When President Bush announced his faith-based initiatives program, I was completely against it. Now, Barack Obama wants to expand on it:
The presumed Democratic presidential nominee said he would make it easier for churches and small community groups to win grants and would spend $500 million to help schools and churches run summer reading programs.
Obama delivered his speech at the Eastside Community Ministry in this key battleground state, home to many of the religious voters who backed Bush. With his proposal, the Illinois senator embraced a theme that has been closely associated with Republicans — and one that has drawn scorn from many Democrats and civil liberties groups who believe it infringes church-state separation.
“I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square,” Obama said. “But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups.”
Bristle? How about thinking it’s scary? Here’s why:
There are church organizations who spend a lot of money on activities many people find repugnant (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc) We’re reassured that under these faith-based initiative grants, religious organizations aren’t allowed to spend money on crap like this, right? We’re told it will go toward helping religious organizations fund soup kitchens, clothing programs, and all the good things that I support and think churches should be doing.
Let’s say a particularly repugnant religious organization has a budget of around a million dollars a year. For years, they’ve put 100k of that into fighting against marriage equality and employment protections for gay people. They’re left with 900k for salaries and programs. With faith-based initiative funding from you and me, this organization gets a grant of 50k to operate a shelter and soup kitchen. I have no doubt that most groups would spend that money well, expanding the shelter perhaps, or even offering new programs.
But what about groups like Focus on the Anus Family and the American anti-Family Association? Do you think they’d do that? Well, maybe. My guess thoough is that organizations associate with these groups would use the 50k to supplement their charity work. What does that leave? It leaves them an extra 50k in their budgets for their “other work.”
I know most religious groups do great work. I have my issues with the Salvation Army, for example, but I know that, for the most part, it is a very respectable organization. It’s the one’s that aren’t that I worry about. It’s the ones who spend millions a year on anti-gay, anti-choice lobbying that make me oppose anything like faith-based initiative funding.
Barack Obama is pandering here. I don’t know what else to call it. I just see it as a dangerous move by someone trying to make inroads with a community that’s not going to vote for him anyway.
[Obama] signaled he would not fund church groups that make hiring decisions based on an applicant’s religion and would make sure federal money was not used to proselytize.
Tell me how. When you give a group 50k, and it spends the entire thing on its shelter and food program, how are you going to prove or disprove that that 50k didn’t offset these other, disgusting activities. There’s no way.
“We got 50k from the government! That frees up 50k in our budget for that ballot initiative we need to pass!”
Woo-hoo. I can’t wait to see what else Obama has to offer.
Darkness
Oh joy. Religion screws up the world, so what we need is more religion. Beat ’em by joinin’ ’em I guess is what he’s trying for here, except building his “I’ll don’t give a crap about the constitution” cred for the lizard brain crowd. I don’t see any other possibilities that aren’t just the horror of: he actually believes in the idea. For the time being, I’ll hold off on assuming that.
History demonstrates pretty clearly that when church joins state, the church suffers just as much as the state. Guess we can cross “history buff” off obama’s list.
Marshall
This is an awful idea. Faith based initiatives represent a slush fund of taxpayer money to fund religious activities. They are as unconstitutional as torture, and the monies involved are almost certain to be misused.
Terry
I’m not thrilled about tax money going into the coffers of the witch doctors, but I don’t think this could be considered pandering because Obama has been talking about this sort of thing for a long time. Die-hard atheist that I am, I still can’t get too pissed at the government giving money to help a soup kitchen buy bread.
If nothing else, Obama might be able to make the program seem less creepy and more responsible than it does under Team Bush.
Dayv
Obama seems to be working to find out how solid my resolve to vote for him really is.
Baron Elmo
Actually, Obama is expected to do surprisingly well among evangelicals… for a Democrat, at least. He’s much more at ease discussing his faith than McCain (not to mention considerably more sincere); and the religious right is still ticked off at McCain for what they see as his rank betrayal of John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I don’t think many pundits understand just how huge a deal it is when a preacher as powerful as Hagee withdraws his endorsement from a Republican presidential candidate… but it could well be enough to persuade a large percentage of Moral Majority types to stay home on Election Day.
I don’t believe that Obama is pandering here, by the way. He seems quite sincere. I’ll let the BJ peanut gallery opine on whether or not that makes his position on faith-based initiatives even harder to abide.
Marshall
There is another, deeper, corruption here that almost never gets addressed.
Government support of charities is routinely used to manipulate public opinion in order to get support for laws that increase government or are congenial to the government (or its contractors) in other ways. Whenever you see someone from a charity talking on TV about how a law should be passed to do this or that or suppress this or that, you should ask yourself how much of that charity’s funding comes from the government, whether or not that law increases government power, and just how convenient this whole situation is from the government’s point of view.
jeff
It really is a very offensive idea to give the religious lunatics my tax money.
That said, Obama is extending a hand to everyone, which he has to do, to begin to rebuild this country after the failed Bush presidency.
It’s one thing to propose it. It’s another thing to do it. A Democratic majority Congress might not go along with it. Especially if their constituents make their disapproval known.
It took the right wing 40 years to get to their apex of power in 2000. It won’t take that long for the real majority of this country to rise up and take the country back. It will take some time however.
littlebird
So, basically, we’re voting for more efficient support of the theocratic movement. Well, any sort of efficiency counts as Change at this point, I guess.
AkaDad
I can’t support this, unless all the money goes to Muslim charities.
Cassidy
Was this really said with a straight face?
John Cole
I have no problem with this. I had no problem with the initiative when Bush first revealed it, because I really do not have a problem with the government working with religious charities to do good works. What bothered me was when it became little more than walking around money forthe evangelical nutters, a political prop, and a vote-buying scheme. Obama has already said he will roll back the hiring nonsense the Bush admin allowed, and the affirmation of the program by David Kuo is something that makes me think this is not a terrible program.
If Obama can run it as intended, it should be fine. And I am about as unreligious as it gets. I only have a problem when people shove their religion down my throat.
And one more thing- no matter where you go in the world, if there is mud and muck and sick people and people being killed and a generally shitty situation, you won’t find the UN or a US government agency there helping, but you will find some religious group struggling mightily to do the right thing (and yes, they may do some proselytizing in the process).
Wilfred
Well of course Muslim charities are not included because if they were Obama would be attacked by the right wing and press and we can’t allow that to happen because this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE and nothing, but nothing, can risk losing it so it can be only be Christian charities because Obama has to show everyone that he really is Jesus’ little lamb and if he gave money to Muslims they would say he was a terrorist.
So it’s ok.
Kurzleg
I understand John’s concerns here because they’re very real. I guess the only silver lining to this sort of thing is that it affords opportunities for abuse to wackos of all political stripes, liberal and conservative alike. So in practice it may just be that things balance out while in the process there is an increase in valuable services, whether those are soup kitchens or reading programs (I really like the latter idea).
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
Got WATB?
Kurzleg
That should have read “I understand Michael’s concerns”.
JR
The problem with giving America’s tax dollars to tax-exempt “faith” organizations is that it strengthens the most political of the Churches while weakening our dying commonwealth which is the factual reality we actually are living in together. And it violates and makes even less recoverable the idea of a wall between Church and State.
It seems incredible but people really don’t seem to be educated about fascism, which may be why we are repeating the errors. 90% of pre-WWII Germany was orthodox Christian. Italy, the birthplace of fascism, is the seat of the Catholic Church. Yet people discuss “faith-based” government funding from a policy perspective.
This is very bad. Church + Military + Big Business + The State = Hell on Earth, historically speaking. Only if there is a propaganda element involved, true, but our Think Tanks have thought of that one. Liberal media, anyone?
I don’t so much care that ex-Republicans don’t understand this. It bothers me very much that Obama seems not to. I really hope that this “can’t happen here” because it sure looks like it is.
JoyceH
I don’t see a problem with this either. In the first place, government has funded community projects through churches for decades. The churches create separate organizations to allow them to receive and use the government funds and the organizations comply with federal regulations on hiring etc. My non-Catholic former brother-in-law managed a Catholic charity organization decades ago. The problem is the way the Bush administration turned ‘charity’ into handouts of tax dollars to only specific favored religions and loosened the requirements for what they could do with it.
Nor is this any sort of pander or flip-flop on Obama’s part. Has anyone complaining about this even read his book? Specifically the part where he was being a community organizer? He organized through the CHURCHES. His own experience tells him that down at the community level, the organizations doing the most for the people who need it are often church organizations.
bfranky
“We are marching proudly backwards to the future.”
That is the motto from “The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual,” a hilarious satire of this kind of thing. It’s a funny book, available everywhere.
Check it out at http://www.homelanddecency.com.
Wilfred
Horseshit. Again: establishment clause – does he intend it to cover all faith-based activities, including Muslim? I’m writing to his campaign to know the answer. If it’s no, he’s a whore.
John Cole
I would assume it would. Why wouldn’t it?
Christ, I understand your being pissed about the AIPAC performance Wilfred, and I was pissed about the Mulsim bit in the NY Times last week, but how about a little good faith towards Obama. You are starting to sound like the Weekly Standard whenever anything Jewish is mentioned. Just switch Jewish with Muslim.
4tehlulz
All Obama is proposing is rolling back the clock to pre-Bush, when religious groups had to obey government regulations like everyone else. OH NOES
4tehlulz
>>You are starting to sound like the Weekly Standard whenever anything Jewish is mentioned.
You just figured this out?
Fr33d0m
The problem with this isn’t that good organizations will provide better services. The problem is that it is impossible to exclude the bad organizations who are actively working against our constitution.
Incertus
Evangelical =/= conservative Republican, okay? There are some overlaps, no question, but to make that sort of blanket connection is to act as lazily as the press does when they report this kind of stuff.
I’m no fan of the program for similar reasons–while there are rules in place to make sure that govt. money doesn’t become proselytizing money, the fact is that those rules are only as good as their enforcement, and lately, that’s been pretty shitty. And while non-Judeo-Christian groups qualify under the letter of the law, they’ve gotten precious little response when they’ve tried to access the system. How many Wiccan soup kitchens have you seen, for example?
Dreggas
Obama has always supported this idea, hell who do you think he was working with as a community organizer? He has made clear it’s not going to just one religion ala bush and from what I have gathered religious orgs must set up seperate non-profits that do not engage in proselytizing in order to receive federal funding. Further they cannot be discriminatory in their hiring practices. This has been done for years and was even done under Clinton.
Perhaps people should read what Obama said about this yesterday and read the hashing and re-hashing of it over at the GOS. I am rabid in my disdain of organized religion and of seperation of church and state but this does not violate the seperation of church and state so long as it does not favor one religion over the other.
Wilfred
Noted, but imitation remains the sincerest form of flattery. Remember that we have to push back against people like Pipes, and the editorial staff of the Weekly Standard, amongst a slew of others. Fair play’s a jewel, however, and I’ll reserve further comment until I see how this plays out, although I doubt his campaign would explicity include Muslim charities since doing so would invoke a shitstorm from the Weekly Standard et al.
Of late, Obama’s campaign seems to be “He says this, but he really means that”.
Thepanzer
LOL. /Agree.
b. hussein canuckistani
It’s not pandering if he’s sincere. Then it just becomes a really bad unconstitutional idea.
The religious streak has always been the thing that bugs me most about Obama. But he’s still the best choice out there. At least he doesn’t believe the earth is 6000 years old.
myiq2xu
Well? Whaddya expect from a cult leader?
Fool you once . . .won’t get fooled again?
jibeaux
Michael, do you have any reason to think groups like Focus on the Family receive this funding? To my knowledge, they never have. I tend to think we would’ve heard about it, and a google search brings up this post.
This is an old link, but the best I could find on short notice. Sounds like the idea is controversial, but the recipients are probably not terribly controversial at all.
I’m with John on this one, I think it’s very reasonable to object to it, but at least object based on the reality of the situation and not who you THINK the money is going to.
NonyNony
This. This. This. A thousand times this.
This is what the rules were BEFORE Bush the Lesser created his “Office of Faith Based Initiatives” devoted to finding all sorts of ways of handing over gobs of American taxpayer money to the ravenous jaws of the conservative theocracy movementarians. If a church wanted government grants to fund its charitable work in a local community, it created a not-for-profit company to accept and administer the grant. That company had to comply with standard corporate rules and regulations for non-discriminatory staffing and had to account for how the money was being spent.
If Obama wants to go back to the old rules (possibly with some changes to make it easier to create a non-profit organization and to file for grants) then there shouldn’t be an issue at all. The system worked fine for decades before Bush decided he wanted to monkeywrench it (like so many other things that Bush decided to use is Sidam touch on). I’d also like to see the requirements for programs receiving funding go back to those that are providing only LOCAL community charitable services – the idea that a group like “Focus on the Family” (which is only a “charity” in the sense that it’s incorporated as a “not-for-profit” – it’s a lobbying group for Christ’s sake) should be getting any kind of money from the government is laughable on the face of it.
Now, if Obama wants to propose keeping the Bush model of “piggies feeding at the trough” then I’m going to scream and fight and kick tooth-and-nail to get my Congress-critters to put a stop to it. But it doesn’t sound like he is – in fact it sounds pretty much like he’s talking about rolling back the Bush changes while simultaneously making everyone who liked the abstract idea of them think that he’s expanding them. That’s a neat rhetorical move, actually, and in a week where just about every move the man has made has been irritatingly devoid of tactics, it’s a welcome change.
Original Lee
I agree with John that if the money is allocated evenhandedly, regardless of what kind of religion, that would be a good thing. Bush originally sold this as a way to help communities by using organizations already in place, and then it got twisted to mean “only Christian groups I approve of”.
However, the tone of his campaign has changed since he started hiring on former Clinton staffers, and I’m not very happy or comfortable with that.
jibeaux
myiq, do you think “both Democratic presidential candidates” would include Hillary….? Link.
Abort, Retry, Fail?
jibeaux
Well, again, I think that is who’s getting the money. Show me that any groups like FoF got funding and I will happily retract.
jibeaux
I haven’t seen any Mormon pet stores, but I don’t think it’s because they can’t get federal funding.
Original Lee
By “his campaign,” I mean Obama’s, of course.
BTW, for purposes of general amusement, I think you ought to know I received a detailed survey by snail mail from the DNC yesterday. I certainly hope I was chosen by random selection, as I am one of 10 registered Republicans in my precinct. The DNC urgently wants to know what I think Obama needs to do in order to get elected President, and incidentally also tried to hit me up for $35. Part of the survey included an essay section, so I used it to plug this blog. We shall see if they pay attention!
Wilfred
Just for the record, the Bush Justice Department has harassed Muslim charities since 2001:
Another case ended a few weeks ago:
That particular case was resolved last October:
There’s a lot going on that never gets reported. Now that you know you can be suitably concerned. Right.
RoonieRoo
Thank you Incertus for this:
Jimmy Carter is a good ol’ Evangelical that lives true to his faith. I’m quite happy to see several people here on BJ getting it that this is not just about conservative republicans getting money to push their agendas. As a godless person myself, I’m not enamored of them getting tax money but I also cannot ignore the great good many of these organizations do WITHOUT proselytizing.
The comment that is making me crazy that I’m seeing on some far left sites are the comments implying that Obama is pandering or pretending to be Christian to get that evangelical vote. Why is it that because we like the guy we are horrified to have to accept that he is not godless but a genuine Christian? He’s not pandering or “faking it” to get the vote. It is his genuine faith. I might not agree with the whole magic fairy in the sky but I accept the reality of our current political climate.
Maybe I’m affected by the fact that it was a Catholic charity that pretty much saved me from being homeless and on the street after some pretty heinous medical bills in my 20’s. I was godless then and they didn’t care and they didn’t proselytize. Their proselytizing, if you will, was to live by example and live their beliefs by coming to the aid of those in need.
Incertus
Bush’s “Faith Czar” pretty much said Wiccans need not apply. Slight difference there.
jibeaux
Well, that link technically says the guy hadn’t heard of any pagan faith-based groups. It didn’t name anyone who had applied or had been denied. It didn’t sound like anyone was deterred from applying because of his comments, but more that they didn’t agree with the program. But, fair enough, Incertus. I am hopeful that under Obama, we will see a Wiccan soup kitchen. I would actually really like to see a Wiccan soup kitchen.
Y’know, I can think of more ringing endorsements of a charity than “the government didn’t conclusively prove they’re responsible for 9/11″… there was a successful mulitmillion dollar civil suit against this group, which has substantial ties to Hamas, and one of whose founders was declared a terrorist during the Clinton administration.
Marshall
Say what ? Germany was and is mostly Catholic in the South, and I am not aware that there were ever any significant numbers of orthodox (although I am not sure about the Slavic Lusatian minority in Saxony).
Wilfred
Declared a terrorist, eh? You just declared yourself an asshole.
ThymeZone
Well, you’re wrong, and ill informed. Obama has been friendly to the faith-based community all along, and has said so. This is not a “move” or a shift in his approach to the subject.
But taking your remark purely in the context of its church-state-separation aspects, I can’t agree with those either. The government has a long history and track record of enforcing standards and policies tied to money, and there is no reason to believe that it can’t do so in this framekwork just as well. If you are going to claim that government can’t do that with faith based organizations then we’d have to assume that you don’t think the government can give anyone money for anything, lest they misappropriate the funds and use them for something else. That is simply and demonstrably and provably not the case, and the mechanisms for doing funding with effective strings attached exist at every level of government, federal, state, and local, and have for a long time.
I could understand opposition to the idea on old fashioned conservative grounds, or libertarian grounds, but not these grounds, for the simple reason that you’re just plain wrong.
All due respect, your entire post is epic fail, and you are turning into a caricature of yourself lately with this petty Obama-bashing. WTF?
jibeaux
I’m an asshole because Bill Clinton declared a political leader of Hamas a terrorist? That seems a hard line to draw. Still, at least Bill Clinton didn’t declare me an asshole.
hacienda
Just an anecdote that touches on this– I work for a nonprofit that applied for a grant with DOJ that funded anti-delinquency stuff. The request strongly encouraged FBOs to apply, but was open to everybody. The encouragement to FBOs was pretty blatant for a federal notice, and that, coupled with the fact that there was two weeks between the announcement and the due date (an insanely short period of time for government grant requests), made us suspect that DOJ had already figured out who they were funding and that the open announcement was purely for appearances. We applied anyway. Sure enough, we didn’t get funded, and it took us months to get feedback on why not– usually it’s pretty easy to call up/email a program officer for pointers, but not here. When we did get the feedback, it was a form letter saying that we didn’t meet the basic requirements for eligibility, which was crap because we did meet every requirement– at least, those actually stated in the request.
I’m not claiming that the competition was rigged solely because we didn’t get funded– and there’s no way to really know what really happened one way or the other, and maybe I’m completely off-base– but the extremely short application window, the emphasis on FBOs, the lack of normal feedback and the fact that only FBOs ended up winning awards makes me think the whole thing was merely an exercise in funneling millions in taxpayer money to pre-selected churches without being obvious about it.
So while I’m not opposed to FBOs being eligible to compete for federal grant funds, I do take issue with rigged competition processes that shut out nonprofits because they AREN’T FBOs. As long as Obama’s plan merely levels the playing field and doesn’t *tilt it in favor* of FBO’s like Bush has, I’m okay with it, I suppose.
I’ll take off the tin foil hat now.
The Moar You Know
No, that’s not what he said and damn sure not what he meant. From the link:
What does that…mean?
“Fringe groups.” Awesome. The fundamentalist Christians who receive the lion’s share of the funding just take the money and promote their ideology with it anyway. It’s not like anyone will stop them.
“Not like those pagan faith-based groups, who just sit around drawing pictures of tombstones and listening to Marilyn Manson. No Christian love with those folks! You know, the pagan faith-based groups I’ve never heard of.”
Anyone who can’t pick up his real meaning has lost the upper range of their hearing – the range where you hear dog whistles.
Sunny
Holy moly. Does that mean Wicans get gov money too? It only seems fair and morally correct…in a Christian sort of way.
pillsy
People who are surprised or disappointed by this simply have not been paying attention. Obama’s background, including his affiliation with “controversial” religious leaders, is consistent with this. His rhetoric about religion, which is a big part of what launched him to national prominence, is consistent with this. I’m sure he’s highlighting it now for political reasons (duh) but that doesn’t make it a flip-flopping pander any more than highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq was a flip-flopping pander during the primary.
I don’t think it’s the best thing in the world, but he is arguing for reforms in the system that would bring it much closer in line with what was in place before Bush took power. I have my doubts about oversight, but the fact is that oversight of for-profit corporations and secular non-profits has also been staggeringly bad during the last 8 years, and I hardly expect an Obama Administration to stop doing business with those.
Also, AFAICT, people who are saying that non-Christian groups wouldn’t get this funding are just making things up.
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
“When President Bush announced his faith-based initiatives program, I was completely against it. Now, Barack Obama wants to expand on it:…Bristle? How about thinking it’s scary?”
Well, that depends. As long as we can lobby so that the Metropolitican Communtity Church, or even better, that Holy and Sanctified Order known as Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are eligible for grants, it might be a good thing.
orogeny
I don’t see this as any kind of a flip-flop on Obama’s part…his on-his-sleeve religiosity (maybe necessary to counter the Muslim bullshit) was one of the things that made me less than a fan before he got the nomination. I’m far more disturbed by his tossing Clark under the bus and his cheerleading for FISA.
I just wish there was some way to insure that the government money was going to a NEW program, not just simply funding an existing program. As it is, giving government money to a religious group to fund an existing charitable program, as Michael D explained, simply frees up money for the group to do more “missionary” work, indirectly funding their efforts to “shove their religion down my throat.”
jibeaux
Freakin’ Word Press ate my response, which was BRILLIANT :)
My point was mostly that nowhere in that link does either party contend that wiccans applied for funding or were deterred from applying because of that jerko’s comments. They were insulted by what he said, and it was insulting, but if they were to sue it would be thrown out of court because they wouldn’t have standing — there’s no indication they even wanted the funding.
Pillsy
Provided it receives the same oversight as any other program would, I’d much rather have the money go to a proven program than a new one.
I’m completely unmoved by the argument about possible second-order effects. Yeah, it could free up money to expand proselytization efforts, but it could just as easily free up money to expand charitable services.
ThymeZone
I posted essentially this to another thread, but I haven’t time today to navigate multiple threads and play BJ games, so I am doubling down. The archivists will just have to deal with it.
The Obama campaign advanced two principal ideas on Monday:
One, he is setting the tone for the proper respect of his and other candidates’ patriotism in this campaign and has the chops and the will to make that stick, as evidenced by his Missouri speech.
Two, his campaign aggressively attacked John McCain on defense, charging that McCain has supported wrong policies that have led to dangerous situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the successful entrenchment of Al Qaeda in those regions, while directing resources toward Iraq in a move that has not made the country safer.
So, we go after the GOP for its demagogic use of patriotism as a club, and after McCain for his claim that he’s better qualified to handle national defense when his record shows that he has consistently used bad judgment as evidenced by ongoing developments and a weaker military.
These are themes that are going to be effective and relevant in the months ahead. But please, let’s spend all our time blathering about whether every remark or statement made by everybody is in perfect alignment with our own preferences and priorities.
Look, that’s how the GOP got its 60-year dominance of the White House, isn’t it? By carping over every subtle nuance of its policies and candidates’ facial expressions all this time?
If you’d been following the story, you’d see that the Obama campaign is wisely letting the Clark story take its full throated course, because in the long run, the story works for Obama better than it does for McCain.
And characterizing reluctant support for a bill does not constitute “cheerleading” unless you are just being another lazy BJ concern troll who can’t make necessary and subtle distinctions, or understand that FISA is a phony issue and the tip of a huge, hideous iceberg that is far more important than its hypnotic little tip could ever be.
But paying attention to such things would be out of scope for this corner of the blogosphere where the quick hit and the convenient snark are always more important than any real issues. Hmm … what does that remind us of?
Ahem msm ahem. We have discovered the enemy, and he is us?
orogeny
Why should the government, even indirectly, assist a church in proselytizing? If Focus on the Family, has a charitable project that they’re funding, and they decide they’d like to set up a new anti-gay program, I can just see the wheels in Dobsen’s head turning…”if we get the government to fund the charity, we can re-allocate the money we’ve been spending there to set up the new anti-fag program we’ve been wanting to get going.”
jibeaux
Okay. Look. For the umpteenth time. If you’re going to argue about what Focus on the Family is going to do with the money, you have got to show me that Focus on the Family has gotten the money before. It seems to me that what I’ve been able to learn about these groups is that they’re mostly small shoestring operations on the order of The First Baptist Church of Minnetonka’s soup kitchen.
If I’m wrong, I’m happy for you guys to show me but I think we should stop going four rounds about what national political organizations are going to do with money they’re not getting. It’s a straw corporation, if you will.
Texas Dem
This is a very smart move by Obama but I believe the target audience is not evangelicals but white, working class voters in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Most evangelicals are never going to vote for Obama because of his positions on abortion and gay rights (some might, but I doubt it), but Obama might be able to close the sale with a lot of white voters in crucial swing states if he can convince them he shares their core values, i.e., faith and love of country. This is similar to the efforts by Bush in 2000 to court black voters. In the end, very few blacks actually voted for him but all that talk of “compassionate conservatism” (not to mention all of those friendly black and brown faces on the stage at the Republican convention) persuaded a lot of white, suburban soccer moms to vote Republican. This is a deeply religious country, folks. No atheist or agnostic is ever going to be president. Deal with it.
Chris Johnson
I’m not formally religious but I’m not finding it that hard to side with Obama here. Again, look at Carter as an example of what this sort of thing can mean. It IS possible to have charitable religious organizations that are, well, CHARITABLE.
I realize we only hear about the ones that are really a front for furthering the influence of fundamentalist power centers, I realize we only hear about the guys who end up in wetsuits with a dildo up their ass, I realise we only hear about the godhatesfags crowd, but what the hell? What about say Habitat for Humanity, which Carter has been deeply involved in?
It would be great if there was a big easy separation between the Phelps of the world and nice atheist charities devoted only to helping the poor and sick, but the fact is, purely secular charities end up being experts at applying for grants- and the secular side is heavily weighted by certain HUGE charities (Red Cross, Oxfam etc) too big to be associated with any particular religious group.
I think on the grassroots level the religious charities are more likely to put rubber to the road- all you need is a religion that purportedly is about helping the hungry and sick etc, and it’s not THAT big of a stretch to use it for what it’s supposed to be about. It shouldn’t be that shocking that churches exist which find more cohesion and fellowship by working together to aid those in need.
Hell, man, I’m in recovery and have seen lots of church basements in my day- it is SO COMMON to see those bulletin boards, and they are about some charity or other. Constant. It’s all ‘these are polaroids of our trip to Rwanda, this is our little group giving our $725.16 worth of food we collected to Rwandzobingie Township, this is us posing with Zmerfzug the mayor who was very friendly and so grateful!’
Don’t bitch about this Obama position, trust me. Be grateful he’s talking about rolling back all the Bush nonsense, which he is. The religious charities that are HELPFUL won’t be harmed by this one bit.
Anyway, isn’t it actually GOOD in this day and age to proclaim government can’t be all things for all people? The opposite would be to ban all religious charity because the government should be doing all that. Dammit, this government is doing too much- surveillance, war, just barely avoiding the right to seize people for no reasons and hold them in secret prisons, and you want them to be the primary source for charitable relief?
I’ll take the church basements, man. In a HEARTBEAT.
Martin
I’m really of two minds on this. If I think of the full spectrum of organizations that *should* benefit from this, I think it could be okay. Would my wifes U/U church get funding for poverty relief or for their time they’ve been investing outside the county courthouse marrying people that the state now allows to get married but the state employees can’t bother to do? Under Bush – no way. Under Obama, probably. And if that was open to all groups (yes, Wiccans too) and there was reasonable oversight so that Dobson couldn’t use it to try and ungay people, then I think it’d be fine. I don’t think religion is bad and I don’t think religion helping do the work of government is bad. Right now, however, the faith-based initiatives have a big asterisk after them:
But my other mind thinks that organizations like the Boy Scouts would do well under such a program, and while I admire everything that the Boy Scouts should stand for, I’m pretty pissed about my son being slowly drummed out because he’s an atheist. If he was gay, he would have been quickly drummed out… I couldn’t even participate as a leader for the same reasons. I sure as hell don’t want my tax dollars continuing a policy of discrimination. And I can’t quite resolve that the program wouldn’t end up rewarding the wrong types of behaviors. Of course, that’s already happening now…
(Girl Scouts got over their hangups 3 decades ago, FWIW)
Genine
When I was reading about this yesterday, I think Obama did mention that the money would go to organizations of all stripes, not just christian.
Actually, I used to read Witches Voice quite regularly and back in 2002 or something like that there were about five Wiccan organizations that asked for funding for soup kitchens and hospices under the Faith-Based initiatives program. They were all denied and, from what I read, it was obviously because they were Wiccan. I really think this will change, though. But we’ll see.
Anyway, churches have been getting government money for their programs for decades. Once upon a time when my mother would make me go to church, I would volunteer for their outreach programs and community work over the summer. There were plenty of hoops that had to be jumped in order to comply with government requirements and the churches I worked with did not proselytize. I think there are a lot of churches that do a lot of good work and do not shove their religion down the throats of others. (You might have some individuals that do that, but its not with the encouragement of the organization).
I think it wouldn’t be a good thing to be down on funding charity work through churches just because of a few bad (and very visible) apples.
Also, Focus on the Family really doesn’t do charity work to get federal funding for it. They did get some government money to build a huge playground on their property a few years ago. But the playground is open to the public. Obviously its probably a lure to get parents to walk down the road to check out focus on the family, but its not a requirement and they don’t shove their message onto people at the playground.
redbeardjim
I’m guessing he meant “orthodox” as in “mainstream”, not as in “Eastern Orthodox”.
orogeny
Thymezone,
Is everyone who disagrees with you about Obama a “concern troll?” You seem to think that you’re a fucking genius and anyone who dares to interpret the actions of the MUP in any way other than the way that you have approved is obviously just not “following the story.” Well, maybe you’re smarter and better informed than I am, but I’ll put Glenn Greenwald up against you any day. I’d be willing to bet that his grasp of the details of the story is just a tiny bit better than yours.
I don’t like long quotes, but here’s a bit from Greenwald today:
But, of course, he’s just not following the story, is he?
I want Obama to win the election, I’ll be voting against McCain. But between now and then, I hope we can convince him that liberal is not a bad word and standing up for liberal principles is not a losing proposition.
orogeny
Focus on the Family was just a hot-button name to use, but there are plenty of right wing religious groups that are availing themselves of faith0based initiative money. Here’s one article.
KRK
I have to agree with those who are unimpressed by this “scare” and the post in general. For those interested in, even concerened about, this issue, Steve Benen at Carpetbagger Report did a much more thoughtful and actually informative post on the issue yesterday.
As for the ridiculous suggestions that Obama would restrict these programs to Christian groups, here’s what he said:
Based on comments at CR, it was the atrocious Nedra Pickler at the AP who started the press overreaction, and the LA Times article linked in this post seems to have simply re-worded her misleading lede. But then I’ve come to find anything from the LA Times suspect on issues of national politics.
Susan
I work for my state’s welfare office. My job, in part, has been to approve contracts for with faith based programs. When I started 11 years ago, as a third generation godless commie pinko, I was prepared for deny them all. I was wrong. Our clients can choose to participate or not and the programs with too many strings attached were not used at all.
Some faith based groups, like Catholic Charities, do great work. Some private non religious groups have totally ripped us off. I’d much rather have Catholic Charities providing services to refugee youth, for instance, than a private group.
My biggest beef was when Bush lifted the anti discrimination in hiring requirements (The Salvation Army insisted/lobbied hard so they don’t have to hire gays). With that gone, we go back to the way it was under Clinton, and before, and I have no problem with it. It provides services to the poor they would not get otherwise.
jibeaux
Now, that’s something very different from what that link said, and that is not defensible. Thanks for letting me know that. I am not at all surprised, of course.
ann
Since these faith based initiatives are obstensibly to combat poverty, I wonder if this is what John and Elizabeth Edwards had in mind when they elicited a promise from Obama to fight poverty? I think not.
jibeaux
Orogeny, your link is about earmarks.
The office of faith-based initiatives is its own office that gives grant money.
Pillsy
Because the standard you propose can be used to condemn just about any funding the government gives to any private organization for any purpose. Why should the government, even indirectly, help the CEO of IBM buy a yacht?
orogeny
Sorry, misread the article. Here’s a couple that are specifically about faith-based initiatives:
One
Two
Pillsy
I’m so glad that the progressive blogosphere has come up with an “Obama is a crypto-Republican quisling!” narrative that describes the dynamics of the campaign with all the nuance and accuracy of the corporate media’s “John McCain is a straight-talking maverick!” narrative.
The Other Steve
Honestly, I never had a problem with giving money to religious charities to help the poor, as long as it’s done in a responsible manner.
My fear with Bush was always that it was just an excuse to send money to a bunch of right-wing crackpots, and all the charities that actually do good would be ignored.
orogeny
It shouldn’t. Citing the problems that exist within existing tax laws and subsidy programs isn’t an argument for making them worse. Additionally, there’s a significant constitutional difference between a subsidy that indirectly increases employee compensation and one that indirectly funds religious proselytization.
Helena Montana
Church and State should never be mixed — NEVER. It’s a slippery slope.
Tsulagi
Exactly.
How about the Korean messiah’s Unification Church? A quick google brought this up…
Now that’s almost a half million you absolutely know was well spent. Moon’s group in various names has also gotten millions funding abstinence programs as part of the government’s African AIDS initiative. But he’s in good company…
I dunno, I’d just like a little more separation of church and state, not less.
Pillsy
I’m not. I’m saying that the government indirectly funds the shareholders and employees of IBM every time it buys goods or services from them.
Sloegin
If I had a choice, I’d rather go to the soup kitchen that didn’t include a sermon.
Giving tax dollars to the great Woo is epic fail.
Tom Hilton
Orogeny, Greenwald quotes an egregiously incorrect AP story on a point (“letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions”) that Obama’s speech specifically addressed (organizations receiving money would, in fact, have to comply with Federal anti-discrimination law).
And by the way? What Obama is talking about has been going on for 40 years; government funding to community organizations (including religious-based groups) was an integral part of the Great Society.
It’s one thing to criticize Obama for substantive stuff (FISA); it’s quite another to slam him for initiatives that are substantively unobjectionable but don’t sound sufficiently ‘progressive’. I have no patience for the latter.
orogeny
Are you trying to equate buying office supplies with handing cash to a religious group? Under that logic, one could justify absolutely any giveaway program that Congress or the President could come up with.
orogeny
Tom,
I agree completely. In an earlier comment, I said:
Since then, the argument, at least as far as I’m concerned, has been about whether or not we should expand the faith-based initiative program or that it should even exist.
ThymeZone
Whoops, I see that I made the Michael/John error earlier, my bad for trying to multitask and bash BJ at the same time.
So my bash is aimed at you, Michael. Which is fine but honestly it is more fun to bash John, he is easier to rile.
Anyhoo …. this little item today.
See, at least somebody out there is paying attention to what is important.
Fuck, we can actually win this election. Even the stupidass REpublicans know it. Too bad that this fact doesn’t trump the zeal to get on the ‘tubes and shout about whatever your Most Important Thing is today and to bash our candidate, our only hope of keeping the fucking GOP Beast out of the White House next term, for not sharing your Most Important Concerns item for item.
HyperIon
HaHaHaHa! thanks for the laugh.
Did Condi say that first? It sound remarkably like “no one could have predicted…”
Loquacious Mute
Has Obama ever given the impression that he is a secular progressive? I have never gotten that impression. His conversion was the result of an existential crisis, and seems to me genuine and deep.
On the other hand Bush substituted relgion for booze trading one addiction for another. It never felt genuine to me, maybe because he often used it as a tool or in some cases a weapon (abstinence only anyone, cutting off funding for condoms in Africa). When he spoke of God putting him in the presidency as if he were ordained was the height of arrogance, especially since it was Scalia, not God who put him there. I had a huge problem with his faith based intitiative program, because I thought it would be used as a political tool to proselytize and discriminate further bluring the separation between Church & State, and of course now we know it was that exactly.
I however, do not have the same worry after reading Obama’s speech. I feel his program will be vastly different from Bush’s and will respect our ever so sacred right to keep the church out of our state.
I personally have an adversity to organized religion, but that does not dismiss the fact that many groups do good works, especially at the grassroot(neighborhood)level. This is what Obama has experienced himself and understands that this is a more direct out reach to those in immediate need of assistance especially when their government fails them. Remember Katrina.
angie
I don’t either, as long as I get to pick the amount and the charity.
I do have a problem with the government deducting money from my paycheck and giving it to groups that I may find morally repellant. I have always found Obama’s interpretation of the First Ammendment troubling. It’s not enough to make me vote for someone else, but it’s enough to make me wish we had a better option.
Brachiator
Actually, I find all religions pretty much repugnant. It doesn’t much matter whether or not they are pro or anti-choice, pro or anti-gay.
Well said. I agree with you completely here.
The problem is that Bush has already shifted the argument with respect to faith-based organizations, and Obama, as a former community organizer, rightfully sees some value in these grass-roots organizations. And it is a good political tactic to battle conservatives on what they think is their own turf.
However, in the long run, this kind of thing is triple-dipping. If I want to give money out of my own pocket to an organization, which may receive tax benefits as a religious or charitable organization, that’s one thing. But to have the government give general taxpayer dollars to a faith based organization which is already tax exempt, is a whole different kettle of fish.
But as I said, the argument has already been shifted successfully so that the idea of government aid to faith-based organizations is generally accepted. At best, you have to rein these organizations in and eliminate funding to those which are discriminatory or which waste the monies given to them.
Until you can get the country to re-visit the idea of direct government aid to these types of organizations.
Liz
I just wish there were more atheist/Humanist charitable organizations, and not just to test out whether or not they could receive funding under the faith-based organization code.
Obama’s religious tilt was one of the reasons I voted for Hillary (I’m in NY, so we voted before she drank the crazy juice for breakfast every day.) As people have said before me, if he reverts this to the laws that were in effect before, requiring more accountability and restrictions for faith-based groups, I’m perfectly fine with that. I don’t agree with their religions, but I do agree with good works, and if they are required to behave like any equal-opportunity employer and avoid preaching to their clients, then go them.
I used to work for a grantmaking coalition, and I saw the amount of paperwork and grantwriting that went into applying for private grants. Lots and lots of hoops, and they were adding yet another when I was working there. (Addicted to the big business buzzword of the year. Logic models, in this case.) I can’t even fathom the paperwork for a government grant.
MNPundit
Hoo-hah, you are an idiot.
Repeat after me: OBAMA IS NOT PANDERING. Say it. SAY IT!
Read his books, or look at his work in Chicago or Trinity. HE IS NOT PANDERING HE REALLY BELIEVES THIS. Pandering would be if he did this just to get votes, and did not believe it. HE IS NOT PANDERING HE REALLY BELIEVES THIS.
You are fine to think he is wrong and that it’s bad maybe even unconstitutional policy, but not that he is pandering.
Because HE IS NOT PANDERING HE REALLY BELIEVES THIS.
Henry
The office of faith-based initiatives is its own office that gives grant money.
That’s not exactly accurate. While the office does have grant money, the office is focused on teaching Faith Based groups how to apply for grants, as well as working to ‘remove barriers’ to Faith Based Groups.
The Grants from the Faith Based officers are geared towards groups who want to help more Faith Based groups apply for grants elsewhere in the government, such as the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Education Department, Veterans Admin, HUD, ect.
Also, a few people discussed whether the FRC or Focus on the Family got grant money. It’s hard to track this stuff, but I would imagine no as both are political groups. However, that doesn’t mean there is no benefit to them. The FBI stuff is a maze of incestuous relationships and affiliations.
For instance, in 2006 Health and Human Services gave 50,000 to the Revival Fires Ministry of PA, to help form Family Solutions of Pa. One of their initiatives, is the Healthy Marriage Initiative, which provides as a resource The Insitute for American Values who employs Maggie Gallagher to speak out about the evils of Same-Sex marriage.
Lets do another one.
HHS also gave 50,000 to the Stanislaus County Healthy Marriage Coalition, who is affiliated with the The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries, who has two members of Focus on the Family as founding members.
Do either of these mean much? No, but in 45 minutes or so, I was able to trace 100K which was given to Faith Based groups who are only one or two organizations removed from anti-gay organizations.
In fact, there have been complaints that, under Bush, the who FBI has been nothing more than a way to funnel cash to supporters of the GOP.
Stevenovitch
I think this sucks. However, when I write my checks to uncle sam the only thing on my conscious is how much of it ends up going toward enabling a war that has and continues to cause the needless ruin of countless lives on both sides.
Frankly, I’d rather the government stick my money in Jesus’ g-string than spend it on a bomb. I know we have defense concerns, but the idea is if you aren’t using the bombs you don’t have to buy new ones as much, and every time I see one of those mangled dead people it really pisses me off that I was forced to finance it.
As much as Obama is really pissing me off lately, this calculus is still saying that it’s smarter to vote against McCain (note, I didn’t say for Obama).
binzinerator
I’d like more separation between church and state, too. And if federal money has been supporting religious groups for 40 years, then I want that stopped too.
Aye, that’s the rub, isn’t it? This program won’t get the same oversight. The religious groups that stand to benefit become more political, become even bigger lobbyists and even bigger influences because now there’s serious cash to be had. Now that it’s legal, there’s money to be had from the govenment so even greater effort is made to get it.
And this idea it won’t be used for proselytizing is foolish. Michael rightly pointed out how that government money effectively funds other activities. Hell yes that money is being used to proselytize. Fifty grand from the feds for the soup kitchen means 50 grand formerly used for the soup kitchen is free to be spent elsewhere, like bash gays, undermine contraception and the right to one’s own reproductive choices, fund efforts to make schools teach kids the earth is 6,000 years old, attack feminism, and, duh, proselytize. It’s essentially a government subsidy to proselytize.
It was a huge mistake to ever begin giving public money to religious groups for any purpose, and it was absolutely dumbfuckery to do what Bush did, which was open the lid to that particular Pandora’s Box even wider. (And now Obama wants to open it wider still? WTF?)
It wasn’t Bush’s typical dumbfuck mistake, he and his goopers knew what they were doing, which was to politicize religion and to put religion into politics as much as possible. That’s what the gov’t/religion money connection has done.
That is a powerful reason as to why we need more separation not less.
It’s because we can actually win this election that we should demand our candidate stop calling for an even closer relationship between government and religion. That’s fundamentally wrong for this democracy. It’s the opposite direction of Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state.
Obama’s going to win without needing to do any of those things Greenwald is slamming him for. And I think Obama may very well lose some support, he certainly is likely to lose a lot of the enthusiasm and a lot of the young people he energized by becoming what people were trying to change.
I’m still going to vote for him (I would have voted for Hillary too had she won). But he keeps going in this direction and I lose my enthusiasm — my first donation to a political figure ever went to his campaign. I will end up giving only half a fuck.
Very stupid moves by Obama. He risks losing the engine of enthusiasm, the momentum for change, and for what? For the votes of the fickle fucktard so-called center? The center is so far right they are enablers of status quo, the fucktards who would still support most of Bush’s policies, if no longer the man himself.
JR -- Bryan, TX
This has always been the part of Obama’s campaign that has made me wish for a better candidate. He’s way too tight with religious people. I understand that in the US, a candidate has to speak about religion, but I can’t stand it when they want to use it for furthering public policy.
I’ll vote for him, because I want a Democrat in the White House, but this kind of thing and FISA are not helping my enthusiasm for his candidacy.
Brachiator
I’d rather my money go for the bomb than G-string Jesus. At least it’s going for something real.
The problem is that you cannot simply undo everything that Bush has wrought just because you think it’s stupid. Both Congress and the Supreme Court has agreed with the idea of faith based government financing. So, the public has to be persuaded to change direction. Also, some ripped from the headlines examples of public sector foolishness makes faith-based giving look like a model of efficiency and compassion.
Chris M
The word you’re looking for is “fungible”.
Money is money.
slightly_peeved
Sorry I didn’t bring this up in an earlier thread suited to it , but throwing attack dogs under the bus is a standard tactic in politics. It is what attack dogs are for.
Obama prides himself on being positive and above politics. He burnishes this credential by condemning Clark. The story doesn’t disappear because Obama condemned Clark – at worst, the meme is out there. Clark looks a bit mean for picking on McCain, but since Clark isn’t running for anything, it doesn’t hurt him much.
In politics, if you want a story to appear in the media, but you don’t want to be personally associated with it, you get an ally to bring up the story and then you disown the story. It’s classic politics.
You may not like that Obama uses tactics like this, but to state that this isn’t a tactic is incorrect. As for not liking this tactic – well, when you find a democracy anywhere in the world where leaders don’t occasionally sacrifice a fellow party member to advance the party cause, please tell me.
This is ridiculous. The number of Obama’s supporters that are vociferous atheists is far outweighed by the number who are either religious or have no particular issue with the involvement of religion in public life.
Disdaining religion doesn’t win anyone elections, anywhere. Why should a man who has proclaimed his faith his entire time in public office start doing so?
Marshall
To me, personally, it doesn’t matter. We support charities in this country by tax exemptions and in other ways, but IMHO no Government money should be used to support any religious organization, period.
hmd
Religious groups can already get money from the government for charitable work. It just isn’t that easy.
Catholic Charities, and Lutheran Family Services, are two big social service charities that get plenty of government money. In these cases, they’ve set up organizations that are financially and administratively separate from the religious organizations. These separate organizations have to abide by all the non-discrimination laws, can’t proselytize, can’t mingle their money with groups that do, etc. No doubt the government grants they get allow them to operate with less support from the associated religious groups, so the fungibility of money can still be an issue. This is going on today, without any OFBI. But these groups do have to compete for their grant money on a level basis with other non-religious charitable groups.
The problem for the First Baptist Church of Minnetonka is that they likely don’t have the resources or know-how to create and manage an administratively separate foundation. How easy is that going to be when the soup kitchen administrator is also the church treasurer, and its board of directors is basically the same as the church’s governance council? Will they understand the limits on how the church itself interacts with its soup kitchen operation?
The result is going to be these kind of incestuous relationships that Henry was speaking about, where the charitable works are deeply entangled with political and religious efforts. That’s against the rules, but how do you educate numerous small churches to respect that? How do you enforce that with groups that just won’t respect it?
If you want to let small, local, religiously-motivated social agencies compete on a level field for government charitable grants, the OFBI would have to take the lead in areas like this. Providing sample template organizational structures, best practices to keep the charitable work separate from other work, maybe some kind of simplified structure for certification and compliance.
LanceThruster
APPRAISE THE LORD! TAX THE CHURCHES!!! (don’t give them MORE taxpayer funds!)
binzinerator
If most have no particular issue with the involvement of religion in government, then we already have the sort of government we deserve, haven’t we?
binzinerator
Oh you are very wrong, I am a believer. I have my doubts, my crises of faith. A healthy skepticism is good for one’s faith. You cannot have real faith without it. But I am a believer.
Why did you think I was a vociferous atheist? Why do you think only vociferous atheists would be concerned about this?
binzinerator
First, I’m not Stevenovitch. You put his and my quotes together and attributed them both to him.
But I reading what he said, I do agree with him; I’d rather pad the g-string of any dozen donkey-hung Jesuses than buy a single bomb. Check out the V-22 Osprey lately? Or any ‘nuklear’ munitions we still have stockpiled? (Are we really going to have to nuke China? Or East Elbonia?) If you want to focus just on the fiscal (and that says a lot to me), you ain’t got a whole lot to stand on if you’re claiming you’d rather spend it on something ‘real’.
Second, I have no doubt everything Bush has wrought will not be undone. But dammit it’s not stupid to want to try. And FYI, almost everything Bush has done has been stupid. Also often criminal and incompetent and destructive. But always always always stupid. Why wouldn’t any sane person want to undo the stupid stuff? It hurts the nation, confuses us, saps our hope in a better future, weakens our connection to each other, divides us. Why the hell wouldn’t we want to undo all the stupidity Bush has wrought? It’s stupid to not try to.
slightly_peeved
The government you “deserve?”
I could not really give two shits about the kind of government any country “deserves”. The only thing of concern is the government people have.
And you can have either a government led by Obama, or a government led by McCain, but you will not have a leader who got in by attacking the funding of charities by the government, because very few Americans, according to all polling and observation, would vote for a candidate based on this issue. By and large, most people have far more important things (health care, the economy) to worry about than how funding church-based charities may or may not contravene the 1st amendment.
Well, it doesn’t necessarily have to be, I admit. The key point is that very few people are. There are no protest marches, no lobby groups for “keep public money out of churches”, and there are very large obvious groups who are for churches or in churches – including Obama. Barring clear polling to the contrary, there is no basis for the idea that Obama’s base would lose their enthusiasm for Obama because he, like most other people, is not bothered by the idea of the government funding charities.