Jeeeesus, he's gonna end up right of John McCain the way he's going.

I'm going to have to read through his statement, but I really, really, really don't like these faith-based initiatives.

Yes, perhaps we should just replace the Constitution with Leviticus while we're at it?

Grrrr. I do think he's better than HRC (and of course McCain) overall, but still, I reserve the right to grumble. Grrrrrr.

@1 No he's not heading to the right of McCain. But this is a reminder that you can't expect the damage done by one president to be automatically reversed by the next. Bush's fuckups will be with us long after January 20, 2009 unfortunately.

At this rate I expect him to announce by the end of the week that Lieberman will be his running mate.

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.

i know i will be in the minority here, but i see him re-directing the religious efforts away from gay-hate and sex-hate and into a more productive outlet. plus, this will help him politically, so that mccain has even less pull with religious right--which is good, no? okay. now go ahead and call me a neocon, will in seattle. or no, hysterically scream it at me like last time.

faith based initiatives aren't all evil, for example they also us to get into the heart of some hard to reach communities like african americans. what is important is not to allow them to conduct research, and to set up alternative services for those who may be/feel excluded.

This Obama initiative is not a bad thing. Check out Steve Benen's analysis, the guy used to work for "Americans United for Separation of Church and State."

you can find it here: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16056.html

Hi there, Obamatons! Remind me again how much more principled and courageous he is than Hillary? I forget.

he'll move right until he convinces old people he's not a muslim.

and what choice do you have, progressives?

none. woo. gobama.

You guys win. Obama is just as bad as everyone else.

I read this and thought "I can't take this anymore." I'll still vote for him but I can't help but feel like politicians can't stop pandering to the lowest common denominator.

@9: Thank you!

Slog-posting Obama zealots... you are a fickle and embarrassing bunch.

Bleck. Yeah, depressing. I hope Steve Benen's analysis is close to the truth.

I remain unsurprised that Obama, for like, the 25th year and counting, continues to not be a liberal.

I think it's an unfair assumption that he is in support of the Christian right message; he is attempting to make head way in votes, for sure, and part of that is doing a bit of a dance for the right. But you can become the leader of the dance. I hope he can meet with the right and lead in a new direction. (You might say I'm a dreamer...) He also states in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples, many of which aren't representative of the Christian or religious right. I hope this spurs people on to TAKE BACK THE RELGIOUS RIGHT AGENDA in their own churches, synagogues, mosques and temples; flood your more liberal religious arenas with your presence, support and activism; force people to encounter you and overcome their ridiculous fears and hatred, which IS NOT the foundation of any of those faiths. Help the faith communities share a different message. You know the people that constantly find their way to my office are NEVER the liberals claiming I didn't go far enough, even as liberal of a religious leader as I perceive myself to be - it's always the more fundamental ones. I've learned to use our time together to listen carefully for where they came up with some of these images of God and religious ideas (there's always a story) and then present the way I've been taught theology, and sometimes have been able to get to the root of some of the ways religion was misused for them. Sometimes they never come back again, but actually that happens less often than I think it would, and in our conversation, we can actually move somewhere new. That takes time and patience and the courage to encounter "them" in the first place, and even as much as I dread that sometimes, it's been necessary and productive; which I hope is EXACTLY his strategy. Dealing with the reality of what is - because pretending they're not their ain't gonna make em go away; and having hope that in dealing with that, together we can move to what we are called to be; the ways we can do our best to positively impact our society and world.

@8--Thanks, NB, for the link. That makes me feel much, much better.

faith based initiatives really are that bad, and the only ones defending this bone-headed move are die hard obamatons. this makes me fucking sick. fire someone based on their religious beliefs? government dollars to support the conversion of "heathens"???? anyone who thinks that evangelical "service" comes without a very heavy dose of doctrine is just plain wrong. obama is a fucking creep and i am officially off the bus.

@12: please enlighten us: which slog posters are obama "zealots"? most of us were kucinich zealots - at least mrs. kucinich zealots.

Hillary cultists, your shitty shitty candidate ran a horrible campaign and lost. Luckly, McCain is running an even worse campaign, so you'll just have to suffer through a huge Democratic landslide this fall. Sorry to let you all down.

Let's see, a lot of liberals are religious too! ...Yes, even some gays are religious. So, what's to keep them from benefitting from this program? People need to start thinking creatively, and stop with the hate-all-things regarding faith. Nowhere does it say you must believe in God.

See here, Obamabot - I want his highness to win, too. I'm just saying. And wow, if 18 million votes are shitty, well.

I don't have an issue with faith-based initiatives in and of themselves. The fact of the matter is that religious organizations (and secular non-profits) can frequently do a better job with providing social services than any government entities.

My problem comes when the line between being a social services provider and being a para-church or quasi-church organization becomes blurred or even disappears. When the mission becomes as much about proselytizing as it is about providing food for families and healthcare for the homeless. We've been creeping in that direction for a while now, and that's a problem. And I just can't get behind these organizations being allowed to discriminate in hiring based on faith. Who cares what religion you practice (or don't practice, as the case may be). What matters is if you are a good, competant social worker, or nurse, or child care provider, or whatever.

When I read the story earlier this morning I was counting on it showing up on SLOG so I could type fucking fuckity fuck shit bastard fuck who I will be fucking voting for in November you fucking fuck.

This is standard-issue, run to the wing in the primary, then run to the middle for the general election stuff.

If you like him, just grit your teeth, let him say things like this to win, then chase him back out to the wing after he's elected.

I wish I didn't have to work today so that I could go back through all the "Yay OBAMAISNTHETHEGREATESTEVERTOTHELIBERALS" posts and all the sicophantic comments about how infallible Obama is. Cause then I could just laugh and laugh while you fall over yourselves to explain away all the BS "politicking" he has been doing lately.

I mean, only Hillary does that kind of pandering, right??? She was just so unpricipled. You just couldn't tell if she was going to 'go right' and sell out the liberals. Obama, he's our man! He's our SAVVVVVIOR...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *TEARS* HAHAHAHA

I said it then and I'll say it now, any politian who got the nomination is going to sell us out to win the election. If you thought otherwise, you are a moron. So now Obama gets to pander to the right, and piss off the party hardliners.

Oh gawd, these next few months are going to be hilarious. Yes, he is better than McCain (obvs). Better than Hillary? In some areas yes. Messiah of the left? Not a chance.

I am sure he'll make a swell president though.

@17...you don't have to be a die hard obamaton to think that faith based initiatives don't have to be completely wrong. among african american churches its often those with a liberal bent that seek out the dollars.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801121.html ...if this allows us to get into hard to reach populations then let us use it as a tool, not the only one but part of an overall strategy to reach underserved populations.

jmr @ 24, you are correct. Unfortunately, Dems don't seem to get that, and continue to eat their own. *sigh*

Wow, it's almost like you highly educated and politically passionate Slog posters don't know that these "faith based" programs have existed for decades, if not centuries, and that the reason you hate Bush is not that he supported funding programs that are operated by religious entities (heck, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Reagan did the same).

The reason you hate Bush is that he weakened the safeguards for separation of church and state with executive order 13279, which basically said that religious programs that got state money can now use it to proselytize, or they can deny services to people of different faiths.

Obama is suggesting that we return to the sensible policies of the past, and you lot are screaming because you aren't knowledgeable about the past. Ugh.

For the record, Hillary is 100% in agreement with Obama on this. Or at least was in 2005:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/

There is no scandal here. There is no new religious policy here. There is, in fact, nothing to go apeshit over.

This is not a big deal. The program is basically neutral toward religion. The money cannot be used for prosyletizing. It must be used for secular purposes. It must be effective in meeting its ends. Essentially, it is saying that social programs run by sectarian organizations will not be discriminated against. If Obama's initiative implements all of these requirements, it will be constitutional.

And, it is political genius. It will drive a jagged shiv into Republican credibility on this issue by exposing their cynical insincerity. Bush's initiative was a joke. Showing Democratic neutrality toward religion could lead mainstream religious Americans back into the Democratic coalition where they belong. We can only accomplish our liberal goals with the help of religious liberals.

I'm not sure how anyone can be surprised by this. It jibes completely with what I've been able to discern of Obama's personal philosophy from his writing and speeches. Or have people just not been paying attention?

@28 wins

For all of you who have a problem with faith based initiatives: Have you ever heard of the YMCA? Union Gospel Mission? If these, and similar organizations, don't get support from the community, through tax dollars as well as direct donation and volunteerism, who else will drive around at night helping the homeless get fed and keep warm? Balt-O-Matt? Are you going to drive around in a van and hand out blankets and food? Even if you are, most people would just ignore the problem rather than help. So I think a lot of faith based initiatives need support and acceptance from a place of open mindedness instead of the usual Left-wing anti-religious views/actions we so frequently see these days. Keep in mind, I'm an atheist, and I'm in favor of the principle of faith based initiatives, after having seen first hand success in helping the poor/minority communities, particularly with respect to intercity education programs, specifically with their involvement with Central District Seattle middle schools.

Come on people, you need to be less reactionary, less ignorant. If you bothered to research just a little bit about the reality of faith based initiatives, I think your main concerns would be who they are serving, and the accountability of the program. I think proselytizing is less of a concern. It's pretty unlikely that these programs would attempt to use them as a way to gain more parishioners. In most cases they are simply providing an extra service to people who already go to their church, or are in some way affiliated with their organization through their church.

i really don't have a problem with this, as long as the religious orgs are effective at delivering social services to proselytize. we need to stop allowing conservatives to claim a monopoly on religion.

And to assume that Clinton wouldn't be doing this, or going even further, is ludicrous.

All of you horrified and disillusioned sloggers need to chill out for a minute and quit being such predictably reactionary lefties. Faith? ew! Church? blech, only idiots go to church!



Well, about %40 of the country attends religious services every week and not all of them are racist, homophobic bigots. Now we all know that George "I talk to God" W. Bush was very good at bringing out the most divisive elements within this group and using that to his advantage. But I'm hopeful that a reasoned, thoughtful approach from Obama can coax a lot of these people back from the brink of right-wing religious politics. Several members of my extended family, which have been uber-religious republicans as far back as I can remember, have changed their party membership and plan on voting for Obama in November.



You're not going to convince me that that's a bad thing.

@22,15,7,6: No, they are that bad. Look, either the government can provide services to the people or not.

This bullshit middle ground is why we have such shitty services here in America. There is no regulation sending money out to thousands of churchs, and to do what? PROVIDE SERVICES THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE.

Wow, and guess what? Instead of setting up an agency to regulate where the money goes, how much, etc...the government could, you know, just DO IT THEMSELVES. Why are the government programs sometimes ineffective? Maybe because our services are not standardized. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE FISCALLY OR SOCIALLY.

Can you imagine a world where no matter where you lived the basic services of the government were the same? And like, you could always go to the same place for that type of service?

Because that is how it should be. So no, I don't think it's the job of churches to poorly do what should either be a government function of not part of what the government decides it wants to do.

We need actual clear direction as to what we are willing to provide our citizens, and actually make it standard in every state, county, city. PERIOD. Having 20 thousand middle men is ineffective, idiotic, and down right awful for the people that need the help.

Ohhh shit, #9 and #12 just got owned.

@32 - If taxpayer dollars can be used to fund faith-based charities, why can't those same dollars be used to--you know--fund the government programs that are supposed to provide support in the first place? This idea that churches are more efficient is ludicrous. I don't care how "religion-neutral" they claim to be. There's no way to fully separate the religion from church activities.

@36 said what I was trying to say.

Hillary wouldn't have been for it!

OM @ 36, being AA, I'd argue that black churches have done a LOT to meet the needs of our community. And it's much better than the gov't has or ever will. And the black churches are FINALLY beginning to address AIDS in our community. The gov't has blinders on, and would not treat all fairly. So, give the money to the people who know where the needs are. Oh, and Obama won't be the next President. The purists in the Democratic Party will see to that.

Original Monique, I think you have that backwards. Time and again, it's been shown that monolithic governments are *terrible* at providing services. Using religious organizations makes a lot of sense because they are self-organizing, staffed by people deeply passionate about the problems they address, and capable of adapting and adjusting much more quickly than a bureaucracy.

Further, it's not really fair to characterize them as middlemen, unless would also count the staffers in your proposed 100% government operated system as middlemen. Those roles need to be done one way or another. I personally think a volunteer for United Life Mission is going to do a better job than a low tier civil servant in a job they hate.

where have you gone mr. george carlin...

@36: You make a lot of empirical claims to which the answer is not obvious. Would social programs be better run through one large bureaucracy? We have evidence that for some programs (Social Security, Medicare, VA health care) the government does a good job. But that is less clear in other areas, including anit-poverty programs. Characterizing this kind of initiative as making use of "20,000 middle men" seems too disingenuously ignore that the government will use that many "middle men" as well, and not necessarily be any better at it.

Also, you say government should provide these services, but one might argue that by funding micro-programs, the government IS providing them.

Perhaps a one-size fits all program is not the best approach for every corner of America with its own unique set of social ills and social assets.

You also assert that churches would run these programs "poorly," but it's not clear to me that they would do any worse than the government.

@36 and @38

Based on what I saw in the days following Katrina, we are a LONG way off from relying solely on the government to fix all our problems. FEMA's problem wasn't a lack of funding (from all this money supposedly being diverted to religious groups), it was organizationally incompetent. The only groups that I saw down there were non-governmental. So I'd argue that we are much stronger when we have a bunch of smaller hands lending support, as opposed to one BIG governmental hand. Our country is just too big for that. And I'm not arguing that government doesn't serve a hugely important role in all kinds of domains, but to discount the value of small non-governmental groups is foolish.

Mr Obama, "Change" does not equal continuing the Evangelically-poisoned programs of your successor, GWB. Your deliberate professional association with W's minions is rapidly dashing away any and all "hope" I had that you would tell Americans the truth. Apparently, no you can't. I think I am going to just give up on this sham called "voting"...

@41: Churches are tax-free and have to pay little or nothing for land.

Those tax initiatives (and others) make running a church not only profittable, but allows them to spend every dollar they get as they see fit. We don't need to send them additional money to provide services to what should government services.

And of course Hillary would be for this. DUHHHHH people. I also know its been around for ages. DUUUHHHHHHHHH. The issue is that we need a new voice in politics that says "Wow, this doesn't work. Let's do something different". So far, no candidate I have seen looks like that type of person.

@32-You have to admit that the Bush administration has fucked up a lot--including faith based initiatives. So when the AP reports a reactionary article, you get people saying things like what I said above--that I don't like faith based initiatives (with this administration, I just don't. Sorry.) but that *I wanted to learn more.*

Do I drive around? Nope. Do I volunteer? You betcha.

@36 - I agree with everything you said 100%. That is the way things should be.

However, that is not they way they are in this country right now, and is not things have ever been, except perhaps during the New Deal in the FDR administration. In fact, the government is doing more outsourcing of services to private companies than ever before (I know; I work for one of them - completely private sector and for-profit, fwiw). The magnitude of things that should be government responsibility that are being done by non-governmental entities is huge and, honestly, disturbing.

Do I wish things were different? Sure. But I don't know if that is possible in a capitalist, free market economy.

@42...really? Time and time again? So you think that Europe as a whole has worse social services than us? REALLY?

Japan has bad social servies? Really?

Because every time a *decently* funded government takes control of social services, it costs less for the individual and for the government (see: socialized medicine).

If you have 1 central place to dispatch people from the government agency, not only have you created jobs (paying ones!) but you have also created a centralized place that services can be recieved. Maybe we can just expand the current DSHS buildings and programs we have.

Who knows! But it will take less people to do it just through the government then to have an agency to regulate the churches and non-profits getting money. It would also be more transparent (if put in place correctly) and easier for people to understand in general.

@47 - You are only half right. Churches - legitimate churches - are non-profit and do not pay taxes, but they do have to pay for any land, buildings, etc. they buy or rent. And it is very possible for a church to lose non-profit status. It happened to several churches in my area because of discriminatory practices, misuse of funds, etc.

@48, I'm not defending the Bush administration in any way, and to take that from my post is to miss my point entirely. My point is the concept of faith based initiatives is not bad in and of itself, nor the reality of how many work, particularly here in Seattle. I just think people in the left need to be more open minded about them, especially as many people above have pointed out that it isn't just right-wing zealots who are religious, but quite often poor or minority people who are quite liberal in most respects, but happen to be people of faith.

@45: FEMA's job is to provide immediate assistance, and a lot of the burden is that they *can't* act until told to by the local authorities.

The state government of Louisiana was slow in properly alerting FEMA officials of what they needed, and the site wasn't declared an emergancy right away (as it should have been).

FEMA did make some major mistakes, and that was evident. And FEMA's budget was cut, actually because they were absorbed into the the DHLS. So yes, they had not had proper funding because of cut-backs and "integration" into that new department that was ill-fated from the start.

That is a totally different issue then the day to day help that people need. And I stick to my statement: Either the government does it, or not. There should not be a quasi-run program that varies state to state.

Further, I understand that each little corner of the US is different. But the basic service should be provided...IE:
1) Assistance if you make X amount below median income (see, already that is tailored for the area!)
2)Socialized Medicine (which would provide service to all, equally)
3) Housing assistance for people with X problems
4) Unemployment assistance for X amount of time for X amount of money based on what you put in.
5) WIC program (which is already standardized) expanded
6) Homeless help (food, shelters, etc) expanded and standard based off of X amount of homeless people per capita.

This is not difficult. Every industrialized country does it, and they do it pretty damn well. It's not going to be perfect, but it will be better then what we have.

Jeeeezus, people are worked up today.

During the primary, a Democratic candidate will lean toward the liberal wings of the party. In the general, they will lean toward the center, to get the swing votes to win the election. Why is it that no one here (except jmr @24) is willing to accept this?

And regarding faith-based initiatives, while I don't think that government should outsource social programs wholesale to private organizations, I think it's hopelessly naive to assume that government-administered social programs are always lean and efficient bureaucratic entities by default.

@47: I meant to say "pay of taxes of land", which does add up for us regular citizens.

Newsflash: Obama is a sellout. Now hopefully the age of idealistically getting excited about a candidate is dead.

Now we can back to voting against McCain, instead of for Obama. The only way to cast a ballot is with wrath.

It's obvious that OM hates all things religious or faith-based or spiritual. She thinks government is the answer to EVERYTHING. As was stated upthread, our government has done some things well, and failed miserably at other things. It's best for the AA community for those who work closer to the people than to rely on the unwieldly government to ensure that needs get met. I see the failures of such programs in our community every day.

Sorry, this makes me unhappy. He also said that he would allow faith-based organizations that receive public funds to hire BASED ON FAITH.

Panderpanderpander.

No long diatribes from me. Obama just jumped the shark with this for me. This will be the first time in my life I haven't voted for President!

this is a strong anti-religious bias to be found here on slog -- something i don't want to argue against.

but given that the vast majority of people in this country are religious, given that these programs can be successful (or at least held accountable), and given that obama does not want to allow the money to be used to proselytize, i am more than happy with this news.

sure, some of you would like to see churches lose their tax-free status as well. but as much as many here think religious is completely silly if not harmful, most people value religious faith, tradition, or civic action. allowing religious freedom to work within the confines imposed by the government is essential in a land that values the freedom of religion.

@ 60

think of a more clever name next time! kthx.

@59 - Good, don't. Stay home and pout because your party's candidate isn't exactly what you wanted. Congratulations, you sound exactly like James Dobson.

Oh I love this. Spin away Obamaniacs, your man is gonna end up Bush lite. Too funny.

Just to clarify, guys, since you clearly didn't read the link at comment #8. The AP, surprise, surprise, is staffed with a bunch of fucking hacks. This:

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.

Is bullshit.

As other commenters have pointed out, the government has long given money to religious group for nonreligious purposes. What Bush did was allow proselytizing and discrimination in hiring. Obama is going to reverse that and bring the program back to where it used to be. He's also only going to give money to programs that have proven to be effective.

Unwad those panties.

It's strange to see something right out of the Great Society dismissed as right wing. It really shows how much the culture war has become imbedded in our society. The federal government used to fund community churches and activist organizations all time as part of its larger anti-poverty initiatives.

63: You and your ilk are fucking morons. Take your trolling sophistry and shove it up your ass.

@52--I didn't take away that you supported Bush. My point was that for many people, Bush has ruined the idea of faith based initiatives. Is this fair? Not to faith based initiatives it isn't. Do they do good work? Of course they do. But under Bush some of them have become tools in the culture war. . . I think we're probably on the same page here. . .