Obama appoints gay man to faith-based initiatives office.»

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/06/obama-appoints-gay-man-to-faith-based-initiatives-office/

Obama appoints gay man to faith-based initiatives office.»

Yesterday, ThinkProgress noted that President Obama was stalling in overturning Bush’s rule that allowed religious groups to discriminate — usually against gay people — in their hiring. Today, Obama made an important gesture in naming Fred Davie, the openly gay president of Public/Private Ventures, to serve on on the policy council of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Speaking about his hopes for the Office yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast, Obama emphasized the importance of reaching out to “foster a more productive and peaceful dialogue on faith“:

I don’t expect divisions to disappear overnight, nor do I believe that long-held views and conflicts will suddenly vanish. But I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge. In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding.

[ZombieHorde]

1. 5th K&R

[Kaleva]

2. Ted Haggard?

[sasquatch]

37. *rim shot*

:)

[Fearless]

49. I think that's the best worst choice of words I've heard in a long long time.

Hahaha.

[valerief]

67. LOL!!!!!

:rofl:

[lies and propaganda]

68. LOLOLOL!

OMG! best worst, for sure!

[jenmito]

3. K&R. Thank you, President Obama, for making all Dems. proud!

:hi:

[progressoid]

4. I'd be more impressed if he closed the faith-based initiatives office

[floridablue]

17. What would happen to all those Christian schools ?

Thier kids would have to go to school with black children. Their teachers would have to work where there might be black or brown children. Where would the token black and brown kids they have to make them feel good about themselves go to school ?

[jwirr]

30. As far as I know the Faith Based Initiative does not have anything to

do with schools and most of them are not funded with gov money which is the way it should stay.

[JerseygirlCT]

105. Exactly. nt

[mentalslavery]

41. Christian schools in Mississippi are funded by parents

and were created after desegregation as a defacto way to maintain the pre-existing social structure.

[Honeycombe8]

63. Scools are not "faith based initiative organizations." Even tho your post was

tongue in cheek, thought I'd clear that up.

BTW...it's as unkind to make fun of private schools as it is to make fun of public ones. And in case you didn't know it.....black children go to private schools, too. It's not the 20th Century, anymore, Virginia. Many black families are middle class, now. And some are super rich.

[Number23]

29. I am totally with you on that.

[orleans]

39. count me in. i'm with both of you on that one. n/t

[prostock69]

51. I totally agree with you on this. However

I think Obama weighed the good with the bad on closing the "FBI" office and decided he could use it to force change, which is badly needed with fundamentalism Christianity. He's using it as a tool. I don't know if it will work. Only time will tell. I am just happy as shit that he's including secular organizations as well in the mix.

[Neecy]

5. a little bit about him....

He sounds pretty qualified ---


Drawing on his experience with the NFBI and Ready4Work, Mr. Davie has collaborated with staff at the Departments of Labor and Justice, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and members of Congress to develop responses to the nation’s prisoner reentry crisis, including the President’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative (announced in the 2004 State of the Union Address). Mr. Davie continues to work closely with leaders on Capitol Hill (as well as state and municipal governments) to see the lessons of P/PV’s work reflected in public policy.

Mr. Davie is a member of the board of directors of the Auburn Theological Seminary and the Community Food and Resource Center and is a trustee of the Calvert Social Investment Fund. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Yale University and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Greensboro College in North Carolina, where he was elected the first African American President of the Student Government Association. He was also a Charles H. Revson Fellow at Columbia University and, in 1999, was awarded Yale Divinity School’s Distinguished Alumnus Award for Community Service.

http://www.purposeprize.org/judges/davie.cfm

[babylonsister]

14. Thanks, Neecy. I like his secular background. Sounds good. nt

[jenmito]

6. kick

[Occam Bandage]

7. K&R

[ThomCat]

8. Why does our office even have an office of Faith based Anything?

:shrug:

[DeepBlueC]

36. because closing it would be awful PR

better to co-opt it.

[readmoreoften]

40. Right, until the Republicans are in office again.

Better to get rid of this anti-American nonsense. But Obama ran on a commitment to not only continue but to EXPAND faith-based programs. Glad he's not discriminating though, even if he won't take a strong stand against bigotry.

[prostock69]

52. He is expanding it by allowing Gays and the Secular Community to take part in it as well.

This forces the Christian Coalition to put up or shut up. We want them to change, however, I don't see it happening anytime soon. Obama has given so much power to the unbelievers in this country just by including them in his speeches. It's great. More and more people will feel empowered to come out of the closet and voice their concern over the increasing interference of Christian Fundamentalism in our government.

[stray cat]

9. And dems will still find a reason to be unhappy about it

[msongs]

10. so you like using taxpayer money to promote and endorse religion do you? nt

[jenmito]

12. Do you consider atheists religious people? Because Obama said they're included, too.

And as an atheist, I'm glad to see him doing this.

[babylonsister]

13. With the composition of this country, you think it can just be ignored?

Do tell.

[Arkana]

22. I'm an atheist, can't fucking STAND hardcore Christians,

and have no problem with my tax money going to organizations that utilize already-established neighborhood networks like religion to promote social good. I don't give a shit if Joe Schmoe goes to his local church or Secular Food Bank LLC to help his family if they're hungry.

[Cha]

33. 'Cause you're not a

freakin' egotist and think it's all about you. :)

[mentalslavery]

42. Now that is tolerance to be recognized. Its hard to

be an atheist and put up the negative cultural vibes Im sure come at you every time you reveal your beliefs. I feel you on the sentiments, this is not time for ideological purity. Peeps need help. Its just a shame we have a taken out a brick in the wall between church and state. This is not the establishment of a specific religion but it is the establishment of generalized religion.

[dsc]

60. I do if the local church refuses to serve gays or atheists as some have done

[krabigirl]

98. Yep. Besides, it's enough that churches don't have to pay taxes. Now they will GET federal funds!!!1

[dsc]

100. I do also have a problem with the fungability of the money

but the discrimination is problem one.

[customerserviceguy]

62. Same here

I recognize that there are many religious-based organizations who faithfully follow the rules on proselytizing while delivering necessary services to the unfortunate among us. I just don't care if a person's motivation is either a paycheck or some sort of philisophical belief about their mission.

[donco6]

81. So that's what it's all about, then.

Throwing money at the religious minority to keep them appeased. Great.

I . . . really . . . tried to . . . hold it, but . . .


:puke:

[Terran]

57. You don't know shit.

That is not what the OFBI does, or ever did.

[jenmito]

11. Kick again!

[donco6]

15. Well, if you have to have government funded religion . . .

. . . including a gay person in decision making is a step.

[tbyg52]

18. Yes, I would rather he were included somewhere *else* because the faith-based office didn't exist.

Oh well, half a loaf....

[Hope And Change]

16. K & R!Thanks for posting!

[firedupdem]

19. K & R! Good News n/t

[northofdenali]

20. If it says "faith based" it should NOT

BE ASSOCIATED WITH OUR GOVERNMENT.

Period.

[liberalsince1968]

21. I couldn't agree more. Religion and government

should NEVER mix.

There is no "constitutional" way to do it.

[and-justice-for-all]

120. Tell it to this smuck...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8172275&mesg_id=8173268

[David Zephyr]

23. K&R.

Thanks, babylonsister for this story and link.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Davie is a good addition

And while I do not think the government should have anything to do with religion, for the good of both institutions, as a private non religious citizen, I have often been alligned with churches and temples and other religous groups that share common goals with me. There is a great history of such alliances without government involvement.

[northofdenali]

28. I agree that Davie is a great choice -

if we have to have a choice for anything "faith based" (I'm really, really, really harsh on separation of church and state, given my 1960's Catholic upbringing and a very tough awakening to reality).

As for the history of alliances of church and state, I have no problem with that at all, as long as "state" makes no effort to determine what "church" they're talking about. Some veteran friends have had a rotten time with "state" when it comes to choosing headstones for themselves, particularly if they wish a pagan/wiccan symbol; I've heard horror stories about same from Muslim and other middle Eastern as well as far Eastern religious veterans. It's wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and I could go on forever on this subject.

Sorry to go off-topic, babylonsister - you know that I always look for your posts because of the sheer amount of accurate information they contain. Davies impresses me; the faith-based stuff doesn't.
:grouphug: to all my religious/agnostic/atheistic DU family!

[oxbow]

25. Beautiful. Religious bigots who want gov't money are gonna have to go thru him. eom.

[spanone]

26. oh, you just got to love that man.....

[Hellataz]

27. So happy to read some positive news today in place of all this stimulus BS!

I knew President Obama would make an effort to make sure all sides of the argument were included so that we can continue his goal to unite this country again.
It's not the "golden ticket" some people might hope for, some people who demand so much from him in so little time, but it's a nice step and i hope one people appreciate.

[cliffordu]

31. Is this just pandering to make up for the whole inaguration debacle???

:sarcasm:


None of the haters have come in to say "attaprez" for this.


The fundies heads are going to explode....

[Sherman A1]

76. Ah........

I believe "there is Intrigue in The Court"!

[donco6]

78. Ah, the shit stirrer is here.

In all his glory.

[cliffordu]

87. Talking the talk again??

[dmr]

32. ".. crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry .." Excellent goal! n/t

[Left Coast2020]

34. This has to be driving the RW neo-nazi crowd nuts.

But my thought is on the same page as many here. But my hope was that the President would have simply dumped this office on day 1, and the other wasteful, insane crap that Bush created. Homeland Securtiy too. WTF is Homeland Security? They were a bunch of Bush croonies who needed a job and didn't know jack-shit about government--let alone operating in a natural disaster like Katerina. Morons!.

[DebJ]

35. Wow! I love this! Something karmic going on here...

[Kaleko]

38. Just the one quote you cited

of Obama speaking at the Prayer Breakfast, is pure gold. The total opposite of the Bush message.

[Baby Snooks]

43. And this stops the discrimination?

Mr. Davie serves as one voice on the council. And can be ignored. And will be.

And the discrimination policy put in place by George W Bush remains in place. That is change? That is not change.

[Dawgs]

44. Huh? Who said anything about stopping discimination?

This is the beginning of change.

[babylonsister]

48. Snookums, admit it. You don't want Obama to succeed, no way,

no how. He acts, you bash. It's very clear.

[AlbertCat]

55. Mr. Davie serves as one voice on the council.

Egg-Zackly

The token gay. In a minor position on a useless council. Great!

[Coexist]

45. knr

[harmonicon]

46. how about we just get rid of the damn "faith-based" initiatives office?

How much money would that save?

[ClarkUSA]

47. Where are the usual suspects who take every opportunity to bash the POTUS as a homophobe?

[cliffordu]

102. Waiting for the next slight, real or imagined....

[kwenu]

50. Thank you,Mr. President! However, the constant premature whining about everything will be back soon.

[fascisthunter]

53. Separation of Church and State

get rid of the the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

[Terran]

58. Wrong

It doesn't violate the concept of separation of church and state. Educate yourself.

[fascisthunter]

59. You Could Have Tried Educating Me

[Terran]

64. This is for MNBrewer and you

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... First Amendment, US Const.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state... Thomas Jefferson, 1/1/1802 (first-ever reference to "separation of church and state")

You see, the concept of separation of church and state is built solely around the guarantee found in the First Amendment. And in the matter of the OFBI, the government is doing nothing that violates either the letter or the spirit of the First Amendment. All the OFBI ever did was encourage *more* religious organizations to apply for federal grant money. Such organizations had already been doing that for decades prior to the existence of the OFBI.

Now it may have been the case that the Bush administration rather favored certain religious sects over others, but that is hardly the case with what Obama has said about his version of how this agency will operate. He had specifically said that religious agencies will not be favored over secular agencies.

Lastly, I seriously doubt that Obama, a constitutional scholar, is going to blatantly allow his own administration to operate an agency whose very existence violates this long-established tenet of US government.

[MNBrewer]

65. If, and ONLY if a supplement, not supplant rule is in effect.

Is it?

[Terran]

77. Please explain.

I don't know what you're referring to, nor is it clear what part of my post you're responding to.

[donco6]

80. Supplement/supplant.

In typical federal grants, there is a "no supplanting" clause. This means, the organization receiving the funds cannot lower their own local support, replacing it with the federal funds (i.e., "supplanting" the local funds with federal).

Without a supplanting clause, the religious organization could personally benefit by diverting the funding it USED to use for the funded program into it's own proselytization efforts, thereby spreading it's "message" of condemnation, bigotry, hatred, discrimination, etc., further around the country.

[JohnnieGordon]

86. Interesting, there better damn well be a "no supplanting" clause then..nt

[Terran]

89. Every grant I've ever been involved in

required us to obtain either leverage or matching funds or both. Leverage is non-cash contributions toward the grantee's activities, such as volunteerism, contributed supplies, free computing/server time, anything like that. Cash match is a percentage of the grant amount the grantee must come up with in order to receive the grant. So in general, any grantee has to dedicate considerable resources of its own just to get the grant, which I think limits their ability to then divert other funds to proselytize; in addition, all grants are for specific purposes, they can't be used to pay existing operating costs, and expenditures are reported in detail to every federal agency I've worked with. In the absence of match and leverage requirements (such as in the Access to Recovery grant), the grantees are closely monitored to make sure they don't use the funds to proselytize.

I did some googling and found OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement, which establishes supplement-not-supplant rules for every federal grant.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a133_compliance/07/compliance_supplement_2007.pdf

CAUTION: the link is to a 1000+ page PDF file, which might tie up your PC a bit if you search it.

Edit: I have to admit I wasn't aware of this concept, I guess because it doesn't arise in the state government environment I operate in. I do think the fact that these rules continued to exist under Bush shows even they had no real intention of allowing 'supplanting' to happen.

[donco6]

92. You learn something every day.

I deal with having to prove non-supplanting all the time.

But the thing is . . . you know, rules are . . . just RULES. Is anyone actually auditing these grants? Are there field audits or desk audits? I'd love to believe that everyone getting a grant is just a STICKLER for rule-following, but in my experience with organized religion of any flavor, it's best to keep one eye on the checkbook at all times.

[Terran]

93. Well, the file I linked is a guide for auditors

So yes, grantees to get audited. HUD's never done one of mine, but they have audited agencies we work with, and have done a few of our grants that I don't work on. The question is, of course, how often? I do know that Access to Recovery (ATR), which works along different lines than my HUD grants, is much more closely monitored than my HUD grants, and it's primarily for faith-based agencies. My state agency has two full-time employees on ATR, and one them does nothing but monitoring year round.

[donco6]

94. Our federal audits are audited each year, however . . .

. . . actual PROGRAM audits (the people who review whether you're following the rules or not) are only conducted maybe once every five years. And that's only for major grants, like Title I, II, VIB. I've been here 14 years and have NEVER seen a program audit on any of the smaller grants.

[Terran]

96. I'm not surprised

The whole federal government is chronically understaffed for that sort of thing, and the problem is somewhat under the radar, I imagine, for politicians.

[JerseygirlCT]

109. That's a good point.nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. That is 100% correct.

Supplement not supplant is contain in nearly every federal program.

[JerseygirlCT]

108. When we find ourselves at the point that too many people are

trying to help other people, this would be a cause for concern, perhaps. I believe these groups have to apply for the grants, like any other. And that those with the best applications and record would be awarded the grant.

That's the way it's supposed to work in the non-profit world. And we do well so long as integrity runs the process, rather than politics or cronyism. I remain hopeful that under Obama, the process will stay on track, unlike it did under Bush.

[JerseygirlCT]

107. The problem in many people's minds comes from the Bush

administration's refusal to follow the law.

Any groups receiving federal money are not supposed to discriminate based on either employment or on who receives services. Proselityzing is not supposed to be part of the bargain. And Bush and co. routinely sought out groups that did just that.

Obama has been pretty darn clear that his office will allow none of that. And there are many faith-based groups that offer excellent social services - many in areas that would otherwise lack them - without any religious overtones in their delivery, or any discrimination.

Just like any other gov't grantee, they ought to have to show that they are in compliance with the law and that they are doing what they say they will do.

[MNBrewer]

61. Sure it does

Educate yourself.

[anonymous171]

66. As long as it doesn't promote one belief or religion over another

it does not violate the Constitution.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

54. But, but, but...he's a homophobe!!

:sarcasm:

[Deep13]

56. Sounds like POTUS just droped a deuce in the Fundy punch-bowl.

You know, from their perspective. Very good. Not as good as ending religious hand-outs, but still good.

[Liberty Belle]

69. I can't wait to see some faith-based initiative funds going to groups run by Jews, Buddhists, etc.

[Cherchez la Femme]

70. While I applaud him FINALLY appointing a homosexual

could Obama have picked a more contentious appointment for that office?
It's almost as if Davie is being set up for failure :(

I'd love to be optimistic but the treatment of the world (and especially the denizens of organized faith/religion) towards LGBT people is telling me this will all end in tears :cry:


If there is a good and just God, She/He will prove me wrong
...which I truly hope I am.

Edit:
And I surely hope this is not just a token pick, and Team Obama feels that from now on 'all will be well'.
There is much healing to be done beyond this one minor appointment
and for the (non-gay) Progressives/Liberals too!


But I want to end on a positive note: THANK YOU, President Obama! Better late than never!

[PurityOfEssence]

71. In no way does this negate the fact that Faith Based Funding is BAD AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I don't care if it's affirmative actioned to virtual moral homogeneity. I don't care if they throw a few sops off to secular organizations to get some more Obama styled both-sides-of-every-issue bipartisan cover. IT'S WRONG. It's dangerous. It's contrary to the Constitution, it's cynical, selfish, abusive, theocratic, domineering, wasteful, greedy and just plain ugly.

For the thousanth time, I STILL don't think that Barack Obama has ANYTHING against gays. I think he's sold himself so thoroughly to religion that he has to dance their merry tune on this nasty little unintended hatefest of theirs.

This is the problem with religion: it has unintended consequences and demands superiority. It is anti-democratic at its very soul. It is intolerant. It is xenophobic, conservative and demands aristocratic privilege.

The band-aid approach of this constant both-sides-now appeasement is transparent as all hell, and it plays into the hands of one of reactionaries' standard complaints about liberals: that they don't REALLY believe in much of anything and just jockey for power.

Keep religion out of government. That's what the Constitution specifies.

I don't know about you, but I've NEVER heard any argument against homosexuality that wasn't somehow justified by religion. I've heard non-specific homophobia stemming from people's unease with sex in general, but that, too, is largely the result of religious programming.

Sucking up to bigots by throwing in a few tokens is just pathetic.

[anonymous171]

83. The Constitution says that Government cannot promote one religion over another

And this is not "Faith Based" funding but the funding of faith based organizations for secular purposes.

[PurityOfEssence]

85. That's a bullshit interpretation used by theocrats and others soft on religion

The Constitution says that religion cannot be used as a means test for holding public office, and that's the ONLY reference to religion in the body of the document. At the end, it states the date of signing "in the year of our lord...", but it ALSO states the date in a secular way, as it relates to the revolution.

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the
Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
Twelfth."

There is NO OTHER intimation or reference to the supernatural WHATSOEVER in the body of the document.

The states wouldn't ratify the thing, so they whipped up 10 Amendments (The Bill of Rights) and sent it out again, this time successfully.

The VERY FIRST AMENDMENT starts off addressing the issue of religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."

This doesn't say that no particular religion should be given priority, it says that the government is going to stay out of it ENTIRELY. It's the establishment clause, and it's been a thorn in the side of theocratic proselytes ever since. For the government to even say "there is a God" is ABSOLUTELY AGAINST THE INTENT AND LEGAL LANGUAGE OF THE LAW. Get that? As far as the government of the United States is concerned, it HAS NO OPINION ON THE EXISTENCE OF A "GOD" AND SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS ITSELF FROM EXPRESSING ONE.

Please explain your contention; it is baseless and promulgated by deceivers.

Presumably, you've just been suckered by the legions of crusaders who thirst to control all they see, but that's the point: "ceremonial deism" is used as precedent. When people see "In God We Trust" on their money, they think that the Government endorses religion. When people hear oaths of offices offered with "so help you god", they think that's written into our laws, which isn't true.

Where'd you get this silly idea?

[MNBrewer]

101. And notice what the First Amendment does NOT say

I.e., "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of A religion". This clearly indicates that it's not just specific establishment that is prohibited, but general as well.

[PurityOfEssence]

106. It's really beautifully worded; one can see how important it was to them.

They labored hard and long to put together a fair and workable set of laws for the government, sent them out, and got their asses handed to them. They then went back to the drawing board to come up with some addenda to guarantee a "Bill of Rights" to allay people's fears, and the first words out of their mouths were that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That's the point: it's not "a religion" or "any particular religion", it's "religion", period. The concept itself isn't to be addressed. We are not to endorse not only any particular religion but the concept of religion, period. Saying that there is a God or even thanking this unproven entity is endorsement. It's establishment. It's saying that we, as a communal entity, state that God is a FACT, and a good one at that. That's establishment. That's agin the law.

The subject is not to be addressed by the government. What we've done with the creeping theocratic encroachments of "god" being added to the Senatorial and House Oaths, "In God We Trust" being added to our money, "so help me god" being asked with the Presidential Oath of Office, the National Prayer Breakfasts, the Congressional Chaplains and all that just drives in deeper the fallacy that we're a godly country, and much as lying proselytes sweetly fluff all this as mere "ceremonial deism", they use it repeatedly as "proof" of our godliness in an ongoing effort to bring more and more religion into government.

Religion plays for keeps, and it loathes those who differ. It is tyrannical and rapacious.

I, like many other agnostics, don't want "anti-religion" as a public policy, we just want "religion-neutral". If it's offensive to believers that they can't force us all to bow our heads and agree or submit to their dominance, then they need to have it pointed out that THEY'RE the abusive, domineering creeps, not those of us who simply don't want the question addressed in official acts.

[Terran]

103. I wonder if

you are a constitutional scholar by profession?

[PurityOfEssence]

104. What's that got to do with anything?

Are we to sink to bended knee and kiss the signet ring of credentials? This is simple reading.

Presumably you're saying that since Obama IS a Constitutional Scholar, he can't possibly be playing fast and loose with the rules and must somehow know better. Here's the problem with religion in a nutshell: many believers consider themselves above the law. They "know better". They "answer to a higher power", and all that crap. Godliness is much more important than mere laws, and since their allies have been able to perpetrate so much theocratic encroachment, they're emboldened and filled with self-reverential certainty in their moral uprightness; such unquestionable perfection transcends silly mortal law.

Cringing followers defer to their leaders, and it's very similar to religious belief: fear of uncertainty and a craving for freedom from ever having to pay attention or think.

Credentials are of dubious value in many situations; George W. Bush has a Masters of Business Administration from HARVARD UNIVERSITY, no less. Does he know much about running a business? Bernie Madoff was the head of NASDAQ, lest we forget.

This paternalistic "just trust me" crap is comfy for bystanders, but some of us don't like being treated like little children.

[Terran]

112. Jeez, defensive much?

I only asked because, to me, the wording of the First Amendment is not nearly as obvious as you make it out to be. You seem to be quite self-assured as to your specific interpretation, so I was just asking. Regardless of the fact that Obama is President, he *is* a constitutional scholar, so I tend to think he knows what he's talking about.

[PurityOfEssence]

115. It's pent-up irritation with the ga-ga hero-worship that's caused people to abdicate their efficacy

Depending on one's mood or experience, your post can be taken different ways. One way is that it's just somewhat snotty dismissal, but more an honest question about my credentials. The other way is as a smug drive-by dismissal and reinforcement of blind worship of the President due to his unquestioned greatness. There's been plenty of that on this board, so please pardon my assumption that that's your take.

Religion is my BIG issue in life, and I am adamant about sticking to the letter and spirit of the Constitution on the subject. This man has flagrantly trashed the very concept and effectively nullified the only somewhat secular major party in the country. It's dangerous. The flap about gays should underline the very pernicious nature of religion: it has untold unintended consequences.

We did not elect a king, and the transcendent joy he obtains from his beliefs does not give him the right to run roughshod over the rest of us and THE LAW OF THE LAND.

I don't consider religion just a nuisance, I consider it an EXTREME DANGER. This isn't "cute" or "funny" or "just a personal thing". With each successful encroachment or intimation of governmental endorsement, the extremists regroup and go for MORE, citing past abuses as "proof" of the religious nature of our government and history. They need to be contained.

The whole concept of Faith-Based Charities being subsidized is a LIE. What is intended is to hammer into the heads of the weak and downtrodden that only the undeniable God can or will help, and life without him/her/it is pathetic and mean. Our money is taken to promulgate this lie, and since I'm paying a fair amount in Federal Taxes these days, I do not accept this kind of abusive, bigoted fraud.

For quite some time now, many extreme Obama partisans have used the door-slamming shout-down of how he knows better and how we should all just shut up and accept his undeniable broad-spectrum superiority. I don't accept that. He's our President, but he's obliged to uphold the Constitution. Since he IS so very smart, and he IS a Constitutional Scholar, the ONLY explanation I see for this is that he, like many proselyting believers, considers himself and his beliefs above the law. Somehow, thumbing ones nose at the law is not only acceptable but somehow virtuous when done in the name of God.

When deep disagreements occur, the often lie deep within the premise. The premise of most believers and many non-religious is that "religion is good". I firmly reject this. I think it's a mixed bag, but balances out as rather bad. It hates thought, uncertainty, difference and change. It rewards subservience and ignorance, and is a handy tool for keeping people down. It promotes the concept of accepting things without proof, and it gives one super-legal rights to advance their agendum. This is some kind of supernatural monarchy, and is anti-pluralist to the bone.

Please don't feign innocence in your personal attack and then attempt to marginalize me further by name-calling and depicting me as "defensive". You attacked with a sneering little bit of dismissal and you didn't like the fact that your slapdash drive-by insult wasn't met with a hasty retreat.

Religion is serious. Ever heard of an agnostic suicide bomber? Any agnostic Texas mothers kill or dismember their children?

[Terran]

116. You know, you should listen to yourself.

Just to be clear here, I am basically non-religious; certainly I am unaffiliated with any organized religion and never will be.

Depending on one's mood or experience, your post can be taken different ways. One way is that it's just somewhat snotty dismissal, but more an honest question about my credentials. The other way is as a smug drive-by dismissal and reinforcement of blind worship of the President due to his unquestioned greatness.

There is a Third Way, Grasshopper. I asked an honest question about your credentials because I wanted to make sure you actually weren't a constitutional scholar speaking from a much more informed position than I ever could. You've never said that you are, so I have to assume at this point that you're not. You assume, *incorrectly*, that I am supporting Obama in this matter merely because he's President. Wrong. I support him *because* he freaking knows a thousand times more than you and I put together about whether or not the OFBI is unconstitutional. Period. He is a "constitutional scholar". You are not, and neither am I. At some point, I think you have to defer to training, especially the level of training he's had.

The whole concept of Faith-Based Charities being subsidized is a LIE. What is intended is to hammer into the heads of the weak and downtrodden that only the undeniable God can or will help, and life without him/her/it is pathetic and mean. Our money is taken to promulgate this lie, and since I'm paying a fair amount in Federal Taxes these days, I do not accept this kind of abusive, bigoted fraud/

You are ignorant of facts. Your entire view of this matter is poisoned by your personal views about religion, which are nothing short of bigoted. I've worked with many faith-based agencies for years now who get federal funding. They are united in their desire to serve the poor according to the teachings of their religion, and they DO NOT PROSEYTIZE THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE. I know you find that impossible to believe, but that's too f*cking bad, it's true. These people serve food to the elderly, operate after-school sports programs, house chronically homeless drug and alcohol-addicted men, provide financial awareness counseling, you name it, they do it. If they didn't have financial help from the government, a lot of these programs would not exist, and those men, for instance, would still be camping under a bridge and probably dying early deaths.

For quite some time now, many extreme Obama partisans have used the door-slamming shout-down of how he knows better and how we should all just shut up and accept his undeniable broad-spectrum superiority. I don't accept that. He's our President, but he's obliged to uphold the Constitution. Since he IS so very smart, and he IS a Constitutional Scholar, the ONLY explanation I see for this is that he, like many proselyting believers, considers himself and his beliefs above the law.

I propose an alternative explanation: YOU'RE WRONG. You think you've got this figured out and you arm yourself with your hatred of religion, but you're just. fucking. wrong.

When deep disagreements occur, the often lie deep within the premise. The premise of most believers and many non-religious is that "religion is good". I firmly reject this. I think it's a mixed bag, but balances out as rather bad.

You're entitled to your opinion, but don't assume that my opinion is "Religion is good." I would never claim that all religion is "good" or "rather bad"; it depends upon individuals. So I dismiss your dismissal of religion as groundless and thoughtless.

Religion is serious. Ever heard of an agnostic suicide bomber? Any agnostic Texas mothers kill or dismember their children?

This is merely silly. You think everyone who commits serious crime is religious? You're judging *billions* of people here with the broadest brush possible.

[MNBrewer]

110. Here's what your "constitutional scholar" had to say

when addressing the LEGAL issue of marriage at Saddleback Church

"... God is in the mix."

In the mix? In the mix of legality? Constitutionality? WTF does that mean, coming from a "constitutional scholar"?

[Terran]

113. I'd have to see the context of that quote, thank you. n/t

[MNBrewer]

119. Try google. it's free

[Terran]

121. You made the assertion, not me.

Seems to me it's your job to prove it's true, in context. Absent that, I'll assume you're talking out of your ass.

[MNBrewer]

122. you can assume all you want

If you want to learn the truth, sometimes it's useful to search it out yourself.

I'm not your babysitter.

[Terran]

123. President Obama awaits your apology

And so do I.

Edit: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html

Lest you want to argue, he clearly stated "for me", "God's in the mix"--as to HIS opinion on same-sex marriage. NOT the legality of the issue.

WARREN: There's a lot more I'd like to ask on that. We have 15 other questions here. Define marriage.

OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian -- for me -- for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix. But --
WARREN: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment with that definition?

OBAMA: No, I would not.

WARREN: Why not?

OBAMA: Because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that -- about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

[MNBrewer]

124. No, you're waiting for one. and don't merit it.

[Terran]

126. LOL, buh bye now.

:rofl:

[liberalsince1968]

125. God ain't in MY mix, and my tax dollars should NOT be used to subsidize whatever that is supposed to

mean.

And I don't care WHO says it.

Religion and government should NEVER be combined. And it is very disingenuous to try to spin it otherwise just because Obama isn't George Bush. My tax dollars are still MY tax dollars and I greatly resent subsidizing belief systems that promote anti-woman and anti-gay bullshit. If they are so eager to provide charitable services, let them do it on their own damn dime.

[krabigirl]

99. love this post. thank you.

[crim son]

72. I love it.

I understand the objection to the faith based initiatives office but also believe that more good can be done by keeping it alive and headed by an openly gay man, than by closing it down & pissing off or seriously disappointing the huge number of faithful. Maybe in time the Department will just fade away.

I'm not a Christian, but if I were, I'd want to be one like Obama.

[MadHound]

73. How about simply closing this Constitutional abomination of an office?

You can put as much sugar on this as you want, but using federal tax dollars to help prop up any religious organization is unconstitutional, whether you have a gay man at the helm or not. Do away with this POS office now.

[NYC_SKP]

74. Good idea.

He's pretty fucking smart, my president.

Recommended.

.

[AtomicKitten]

75. An interesting appointment.

I doubt it will placate the LGBT community, but it's a fascinating juxtaposition nonetheless.

K&R

[AZBlue]

88. Hi!

:hi:
You didn't change your name? Me either.
Love the sig line artwork!

[AtomicKitten]

90. hey!

I couldn't think of anything and then procrastinated til it was too late. Oh well.

:hi:

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

79. Good for both of you.

[Delphinus]

82. Fantastic!!!

I love what he said!

[jenmito]

84. Fred Barnes' (Faux) view on Obama's "continuation" of the "Faith Based Initiative"...

"I fear it'll be less faith based and just another social program funded by the government." Well, his fears are well-founded. They WILL be less faith based. He SAID so by including "people of no faith" in this program.

[Baikonour]

91. I guess this too is his idea of bipartisanship.

[HOLOS]

95. K&R nt

[Bill McBlueState]

97. I was hoping he'd close it

It was a horrible idea when Bush came up with it, and it's a horrible idea now.

[MNBrewer]

111. Clinton came up with it iirc.

[Bill McBlueState]

114. Who was director of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives under Clinton? n/t

[MNBrewer]

118. I don't know that there was an "office"

But Bill Clinton came up with the idea of "partnering" government and religious groups.