Tuesday, July 1, 2008

A Suggestion for Obama's Team

Here is the quote you need to keep splashing around about Grandpa McCain:

"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said.

And then ask why someone who does not properly understand economics should be president in these troubling times.

I think that might resonate with some voters...



This thread has Obama's name in the title so I might as well plop this here:

"July 1, 2008

Obama Support For 'Faith-Based' Program Is Disappointing, Says Americans United

But Watchdog Group Says Candidate’s Opposition To Religious Discrimination In Hiring And Publicly Funded Proselytism Are Steps In Right Direction

Rather than try to correct the defects of the Bush “faith-based” initiative, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would do better to shut it down, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Obama today announced a proposal to expand faith-based funding during a speech in Zanesville, Ohio.

“I am disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded.”

However, Lynn said he was pleased to hear Obama express support for church-state separation and say that he would bar government-funded proselytism and religious discrimination in hiring when tax dollars are involved.

“It is imperative that public funds not pay for proselytizing or subsidize discrimination in hiring,” said Lynn. “Obama has promised that he will not support publicly funded proselytism or discrimination in hiring, and that’s an important commitment.”

The Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that religious charities can discriminate on religious grounds in hiring staff when running publicly funded programs.

Lynn said he is concerned that the Obama plan apparently would allow direct tax funding of houses of worship to run social service programs. That, said Lynn, raises serious issues of entanglement between religion and government.

Americans United has led opposition to the Bush faith-based initiative since it was unveiled in 2001."

Both of these candidates have their warts and like many others I have read and listened to, I say we really don't have great pickings to choose from.

csm said...

Yes, I saw that. To me, it was disappointing, but not surprising. I think Obama has chosen this approach because he would be pilloried by the religious right if he said he'd ditch it entirely.

coreydbarbarian said...

with regard to bawdy's article:
at first i was irritated, until i remembered barack's matthew 25 network from 3 weeks ago. if he sticks to the those criteria with this faith-based program, i don't see the conflict. sometimes the missions of church and state just coincide.

(the 25th chapter of matthew quotes jesus as saying, "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."

with regard to the point of this thread, i agree. but i wouldn't stop there. consider this.

csm said...

Thanks corey... The best evidence is irrefutably caught on video tape, isn't it?

Regarding the faith-based stuff, I still can't get behind it in any way, shape, or form. I am all for doing those things you quoted Jesus as saying... the thing is, we can do them without involving any religious groups.


"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."

And for that I give you my vote. - Bawdyscot

Ceroill said...

Yeah, Bawdy, it bugged me too. But, I am also unsurprised. As time went on he'd have to appeal to the religious segment of his potential voters.

Anony Mouse said...

Makes him sound more like he is the 3rd term of Bush. He is an evangelical.

coreydbarbarian said...

what's the point, mouse? ;)

both of your statements are true, of course. but you really should learn to differentiate between mainline evangelicals and fundamentalist evangelicals. the latter group tends to put all their energies into opposing equal rights for gays and women's rights.

i suggest perusing www.ucc.org for more details.

and this, from the obama camp:
"Obama’s initiative will be governed by a set of core principles for federal grant recipients. In order to receive federal funds to provide social services, faith-based organizations:

* Cannot use federal funds to proselytize or provide religious sectarian instruction.
* Cannot discriminate against nonmembers in providing services. They must remain open to all and cannot practice religious discrimination against the populations they serve.
* Must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.
* Can only use taxpayer dollars on secular programs and initiatives.
* Must prove their efficacy and be judged based on program effectiveness. They will be expected to demonstrate proven program outcomes to continue to receive funding. Obama will fund programs that work and end funding for programs that do not - whether they are large or small, well-established or new, faith-based or otherwise.

Ceroill said...

Today's issue of Slate magazine has a nice article about conservative vs liberal views of patriotism. See it here.

coreydbarbarian said...

bob, that was a great essay! i had to email a link to my siblings before i could even tell ya how much i enjoyed it! thank you. :)

Ceroill said...

I thought you guys (and gals?) would like it. Part two tomorrow. I enjoyed it because it's a basic accounting of events, plus it very aptly states the 'opposing' views on the topic of patriotism. It should come as no surprise that my own thoughts on that are nicely echoed by how the 'liberal' point of view is explained.

coreydbarbarian said...

did slate actually post the 2nd part of that essay? i've been looking, but no luck...

Ceroill said...

A bit confusing, isn't it? I've wondered about that too.