c h a n g e -Obama's Faith-Based Office to Depart From bu$h*s Precedent

[spanone]

President Obama today signed an executive order creating his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which adds a legal review on contentious issues of church and state separation as well as a panel of advisers that includes secular and religious leaders.

White House aides said it departs from the Bush administration's initiative, which allowed faith-based groups to hire only those of their own faith and, instead, will decide such issues on a case-by-case basis. Among the new priorities of the office, aides said, would be attempting to reduce the number of abortions and efforts to support women and families.

Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast at the Capital Hilton in Washington this morning, Obama said the goal of the initiative "will not be to favor one religious group over another -- or even religious groups over secular groups. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line our founders wisely drew between church and state."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020500834_pf.html

[anonymous171]

1. I like that legal review part a lot. nt

[spanone]

2. so do i.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

3. Well, it's better than Bush, that's for sure...

but I still don't understand why Obama thinks we need this department at all? If it will include secular and religious groups, why not change the title to "Office of Neighborhood Partnerships" and remove the faith stuff from it completely?

[bluestateguy]

4. I want to see the fundies shit a brick after money starts going to other religions

My guess is that they tolerate money going to Jews, but watch them have a cow when Muslim, Hindu, and other non-Western religions start getting money, along with the Scientologists, Pagans and the Hare Krishnas.

[terisan]

5. the key word are Billions in government funds ....spent by religious organizations

Why is there a special office and staff of 50 for contracting with religious organizations as opposed to other organization?


Government Social Programs to be Controlled by Organized Religion . Power here goes to the leaders of the organized religions who will in tern advise flocks to vote for certain politicians.

[Maven]

6. LOL

Change would be the abolishment of institutions whose naked purpose is to intertwine church and state. Like this one.

Democrats have been trained to expect so little...

[spanone]

8. lol all you want...this is a change.

[Political Heretic]

10. No, I just don't want what you want.

[spanone]

11. what the fuck do I want?? please tell me

[Political Heretic]

12. "the abolishment of institutions whose naked purpose is to intertwine church and state"

[Maven]

14. So you like intermingling of religion and government?

I don't understand.

[Political Heretic]

15. Faith organizations have accessed public fund for generations.

As a social worker, what I vehemently oppose is a vaccume. Now if we have some system in place so that people currently receiving services via a faith based organization then let's talk. But that's not currently the case.

I recognize the problems with faith groups providing services, and I definitely support strong regulation and over site. But all I really care about is people getting what they need any way they can. It's not a perfect work or a perfect system, and I care less about the "principle" of separation of church and state and more about people getting food.

FWIW in our community Catholic Charities is the biggest charitable agency running the only shelter that does NOT have a bunch of religious requirements for persons who stay there - Catholic Charities created Sanctuary specifically to be an alternative to the Boise "Rescue Mission" which was run by a bunch of fundamentalist evangelicals. Their legislative advocate is one the only major voices on issues of poverty and economic justice in our community, and he also refuses to advocate for the Churh on issues of abortion or lgbt equality (i.e. he won't support the church position, and refuses to do any advocacy for Catholic Charities around those issues).

In a perfect world, the state would be providing all the services people in my community need. But its not a perfect world, so I don't care who gets them to the people.

[Maven]

16. Well, I wouldn't argue with that

Certainly, feeding the hungry by whatever means is more important than any ideology. Thanks for all the work you do.

However, I still think that we should not encourage funneling taxpayer money to religious organizations, and likewise, we should not concede the necessity of funding secular programs that help the needy. Ceding the responsibility to "faith-based" organizations is a way to finance religion while diverting money away from secular organizations that don't proselytize to those they help and don't advocate in one direction or another on social issues.

[Political Heretic]

18. I don't necessarily disagree.... I just...we've been able to sneak throug more funds

for social services BECAUSE they come in the form of funding support for faith-run programs... so the right doesn't flip out as much.

I'm just not sure we'd get the same if it was done some other way. I know it should be done some other way. But I don't want people in need to be the ones we thrown on the front line to fight that fight, if you know what I mean....

[spanone]

17. well, you are absolutely correct there. 'whose naked purpose is to intertwine churh & state'

naked purpose to do that? yes, i am for the abolishment of those institutions.

[ColbertWatcher]

7. It would be better if it was to "depart" altogether. n/t

[spanone]

9. unfortunately we don't always get better

[ColbertWatcher]

13. True, but it's what we strive for. n/t