Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Outlines Faith-Based Agenda

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 2:15 PM on July 1, 2008.


Like Bush's plan, only more constitutional...
obamacross

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 


The notion of the government contracting with religious ministries to provide social services is not, on its face, scandalous or unconstitutional. Groups like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services have partnered with public officials for decades, almost always without incident. There have always been safeguards in place to protect church-state separation, the integrity of the ministry, and the rights of those who receive the benefits.



The safeguards were just common sense, and helped make these partnerships legal. Independent religious agencies, not churches themselves, handled the public funds. Tax dollars supported only secular programs, and no religious discrimination with public funds was permitted.


So what happened? George W. Bush decided he wanted to re-write the rules. His White House identified those safeguards and renamed them “barriers.” To protect the First Amendment and the interests of taxpayers, the president said, was to stand in the way of churches helping families in need. The safeguards, Bush insisted, had to be eliminated.


I was working at Americans United for Separation of Church and State when Bush was pushing this, and I worked specifically on this project. So, when I saw this AP feed this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair.


Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.


Thankfully, this AP feed was wrong, it’s being corrected, and Barack Obama has not completely lost his mind.


I obtained a copy of the speech Obama is going to deliver today, and he specifically outlines a faith-based agenda that in no way resembles Bush’s approach. In fact, it’s largely the opposite.


“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”
Whew. The AP article had it backwards. Obama has identified the pre-Bush safeguards and strengthens them, not abandons them.



By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions. From Obama’s speech:

“You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who’ve come together around a common faith, they’re usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they’re particularly well-placed to offer help. As I’ve said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.


“That’s why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today – from saving our planet to ending poverty – are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.


“I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I’m saying is that we all have to work together – Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike – to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

There’s simply nothing wrong with this. If Obama honors church-state separation and keeps the safeguards in place, as he clearly intends to do, there’s no reason the government can’t partner with ministries willing to provide a secular social service.


That said, that AP feed really got me nervous there for a minute….

Digg!

Tagged as: bush, obama, faith


Is It Cruel and Unusual to Sentence Teens to Die In Prison?
The Supreme Court is hearing two cases today that will affect the fate of more than 2,500 people sentenced to life without parole as teenagers.
Post by Liliana Segura. November 9, 2009.
Students Who Exposed 30-Year-Old Wrongful Conviction Being Targeted By Chicago DA
It's shocking that the state would rather keep an innocent man behind bars than admit a mistake.
Post by Ari Berman. November 9, 2009.
The Ugly Politics of Mass Killings
Where's the liberal cover-up?
Post by Steve M.. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Whew ...
Posted by: Ryan on Jul 1, 2008 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
indeed. I am glad AP had it wrong!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

guillibility 101
Posted by: Joe on Jul 1, 2008 5:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i love reading what the obama worshippers write.

here's a bumper sticker:

obama is my jesus.

and since lefties are too smart to buy into religion in small print shoud read:
as an intelligent liberal im too smart to believe in jesus

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's Dangerous New Game
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Jul 2, 2008 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is playing political Russian roulette with his new, Clintoneque triangulation. With his right wing stands on this issue, as well as the death penalty and hawkish foreign policy pronouncements, he risks alienating his progressive base. He and his advisers think we have no one else for whom to vote, but we have two other choices: Nader and nobody. Many progressives and young voters might just be so disgusted they will stay home.

Will he gain votes from McCain? Unlikely, because on the two issues that matter most to them, abortion and gay rights, he's not in line with them.

In any case, the issues that matter most to the American people as a whole, the economy, the war, energy prices, health care and the environment, are the ones Obama should be discussing. He's much more in the mainstream than McCain on all of them.

Obama presents himself as the candidate of change, but the more he relies on the advice of Washington insiders and panders to the lunatic fringe, trashing important parts of the First, Fourth and Eighth Amendments, the more he alienates those who have supported him and cools our enthusiasm. It's a dangerous game for him, and for our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama's Dangerous New Game Posted by: The_Curmudgeon
» FYI Re: Nader Posted by: benzene
big problems
Posted by: FMABBI on Jul 2, 2008 3:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Obama (or for that matter, whoever) becomes President, he will inherit a dual-pronged economic/energy crisis along with the predicted weather catastrophes in many sections of our country (due to global warming) to contend with. These are unprecedented challenges in our current history and we will indeed need all hands on deck as our comfortable, complacent, modern lifestyle unravels. (Read "The Long Emergency") When oil becomes so expensive that the average household cannot afford to heat their homes, put food on the table AND drive to work, then our community churches/ organizations will (once again) be perhaps the only viable support system for many of us going hungry. That's why this idea has credence. Be prepared, America, it ain't going to be pretty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two Things
Posted by: pcushniesr on Jul 2, 2008 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"... people of all faiths or of no faith at all."
"... believer and non-believer alike..."

First, as a non-believer, I'm thrilled to hear Obama publicly recognize our existence and, even more than that, recognize that we are part of this country as much as anybody else. This as opposed to George Bush the Elder-- spit-- who publicly proclaimed that Atheists should not be considered patriots or citizens, may he rot in his imaginary hell.

Second, the problem with taxpayer money being used to fund "faith based" programs is that once the money is in the pot, it really can't be separated from the rest of the stew, so to speak. Financially bolstering one aspect of a church program frees the church from having to take its own money from the collection plate for the same purpose, thereby strengthening it ability to proselytize on another front. In the end, it all amounts to the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's faith-based worshippers refuse to see the scam
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on Jul 2, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
go ahead and vote for Obama, but don't expect to see any fundamental change that will eleviate the problems of the middle-class.

This neoliberal hack is not even pretending to be a liberal any more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No thanks
Posted by: Romans1 on Jul 2, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This Christian didn't like the faith based initiative idea when Bush started it and doesn't like it now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No thanks Posted by: pcushniesr
Politics-Religion
Posted by: sasquuatch55 on Jul 2, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This country is already divided enough,keep religion out of politics and out of politicians mouths.Religious beliefs are personal and private,I for one, don't care ,or want to hear anyone's preferences. Man has perverted religion and uses it as a weapon to scare and manipulate the masses,and for reasons of war. Keep it personal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT BUYING IT, MR. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jul 2, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Separate" means exactly that. We cannot risk religious influence on anything we do, unless it's our personal choice. Faith-based, to me atomatically implies an ulterior motive, real or imagined. It's also intimidating to many people. If we can't make the Constitution and our written laws work bringing God into it will only complicate everything. It will protect all sorts of behavior, using the Constitution as protection. It's an accident waiting to happen. ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dont do it
Posted by: robflam on Jul 2, 2008 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving hugh amounts of money to religious organization is a huge mistake. If religious groups get expended federal money there will be massive corruption and monies will not go their intended recipient. Review the amount of money wasted or missused by existing reigious groups. If this is done on a larger scale it will become institutionalized and it will be with us forever. Forever Cuhurch and State should be seperated. Lokk at our Moslem brothers for a perfect example of when it does not happen!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dont do it Posted by: VZEQICVA
Don't count on a thing
Posted by: sawdust on Jul 2, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now, everyone knows that Bush's rhetoric on faith based intitiatives was shameful theater. He never meant for any successes and set up a phoney front for stonewalling, in order to get votes.I am baffled that the religious right did not manage to see him as the beer-drinking, red-necked man of little faith that he is.
I don't know with any certainty what Obama really plans to do, but he is playing with fire and courting a harlot.

Any time you allow government and religion to get engaged (or, please someone help us, MARRIED), you are asking for bastard children and eventual ideological incest.

In an age of fundamentalist bias and a populace over-run with zealots and Hagees, mixing these oils and waters will only guarantee that public money will be mis-spent. The majority of the members of the religious right who will get the money will find some way to promote their particular brand of theology for their own ends. In other words, they will find a way to shove a Bible down every unsuspecting throat (or into some other orifice) and work to make Jesusology the norm for aberrant behaviour across the land.

Barack sure fell for a line of baloney, this time. I am off the team.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If we wanted more religion in our politics,
Posted by: Quannah on Jul 2, 2008 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wouldn't we just vote for the Republics?

Obama needs to wake up before he loses his base. I'm becoming very disappointed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pop
Posted by: Pop on Jul 2, 2008 2:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My next natural choice, after Kucinich was eliminated by the mainstream Media, was Obama and his claims for "Change". I now regret my donations, and if I could win in a court of law, I would certainly attempt recovery. Obama had no right to campaign based unnecessary wars and the lies of the Bush Administration, they desert his base moral support to gain middle ground with the corrupted GOP. FISA, the war on terror, and immunity for breaking our laws are tools of the hoax terror machine that we need to get out of our present deadly/illegal/above the law/authoritarian government. Obama appears to lust for that same imperial hold. Vote no on Obama by voting for an independant that where the party's base is to get our constitution back to the United States People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What safeguards?
Posted by: Dianka on Jul 26, 2008 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those faith based groups are concentrated in urban areas, whereas most of America's poor live outside of big cities. Faith based organization simply don't reach the rural poor, nor do they (to my knowledge) have any obligation to do so.

It seems that much of the distrust that people feel is connected with uncertainty about confidentiality. That is, if you talk to a social services case worker, that case worker can't legally pass confidential information on to a third party without your signed permission. Whether speaking to a case worker, or being referred to a third party such as a psychologist, or psychiatrist, you know that you are dealing with well-trained people.What assurance do we have that the faith-based agencies will be staffed with personnel that has been adequately trained to deal with the very complex issues related to poverty? The poor often have multiple barriers to employment, requiring more than what is essentially a matter of handing someone the local job listings.

It seems to me that this is just another way for government to dump off its workload(and its responsibilities) on the private sector, to transfer public funds from services for the poor into annual tax "relief" for the rich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]