How Do Democrats Feel About Bush's Faith Based Programs?

[SXSMITH]

Like 'em or hate 'em?

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

[Baldrick]

For reasons of separation of church and state, I'm inclined to disagree with any expansion of those programs, no matter the party of the president pushing it. Even if he does decide to expand them, I still think Obama would be a far better president than McCain.

[flylooper]

I have a problem with it, too. But that Obama invited Kuo to critique his plan is an interesting turn.

But on one hand, I'm against funneling govt money to religious orgs but on the other, I see his point about the ones who are closest to the people who need the most help are indeed religious charities. (Gee-Zus! Did I write that?) I'm thinking of the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, both of which I have had some 1st hand experience.

I'm conflicted. Obviously.

[Gaolee]

If they are affiliated with a religious group but don't push the religion and don't make any religious demands as a part of what they do, I have no problem with it. Unfortunately, dumb'ya's choice of faith based programs doesn't always meet the description. Family planning issues come immediately to mind, especially when evangelical morality issues get in the way of dealing with thorny problems.

[baldheadeddork]

My only opposition to public funding of faith-based charitable programs has been if the church or group proselytizes as part of the program.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by baldheadeddork

My only opposition to public funding of faith-based charitable programs has been if the church or group proselytizes as part of the program.

That's what I was attempting to say, except expanded to also object to the unfortunate habit of some charities to limit the information they are willing to pass along to people who need it. I am thinking especially about family planning choices in third world countries. The artificial morality issues have ended up limiting the ability for agencies to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, for instance.

[gfarce]

The politically interesting aspect of this is that it's a great play on Obama's time as a community organizer. Presumably, he learned how much potential churches can have for good works in troubled communities, and he thinks the separation criticisms are fixable, so the end product doesn't wind up being a gov't subsidy for religious activity.

In so doing, he may be able to turn a program that was a joke under Dubya into not only a workable model, free of constitutional problems, but in the bargain not only appeals to the religious voters but neutralizes some of the Rev. Wright fallout.

Could be a brilliant play.

[timd99]

Originally Posted by Baldrick

Even if he does decide to expand them, I still think "BLAH" would be a far better president than "BLAH".

FTFY

[HighsideSV]

Well I don't like them regardless of which president gets behind them. So what if they don't preach while providing the services? Joe Camel didn't literally put cigarettes into kid's mouths, but his presence did. Regardless of whether or not you get a sermon, when you HAVE to walk into a religious facility and deal with religious people to enjoy a service that should be provided by the government you are FORCING people to engage in a religious act. No it isn't THEIR religious act, but they are participating in the practice of another person's faith. While that may be a minor exposure it is improper for a secular government to lend fiscal support to it.

If the government is comfortable with putting money into social services of this kind then they can give it in the form of DIRECT support to people, there is absolutely NO REASON AT ALL to use Churches as the middleman. The only possible reason for this is to give those churches a GOVERNMENT stamp of approval and legitimacy, and that is EXACTLY what we should not be doing.

Unlike some, my stance on this issue is pretty inflexible regardless of what letter appears after the name of the person running the show. It pissed me off when Bush did it, and it will piss me off when Obama does it. Further evidence that the two-party system has been a miserable failure. This is just one issue where we get a chocie between door number one, and door number one. Thats no choice at all.

[SAHTT]

Seperation of Church and State please. That being said, all of us must be kind to all the charities that help out the poor so we don't have to, I always try to keep that in mind after having experiences with them directly. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the religious charities I dealt with when my father volunteered in Houston's program to get the disabled housing/food/etc. They do a job for free most of us wouldn't do if you paid us $$$.

[keystonejenks]

The lazy media strikes again. What people fail to realize is that the Faith Based Program was started under Clinton/Gore. Bush made it more public because he took it in a direction it wasn't meant to be taken - used as a pawn for votes.

The reason Bush was so criticized was because he NEVER delivered the money he promised the evangelicals in return for their support.

A lot of religious organizations do great charity work and if that's what the funds are going to be used for, I have no problem with it. What I would like to see is the criteria for how the money is awarded.

[jim schmidt]

Well, it's important to understand the controversy. Religious institutions have always been eligible for federal funding for social services, just not to promote religious dogma. My wife, BTW, works for a religiously-based, multi-million dollar social service that's been getting federal money for over twenty years.

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of individual charitable donations in this country are given to churches. They get more than all other charity combined. So it's not like there is a shortage of dogma-funding.

Bush's FBI sets aside federal funding and gives preferential selection to programs that provide social services that promote religion as an answer to problems. What's really been provided through OFBI funding are tiny, token amounts of money -- I don't think any grants have been more than $60K. It's a vote buying scheme for the most part -- just ask David Quo.

Anyway, I believe that religious social services should compete on an equal footing with secular social services -- as they always did in the past -- and I believe that federal moneys should not be used to promote religious dogma.

[SXSMITH]

Originally Posted by keystonejenks

The lazy media strikes again. What people fail to realize is that the Faith Based Program was started under Clinton/Gore. Bush made it more public because he took it in a direction it wasn't meant to be taken - used as a pawn for votes.

And Obama would never use it in a campaign as an issue for votes, right?

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

And Obama would never use it in a campaign as an issue for votes, right?

You shut your FILTHY MOUTH! Don't you DARE criticise Obama!

[flylooper]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Well, it's important to understand the controversy. Religious institutions have always been eligible for federal funding for social services, just not to promote religious dogma. My wife, BTW, works for a religiously-based, multi-million dollar social service that's been getting federal money for over twenty years.

It's also important to remember that the vast majority of individual charitable donations in this country are given to churches. They get more than all other charity combined. So it's not like there is a shortage of dogma-funding.

Bush's FBI sets aside federal funding and gives preferential selection to programs that provide social services that promote religion as an answer to problems. What's really been provided through OFBI funding are tiny, token amounts of money -- I don't think any grants have been more than $60K. It's a vote buying scheme for the most part -- just ask David Quo.

Anyway, I believe that religious social services should compete on an equal footing with secular social services -- as they always did in the past -- and I believe that federal moneys should not be used to promote religious dogma.

S0, I guess the "Church" of Scientology and maybe that Mormon fundy group which allows polygamy would be eligible to get fed money if they had a worthy cause?

Or "The Church of What's Happenin' Now"? Where do you draw the line?