Obama: More funding for the Lord's work
Urban Hiker
Posts: 1,312
From: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1131ap_obama_faith.html
Last updated July 1, 2008 5:41 a.m. PT
Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
By JENNIFER LOVEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
CHICAGO -- Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.
But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.
"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.
Last updated July 1, 2008 5:41 a.m. PT
Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs
By JENNIFER LOVEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
CHICAGO -- Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.
"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."
Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.
The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.
But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.
David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.
"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.
Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.
"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."
Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.
Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.
Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.
"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.
He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.
"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.
Walking can be a real trip
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Seriously, after Pridefest this weekend I was wondering what had the attendees so smitten with Barack, so I spent more time looking into Obama's position on gays and found. Overall, he has a decent record, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, God says no.
"Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." From: http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
Great, we're getting more policies written with the help of the bible. :cool:
***********************
"We've laid the groundwork. It's like planting the seeds. And next year, it's spring." - Nader
***********************
Prepare for tending to your garden, America.
They'll be too busy saying "Yes we can" to say "Yes I do" anyway. :rolleyes:
I think it is a smart thing to fund ALL charities that are already set up to help people. It's much better than the government doing it. You must be careful to ensure that the organizations don't use it as a means to create Missions though.
he's actually more gay friendly policy-wise than clinton was---especially considering DOMA and don't ask don't tell.
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid53285.asp
cross the river to the eastside
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/01/18/2-religions-that-their-parents-dont-belong-to/
Stuff White People Like
#2 Religions that their parents don’t belong to
January 18, 2008 by clander
White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. Which usually means that they will believe any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.
Popular choices include Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabbalah and, to a lesser extent, Scientology. A few even dip into Islam, but it’s much more rare since you have to give stuff up and actually go to Mosque.
Mostly they are into religion that fits really well into their homes or wardrobe and doesn’t require them to do very much.
Hail, Hail!!!
1) pay the mortgage
2) pay the guy/girl that talks to God
3) pay for all the cool sound systems and instruments.
4) pay a music director
5) pay for all the flashy shit that brings in more people to your church to make donations for bigger and better 1-5
6) use money to help people
Okay... the land and mortgage I understand.
But... why doesn't the preacher voluenteer?
Same thing for the music director?
And maintanence... why don't the parishiners voluenteer their time for the church... cleaning the bathrooms, sweeping the floors, mowing the lawn?
Why does a church need to be in the black? Shouldn't they just break even and all of the money they have over their operating costs go towards their ambition to help the down trodden?
The church is not a business that has to be profitable... is it?
Hail, Hail!!!
Honestly, if they were true to the word, they would be like Jesus and meet where ever it is free to do so (Community Centers, in a park, someones house, and the like). Even if all the maintenance work is all done volunteer,you still have an oversized water bill, an electric bill, trash, etc.
Imagine a church with no building expenses to drain the pocketbook, where the money donated would have to be used to help others in full and not to keep the church running to keep their non-profit status. Amazing what that money could do for a community. (And if a church like this exists, I would love to know about it)
I find it funny that God speaks to so many people, but if a church burns down, that wasn't god talking, but faulty wiring.
That's what I'm getting at.
The church is not in it for the money... are they? And these people they are helping... can, in turn, help the church, right? Help a guy and his family out and ask if he can help rake the leaves or dust off the pews.
Of course, there are operating expenses that cannot be denied (mortgage, insurance, utilities, etc...). But the human factor... those services could be voluentary.
Need to paint... ask for donations specifically for paint... hit up the local Home Depot or paint supply stores, see if they can help. Need to replace the faulty P.A., have a rummage sale or something.
If the people who attend the church on Sunday really believe in the church... you'd think they'd have no problem getting them down to take care of the basic maintenance.
Hail, Hail!!!
To an extent, this is true. a lot of times, church congregations do pitch in to help out around the church. And I've seen many, many churches that do spend their money helping people in the community.
I don't think you could ask a preacher to volunteer anymore than you can ask your doctor to treat you for free. It is a job that requires a lot of expensive schooling ... and, if you're doing it right, it requires seven days a week. So it would be unfair to ask a preacher to work a day job on top of that.
Usually, this isn't a problem. Most preachers aren't in it for a money. They just want to make a comfortable living ... like a schoolteacher's living. No harm, no foul. It's when you get these mega-churches, where the pastors are kind of ego-maniacal, and feel like they should be millionaires ... that's when it starts to get skeevy.
for the least they could possibly do
I understand the current realities... but...
Why don't the Churches run the schools? You know, make the Preachers like interns to learn about their religion.
And the churches can make money for essentials, such as utility bills, mortgage payments and insurance from weddings and stuff like that.
I just wonder WHY there has to be a Government incentive for them to help the poor. I always thought that was the one of the main tennents of Religion.
...
And I don't include those mega-Churches. Those are hand over fist money making businesses that make the preacher millions... tax exempt.
Hail, Hail!!!
so i will instead say i will celebrate the far far off day when we elect our first honest President.
Then you come back to the same problem, more people = more buildings.
That, and the day the president's religion is a non-issue.
Someone, already touched on this, but i thought i'd reiterate. A preacher's job is just that. A job. A full time one at that. It isn't like they show up on Sunday morning and let it fly improvisation style. Much preparation goes into just that part of their job and they do so much more than preach. They counsel couples before marriage, during marriage, and sometimes, unfortunately, after marriage. They counsel others for a myriad of other reasons. They help plan and organize all kinds of things the church is involved in outside of Sunday morning services etc. (Our curch has something going on every night of the week). They definitely work full time and, believe it or not, they have families and bills they need to pay as well. Its their job and they go through extensive schooling much like any other career.
Furthermore, much of what goes on at the church IS on a volunteer basis such as nursery and child care during services and other events. All Sunday school teaching is done voluntarily. Set up and take down of church seats, most of the musicians, etc.
Churches do have ambition to help and they still rely on member donation to do so. Our church, for example, recently asked for financial, congregation support for a humanitarian project they are involved in AIDS plagued Zambia, Africa. They set aside one Sunday to ask for donations that would go strictly to this project with a goal of 25,000 dollars on that Sunday. In that one day, they surpassed that goal by far, raising 130,000 +, to be set aside and untouched for anything but this project. All in one Sunday and all by donation. It was pretty amazing.
That's exactly my issue with Christianity as a whole. There could have been 52 Sunday's in which all of the donations could have helped someone in need.
Yes, because the other 51 Sundays were spent helping no one. :rolleyes:
naděje umírá poslední
most churches do support people in need from the offerings the other 51 Sundays. Churches support different missions, missionaries, charities etc...
or how bout the day when we celebrate groups helping other people rather than criticizing those groups for not doing enough.
the average american church has about 75-80 people that attend on a weekly basis and the average amount given per attendee (including children and those who don't give) is around 2,000 dollars. so at best those churches are receiving 160,000 dollars / year to pay all the bills, pay for sunday school materials, paying for pastors etc... In the average church there's not a boat load of money just sitting around not being used by much more than necessities.
- Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
- Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
from a different paragraph...
He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
How is that any different from firing someone for not following a businesses code of ethics or business model? All business have a mission statement and set of expecations etc... A religious entity is no different. I just can't believe that people are getting up in arms over allowing the federal gov't to dole out money to help people. That's the bottom line...big deal if it's a church or a religious agency. The government cannot do everything and the govt is allowing other agencies, that presumably can, to do some work and help people.
Never would I have thought that on such a liberal help everybody board, there would be such resistance to allowing people to help others with federal funds (oh that's right, religion is bad and is only a tool of the powerful to control people). If the religious entities can do it better than the govt, why not let them???? If the atheists got together and said we want to help people and they could do it better than the govt or religious, LET them do it and receive my tax dollars.