him

and kicking the asses of those who might.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. if you & bgl were paying attention.....

the article clearly states that he was speaking to AFRICAN Methodist Episcopaleans, of which my immediate & extended family happen to be members. how do you surmise that he's "kissing the asses of those who will NEVER vote for him"? i suspect your contempt for john kerry just won't allow you to be objective when someone posts negative & unfounded remarks, attributed to john kerry.

Oh, and btw, you can be a solid democrat and christian at the same time. Did you bother to read post #13 in this thread?

[Dardi]

60. If you think that church goers are never going to vote for Kerry

You may as well give up now. Anybody running for President who doesn't get a significant portion of the churchgoer vote will lose in a landslide.

[TeacherCreature]

97. you are very mistaken

First of all there are a lot of religoius people on the left. Also, there are many republican religious swing voters. Not everyone who is religious is a conservative "christian".

Regardless of that, I am against faith based initiatives and I am not at all suprized at Kerry saying this. It is just one more move to the right.

[Malva Zebrina]

38. guess you have to vote for an atheist

in order to get separation of church and state. :shrug:


disappointment after the wonderful few days comtemplating the Kerry Edwards team

Once out of the gate, you cannot put this horse back in it.

This is dangerous--putting faith based persons from faith based groups in governement to participate in policy.

I guess the next best thing is to start up a new religion or bring back an old one, get into those meetings, demand money for your faith to build it's churches, swimming pools, gymnasiums etc and if you are going bankrupt because the legal bills to defend pedophiles and make monetary payments to victims have used up all the money in the treasury, this could be a "godsend" eh?

Another next best thing is to donate to ACLU , AU and PFAW

[tkmorris]

39. Don't feed the trolls people

Geez, make em do better than this at least. Any attack that you RESPOND to gains credibility through the response. When it's just silly crap, ignore it. That's all it deserves.

Oh and hi Dardi. How's it going mate?

[Dardi]

61. Going swimmingly

And who, exactly, are you calling a troll?

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. they are swarming this place lately...........

could it be that their internal polls, coupled with the sucess of F911 have them a little upset?

[CWebster]

41. If only it would drop off the page...If only we could bury it

So we didn't have to look at it, so we wouldn't have to face up to it and admit it. If only we could dismiss it by claiming that anyone who dared address it was simply a damned purist. The anti-purity defense sure do cover alot of territory. Tell me, where is the line drawn? The line is drawn at Bush you say? An arbitrary line perhaps when so called progressives rally around the candidate who is not Bush but who seems to model his policy after Bush time and time again. Why, someone could claim that lack of support for Bush is demanding purity. Right?

They nailed Christ to a cross and they strung up Mussolini--no moral difference between the two?

[dusty64]

46. I'm not sure if this is

more twisting of truth or the truth. I certainly hope that it isn't cause I am growing more than a little sick of rethuglite.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. Did you read my post #13 before your knee starting jerking?...

Does ANYONE here do any research BEFORE posting comments based on emotions rather than fact??

[dusty64]

55. I'll post WHAT I want

WHEN I want, don't need to get your approval first. Am feeling emotional today, could possibly be cause no one outside this forum seems to give a shit about the rethug plan to use their fuckin "terra" to screw the People again.

[NashVegas]

51. "Anybody But Bush"

Right.

That's it.

[DaveSZ]

54. Ah that's true

Church charities have been funded to some degree for decades by the US gov, but they have had to adhere to rules against discrimination when disseminating aid.

It's not as bad as what BUsh is doing (giving checks to Pat Robertson for votes).

The Rethuglicans in Congress also scrapped the rule that church charities cannot discriminate when giving aid.

[Politicub]

56. Sometimes I don't know if I really have the stomach for partisan politics

:wtf:

Faith-based initiatives are something that I wish had never happened in the first place. So, of course I don't want to see the program extended.

I have to keep repeating to myself -- don't sacrifice what's good for a perfect candidate who does not exist.

I wish Kerry would instead advocate keeping government and religion separate. Maybe this type of thing appeals to swing voters, but it certainly doesn't appeal to me or many people that I know.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. He's eatin' pizza, He's eatin' bagels, He's eatin' chitlin's...

Ain't American politics swell?

[TexasSissy]

66. I doubt this is true. Even if it were, I wouldn't worry.

We need to get Kerry elected. Kerry is an ardent separation of church and state believer. I have "faith" in him.

If this is true, it'll be on his website.

[info being]

67. If this is true, I won't vote for him. I'd dead serious

[info being]

70. I can't morally pay taxes then. Have to sue.

I won't have my money going to religeous nuts to carry on with their nuttery and destruction of the world.

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. no offense info......

but i take exception to your broad classification, it implies that all religious people are nuts?

[info being]

84. No, no, just their religeous beliefs are nutty.

That kind of thinking is for children.

[mzmolly]

72. Your link is broken and I don't let others interpret context. Do you

have another?

[Dardi]

74. The link just went down (it was good a few hours ago) ...

I'll try to find another.

Update:

If you go here:

http://www.jta.org/

there's a javascript link under "Breaking Hews" about half way down the page on the right that will open the story. I can't link it here.

[MaineDem]

76. I haven't been able to open that link since 7am today

Was that actually the headline??

[Dardi]

78. That was, indeed, the headline

If you go here:

http://www.jta.org/

There's a javascript link under "Breaking Hews" about half way down the page on the right that will open the story. I can't link it here.

[mzmolly]

77. Thanks.

:)

[CPops57]

75. I will not vote for Kerry if this is true.

And don't blame me, blame Kerry.

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. well vote for whoever the cheney you like......

n/t

[sangh0]

88. Here's what Kerry means by faith-based initiatives

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0706a.html

Scripture teaches us: “It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds… Faith without works is dead.”

Your faith is alive, but when I look around this city – when I look around neighborhoods and towns and cities all across this country, I see what so many of you see everyday.

We see jobs to be created.

We see families to house.

We see violence to stop.

We see children to teach – and children to care for.

We see too many people without health care and too many people of color suffering and dying from preventable diseases like cancer and AIDS and diabetes.

We look at what is happening in America today and we say: Where are the deeds? For the last four years all we have heard is empty words.

Well, let me tell you something. I am running for president because it’s time to turn the words into deeds, and faith into action. I believe that talk is cheap. It is time to back up our words with action. And, as president, that is just what I am going to do.

[jsw_81]

91. There's a big difference between Kerry and Bush on this issue

While I personally have some reservations about any kind of government sponsored 'faith-based' initiative, the fact is that Kerry's plan would not allow for government funds to be used for any type of proselytizing, and unlike Bush he would not allow 'faith-based' groups to discriminate against homosexuals or non-believers. Keep that in mind before attacking Kerry on this issue.

[Dardi]

94. I have a hard time figuring out

how the government would prevent proselytizing once the money has been distributed. I agree that Kerry and Bush are not equal on this issue. I'm wondering if the difference is fundamental (no pun intended) or merely a matter of degree.

[MessiahRp]

92. Hmmmm...

Strange since I just saw Kerry telling a really large rural crowd in Bloomer, WI that he wants to push harder in the seperation of Church and State. Rural crowds tend to be more religious in my experience and that drew huge applause. I don't think he's pandering, and honestly I doubt the validity of the statement saying such.

Rp

[zoeyfong]

95. Surprise, surprise. This democratic party has never met a principle

it wouldn't abandon for the sake of short-term political gain.

[oasis]

96. I think it's time to go for a Turd Party candidate. That's the ticket.

BTW, many are questioning the credibility of the JTA article which is the cornerstone of this thread.

[Cuban_Liberal]

102. Look, my Church's soup kitchen/food pantry are 'faith-based initiatives'!

We fill a critical social-service need that no secular agency was capable or willing to fill. What would you suggest--- letting people go hungry again?

:wtf: