My take on Obamas support of Faith Based organizations (little long)

[Hellataz]

I read about Obama speaking out on his religious background, Father was a muslim turned atheist, Mother opposed to organized religion, and grandparents members of church but not practicing, Obama didn't become christian until later in life AFTER he worked with community organization that were ran by churches and he saw the good they did ad was inspired to convert.

(link to his comments on his religious upbringing: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/05/obama-speaks-out-about-religious-transformation/ )

I understand this, even though i am agnostic. Sometimes with all the bigotry and hostility that the religious right throw at us, we forget that there are a lot of decent religious organizations, warm hearted and compassionate religious followers and tolerant Religious leaders. They may not be the public face of the religious community, but they are out there. Hell I've read posts from some here on DU, many religious folk who despite their religion still embrace the GBLT community.

I think this is how Obama view religion.
I believe that religion to him is the concept at it's purest form, chalked full of helping the sick and poor and reaching out to help people in their time of financial and emotional need. Giving people a sanctuary to go from the problems of everyday life.

Perhaps from an outside view many of us, (me included) just see the bad things that religion brings, the intolerance and hate and the intrusion and insistence that they push their beliefs into our lives

But on the other hand, as we view religious organizations as such from the outside, perhaps Obama, looking at things from the inside sees only the good that these organization do. Not that he is blind to the bad things that the religious right does, but maybe he looks at it like "Their hearts are in the right place, but they are just massively confused". I for one am not that forgiving towards the religious right having very little positive experience with organized religion, but maybe someone like Obama who has spent his life doing good work for people through the church has a different perspective of faith based organization.

Because of that, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his continuation of theOffice of Faith Based Initiatives.

I think for him, he doesn't see his support of this Office as a slight against us non believers or the GBLT community. I think to him, he sees it as getting back to his roots, Community Organizing. I also think he is trying to take steps to open the OFBI to all religious groups and revamp what Bush created into a more tolerant and inclusive Office. Bush created this office with the Christian Right in mind. Obama is branching it out to include all religions and cultures including muslims.

In a prefect world there would not be an office under the president of the united states that had anything to do with faith, but realistically a vast majority of americans belong to some sort of faith based organization and this is Obama's way of reaching out to their concerns. Because, Again, whether we like it or not Obama plans to create a united and inclusive america means he doesn't just listen to our concerns but also the concerns from those who we disagree with, and in the end make up his own mind as to the best way to handle the issues that is best for our country. That's what we voted for him to do.

Maybe Obama is a bit naive when it comes to the religious right, but I truly do not think he condones the bigotry and hatred that stems from these groups. I believe he wants to show non believers that faith based organizations can be responsible for good things, not just bad, just as he will convey the same point back to them that non believers and the GBLT community have a right to be treated equal and be heard.

As for the current concern that Obama will allow these faith based organizations to discriminate in their hiring:

"In an executive order to be announced on Thursday, Obama does not rescind Bush's provision to allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring practices, but does provide a legal process for organizations to go through in order to that ensure hiring is legal and non-discriminatory."

(snip it from this article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/obama.faith.based/index.html )

The Article goes on to say that the administration believes this is a "key step forward" to address a very thorny issue.

Also the article mentions that Obama believes (based on a speech he gave in Zanesville, Ohio) that while he endorsed faith-based programs, he thinks the beneficiaries of such government aid should be forced to cease discriminatory practices.

Now I'm sure that is not the immediate "fix it" Many were looking for, but I feel for the position Obama is in, trying to walk this tight rope and give concessions to both sides of the argument.

Because in the end, Obama is not looking at these issues in a "you're right and I'm wrong" or "pick a side" stance. He sees these as a challenge to bring both sides together to help them understand one another and perhaps by doing so can end the negative effects of the religious right and preserve the positive ones.

That's what I think, I could be wrong, but everything I've ever heard from Obama leads me to believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt and that while we might not understand his current actions, he does have a long term game plan to improve this country and ultimately unite us.

[terisan]

1. Theocracy is the issue. Placing a special office within the executive branch is a danger

to our system of separation of church and state.

I have immense respect for organized religion and my life experience has been with those who follow the social gospel as well as those who believe differently and are considered right wing (many of whom are personally generous with their charitable giving).

Part of the danger here is the juxtaposition of organized religion and government, housed as an official part of the Executive Branch of our government and the special access and closeness to the Executive it engenders.

The office is a lobbying office and opens up the potential for deals (similar to those with the previous executive who initiated faith-based contracting). Many religious organizations want contracts government contracts and grants - and most executives want to maintain and extend their or their parties political power.

The job of bringing together believers in particular religions and those who believe differently is worthy one but not the role of the Chief Executive of the United States. While he may pursue it if he wants, this seems to me to be a danger and politicized method of approaching it.

Our government belongs to all of us as individuals-and our rights guaranteed to us under the Constitution are individual rights not rights of groups or organizations.

Whether Obama is well-intentioned or not, is not the issue.

[Terran]

6. You misunderstand what the function of this agency is.

As do most people posting on this subject.

The office is a lobbying office and opens up the potential for deals (similar to those with the previous executive who initiated faith-based contracting). Many religious organizations want contracts government contracts and grants - and most executives want to maintain and extend their or their parties political power.

No. This agency helps both religious and secular non-profits apply for federal funding. That's all it does. There is no "lobbying" involved. You also seem to think that some sort of graft is likely to happen within the agency. I'm pretty familiar with how federal grants are applied for, and believe me, there is zero possibility of just handing them out like rewards these days. The process is far too complex, and is done mostly on-line these days (at HUD, anyway).

The job of bringing together believers in particular religions and those who believe differently is worthy one but not the role of the Chief Executive of the United States. While he may pursue it if he wants, this seems to me to be a danger and politicized method of approaching it.

That is not the 'job' of this agency. Its job, bottom-line, is to increase the participation of non-profits in federally funded social services work. I suppose it could be housed outside the Whitehouse, but given that nearly every federal agency is potentially involved, putting it all under the Chief Executive makes sense.

[terisan]

7. Graft is not my word and does not explain the issue I addressed concerning

The interest of many organized religions wanting government contracts and the heads of those religions being in a position to sway their members to vote in a particular way or for a particular candidate.

I do note that the officical title of the office, Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, does include other entities.

However, the office is headed by a Josh DuBois, a political campaigner for Obama who had been in charge of outreach to the religious community.

When I write about Federal Grants and Federal Contracts I am not writing about the nuts and bolts of the application and approval process but the potential for corruption in the political process, which seems to be an ongoing problem in government.

Increasing the participation of non profits in social service work is a fine objective but I do not think that the White House should be housing an office so clearly aimed at the nexus of taxpayer money and organized religion.

[Terran]

12. If I understand you correctly...

you believe that leaders of such agencies who might apply for federal grants might try to sway the votes of people connected to that agency (employees? clients?) based on whether or not they got the grant? That seems a bit farfetched to me. Like a lot of the ideas I see batted around this issue.

[terisan]

13. No. I said leaders of organized religions-churches, mega-churches, Catholic

archdioceses and churches. Organized religion which has a track record of swaying their memberships, congregations, followers, flocks. I use the term organised religion because it is inclusive of non-Christian entities also.

As you may be aware in regard to contracts for social service the amounts may be in the hundreds of thousands, millions, multimillionn.

Social service contracting is worth billion overall.

[Terran]

14. Ok, but...

the leaders of organized religions aren't the ones applying for federal grants; it's individual churches, or local offices connected to religious charities, or non-profits that simply have a religious orientation but aren't connected formally with any religious (the non-sectarian ones). I doubt that many such 'leaders' are even really aware of specific grants being applied for. Were you thinking that bishops and analogous persons involve themselves in grant writing? Not bloody likely. You're trying hard to see something that simply isn't there, or at best has an infinitesimally remote chance of actually occurring.

[terisan]

16. IT's been occurring and it is in the BILLIONS in contracts-More than I thought!

See Link at End.

CONTRACT MONEY FOR FAITH BASED -----HUGE -ABOVE 40 BILLION WAY BACK UNDER BUSH IN 2004--DATA HARD TO COME BY BUT FORTUNATELY BILL MOYER, BARRY LYNN AND OTHERS WERE TRYING! The potential for corruption an political wheeling/dealing is massive--! Heck look at the problems cited by Bill Moyers of PBS and Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and others.

IMAGINE WHAT HAS BEEN BEINGN CONTRACTED IN 2008 AND 20009 MAY BE MIND BOGGLING

THE SENTENCE ON THE PPHILADELPHIA CHURCH THAT ENDORSED BUSH GETTING 1MILLION IN THESE FAITH BASED CONTRACTS SHOWS ME WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST.


On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.

How Much Money?

How much are taxpayers paying for what Barry Lynn, Executive Director of American's United calls "federally subsidized employment discrimination?" According to Daniel Zwerdling who produced two programs on faith-based initiative for Bill Moyers TV show NOW in September, 2003, "administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information."

The March, 2004, issue of Church and State reports that the "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced to reporters that $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.

By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups ccould apply for more money through state-administered programs.

From the Washington Post, January 4, 2005:

.. in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to the Associated Press.

That's not enough, said H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said..

This is the text of an executive order signed by Bush on June 1.

On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.

While religious charities receive billions of dollars, federal programs are experiencing funding cuts. The largest federally funded after-school program, the $1 billion-a-year 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is threatened with a budget reduction of $400 million for the Fiscal Year 2004. The resulting cuts in Washington D.C. alone could eliminate after-school services for 2,902 District children.

As reported in the Washington Post, Congress has ordered more than $3 million in grants since 2001 earmarked for respected former Redskins cornerback Darrell Green's Youth Life Foundation, with the goal in part of opening more Green learning centers here and in other cities. But his center is directly serving only 38 kids, in a city where 35,000 live in poverty.

From Church and State editorial, March 9, 2004:
The Corporation for National and Community Service has allocated $324,000 in Americorps funding for staffing at four daycare centers run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

But The Children's Crusade, a mentoring program that has won national honors, lost all its budget of half a million dollars. The group had hoped to partner 35 young adults with poor minority children. That won't be happening now.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.

From Americans United, August 17, 2004:

A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004

"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush adminisistration


<http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm>

[Terran]

17. This is very misleading.

Why? Because whoever wrote this flat-out assumes that *every single agency* who receives this money is violating federal law by using the money to proselytize. And that is just a load of crap.

The other problems I have here are that the author is trying to alarm the reader by throwing out all these figures in the billions. Well, those *are* the amounts that the federal government routinely makes available in social service grant funding--to SECULAR agencies as well as religious. Homeless assistance funding from HUD, which I work with, is around $1.5 billion every year, and that's just one small program out of hundreds. The money is distributed nationwide to over 1000 agencies per year, so of course it's a big scary figure.

It's also misleading to say that $40 billion was being "made available" to faith-based agencies, because that money can be had by any non-profit organization that qualifies and applies successfully for it. And there's no proof that agencies who got funded did so because they 'endorsed' Bush. The funding process simply does not allow for that kind of political patronage.

[terisan]

18. The Truth Hurts. nt

[Ocracoker16]

15. Thank you for clarifying the function of the office. There is a lot of confusion about this.

[Aloha Spirit]

2. Religious/neighborhood communities have the power to solve a lot of problems more effectively than

government.
I think it's fair for the government to facilitate this.
What is more grassroots than a community organization?
"But no matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone. There is a force for good greater than government. It is an expression of faith, this yearning to give back, this hungering for a purpose larger than our own, that reveals itself not simply in places of worship, but in senior centers and shelters, schools and hospitals, and any place an American decides."

The White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will be a resource for nonprofits and community organizations, both secular and faith based, looking for ways to make a bigger impact in their communities, learn their obligations under the law, cut through red tape, and make the most of what the federal government has to offer.

One of the council members is the CEO of Big Brothers/Big Sisters.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships/

[Bluenorthwest]

3. I just heard on CNN

That Office of DuBois based bigotry will allow discrimination against GLBT people. The 'President of Everybody' says he himself does not discriminate, but that he will be fine with letting relgioninist do so with our tax money. Gay people pay taxes. This is wrong.
I am so angry right now. Religious people do a great shame to themselves and their God when they stand up for political hate like this. Shameful hate filled people. I hope they are happy being bigots for Christ.
Seperation of Church and State.

[Thrill]

4. Did you hear Obama today? He said there will be NO discrimination

[Bluenorthwest]

5. That is not what the law says

the law says the will decide on a 'case by case' basis when it is ok to discriminate. They could have stated in law that discrimination would not be allowed, instead what they have is DuBois in charge of an office in government that will seek out legal paths to discrimination.

[terisan]

9. Deciding on a case by case basis re discrimination does seem to leave much

room for discrimination to become systemic before any action may be taken.

[Hellataz]

8. You have to take what the media presents to you with a grain of salt

I like CNN but they like many other new channels are going to frame a "news" story to make it entertaining, to rile people up because that's what keeps people engaged and turned in. You have to weed through some of the BS to get to the facts of a story before getting all up in arms about it.

The Facts are that Obama does not sanction bigotry of any kind and is making efforts to ensure that any religious organization that does receive federal funding does not discriminate, but he also has to walk a fine line by protecting our equal rights and respecting their religious beliefs. But many agree that he is asking steps to slowly weed out those discriminatory practices that these organizations engage in, it just wont happen over night.

The Point of my OP wasn't to debate the issue of GBLT issues with this office, though it's not my intent to stop you either, it was to point out that perhaps Obama isn't looking at this office with the same symbolism that others are that have criticized him. That maybe to him, this is just about helping churches create more community outreach to help the needy, and that while bigotry and other such negative effects are bound to happen, that is and has never been Obama's intent in term of his support for this the OFBI.

I highly doubt that Obama came right out and said he was"Fine" with other people discriminating against the GLBT community. In fact he has said the opposite in past speeches. The problem is, we hear these "news" stories and interpret what WE think Obama means to say by his actions. but we don't know, we're only guessing and I say why do we always have to assume he's doing things for the wrong reason? I choose to believe he has good intentions and life is not so black and white that we have to freak out on our president every time he makes a move that might not have the most favorable results.

[terisan]

10. Unfortunately good intentions are not enough to protect the rights of citizens.

[Hellataz]

11. No, but they're a start.

Imagine what it would be if we had nothing but BAD intentions.
We need to think more positively and not assume that everyone is out to get us.

Building tolerance is a slow process but little by little we win that war every day, I'm just sorry it's not fast enough for everyone and that those that are being discriminated against have to be put in that position it he first place. I wish they could see the light at the end of the tunnel like i can see.

[Baikonour]

19. The seperation of church and state is all but dead at this point.