centrino

I think is controversy is over whether Obama's plan supports allowing organizations to hire and fire based on faith.

Some articles are saying Obama's plan does. Others are saying it does not- and yet others are saying the plan does, but only for portions of the organization that are not federally funded.

This really needs to be clarified.

Comicsartist

INITIATIVES

The above is the Bush policy regarding hiring based on religion.
Obama has stated his plan will do away with the above bold and make hiring based on religion illegal.

On the faith-based initiative, Obama's way isn't Bush's way - War Room - Salon.com

__________________

mentor

I'm certainly glad Obama's concept of faith based initiatives is far, far better than Bushes. But still, I would rather see the money put into public education and infrastructure, and even welfare.

Being a non-religious person, I see charities as a way for religion to spread their message by taking advantage of the misfortune of others. This is not necessarily a bad thing, except that I think there are better messages we can spend our tax dollars on. We, as a country could do the same thing as the religions do. Help the poor, and get them to buy into being a good citizen, rather than a good Christian, or a good Pagan, or what have you. Let the religions do that work on their own dime.

__________________
The Darwinian Revolution is over. Darwin won.

Heretic

Mormon charities have a long history of forcing the recipients of their work first to some form of teaching or exposure to their religion before they get help of any kind whatsoever. There have been repeated violations on this ground by them, and it was enough so that they nearly lost their tax exempt status several times.

__________________
"Enough!!" -so rang Barack Obama's voice off the walls of Mile High Stadium

cheapseats

The history of quote-unquote civilized man confirms that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be entirely independent of he who gives you-generic money.

He who holds the purse strings has the upper hand. It's the name of the game.


I realize this is addressed pointedly to PTech, but I'm sure your primary interest lies in righting the floundering ship of state that is the United States and that you welcome all remarks that may serve that purpose.

Consider a church that exists entirely to help. But the collection of good-willed people have hardly enough money to stay afloat individually, much less to launch a meaningful charitable effort collectively. In a very real manner of speaking, the funding of their entire enterprise is necessary to provide the relief that is so needed and that they would so much like to provide.

It seems like we have heard a million stories but let's say it's a thousand stories of "government money." Suddenly, if you're the lucky winner in the latest Administration's popularity schemes, it's pay day...like manna from heaven.

There are people and organizations in this country that have been collecting federal funds FOR DECADES. For what? The Federal Workforce that Obama promises to increase and increase? It's Issue Number One is pushing paper.

If you learn the system, and you fill out the correct forms correctly, and you are the Cause Celeb read that Cause Du Jour, we just GIVE money away. More and more and more all the time. CLEARLY, it doesn't get to the right people. CLEARLY, a heap of churches/ministers have been up to their elbows in alligators scandal-wise but, hey, a marriage made in heaven: taxpayer funds straight to the very organizations that already don't pay taxes.

If these churches/religions/organizations/causes were so good at the charity thing, there'd be less need of charity.

It is CRUCIAL to understand that Obama can make mistakes. If his supporters will permit every single thing he throws at the wall to stick, in the final analysis, it is not one bit different than the mindless compliance of the entire Bush Administration to George Sr.'s Son's every whim. It's a kinder, gentler way of squandering money, to be sure, but it is reckless spending just the same. More reckless spending could be ruinous.

This plan constitutes people who are not very good at what they do creating yet ANOTHER bureaucratic branch to give other people's money away to people who aren't very good at what they do, so they can give it away to people who aren't very good at what THEY do.

Good-heartedness does not good management make.

I can't even think how many quote-unquote churches I saw in the South that consist of someone's house or a strip mall unit with a cross on it.

LOOK AT THAT LIST OF RELIGIONS...every one of 'em entitled to file an application for money...and a grievance claiming discrimination, should they be rejected.

We'll make SURE they follow all the rules. WHO will make sure? The army of inspector/oversight/compliance types...another layer of paperwork and expense, another opportunity for corruption.

If the majority of the American electorate now favors greater spending on social services and social security, so be it, right? That's how our system of government works.

If the pendulum swings, as pendulums are wont to do, and the mood is now that greater numbers of tax dollars should be spent on greater numbers of distressed individuals, so be it.

WHY does Barack Obama want the money to pass through the churches? WHY are his supporters supporting him on this? There is NO REASON to add a middle man. There is NO REASON to give taxpayer money to churches.

Churches ought to be self-supporting. If a church identified as a group of people who assemble in like faith to worship in common can't support a building and expenses, they can still gather in someone's living room and pray and talk about who they might help and how they might go about it. They have no money, but they can adopt an Alzheimer's ward, serve meals at the nearest mission, whatever.

Barack Obama's suggestion leaves WIDE OPEN for a church to devote a GREATER share or all of of its donations to its building/maintenance/dinner dance/pancake breakfast/Lifestyles of the Rich & Robed "administration," relying upon federal funds to do the very work that MIGHT have exempted them from taxes in the first place.

It practically invites churches/religions/do-gooders to double dip.

That it theoretically improves upon a Bush scheme should set off alarm bells from here to eternity.

Money is power.

Bottom line, Barack Obama proposes to give more power to the religious sector.

__________________

cheapseats

In re-reading the thread, I ALSO balked at that sentence I typed.

Permit me to re-word the thought. A person of whatever faith WILL naturally bring the principles underlying their faith to bear in all the affairs of their lives. Every single thing that a person of faith does or says or thinks or decides is informed and influenced by that to which they are faithful.

It is the very heart of leading by example.

Public policy is another matter. One would like to think that honesty features in every religion, but you cannot legislate honesty. You can legislate penalties for lying, but you can't legislate honesty. I presume we are agreed that it would be inappropriate for a politician to endeavor to interject the tenets of his personal faith into public policy. Religion into politics, bad.

This money scheme is the flip side of the coin...politics into religion.

__________________

MintJulep

+1

Environment Man

I am so proud of Barack for displaying his religious side.

mentor

It's all about votes! Still, he's got mine.

__________________
The Darwinian Revolution is over. Darwin won.

cheapseats

Perfectly understandable...what are your options?

But why do Obama's supporters not force his hand on the change thing? McCain and Obama are vying for the same voters. Each has their respective die-hards, and they're playing for the middle.

Why on earth, after all this jawing about change, does not the Obama Tide rise up demanding CHANGE? Obama is appealing to the same voters that McCain is appealing to, with the SAME emphasis on Religiosos. It is INCREDIBLE.

Jeepers, I'da thunk...between Jihad Du Jour and our being mired in a religiously whacked country...that maybe a majority of Americans now recognized that it is desirable to have LESS, not more, religious presence in public affairs.

Of what are the Democrats so afraid? That if Obama truly runs on a platform of change, they'll lose?

You know what's even MORE amazing? Brief months ago, Evangelicals were beginning to make public remarks about having become TOO political, and about it being time to be LESS political. What do we do? Invite them back. "No, don't go...here, have some money."

It should have been a dream come true, even if they're only saying it because the People are beginning to speak of taxing the churches. The People should be DEMANDING taxation of the churches, but the People don't like to rock the boat.

They SAY they like to rock the boat but, clearly, they do not like to rock the boat.

In my view, it's rock the boat or it's stay the course.

The People are demanding NOTHING of the candidates. The People are acting like spectators at the Hairsplitting National Championship.

__________________