Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by leekohler, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    What??????!!!!!!!!!!! WTF?????!!!!!!! Wow-- this better stop now. I'm writing him immediately. I absolutely do not want my tax dollars going to religion.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-ap-obama-faith,0,1184476.story
     
  2. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #2
    This is sure a "change" from the politics of past :rolleyes:

    I'm not saying Obama is an evil person, but he's much more of a politician, in the not so great sense of the word, than people realize I think.
     
  3. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
  4. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Then perhaps he'll react if he slips in the polls. This is NOT going to sit well with a lot of the party, believe me.

    Sorry! I fixed it in my OP.
     
  6. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #6
    I sure hope so.
     
  7. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    E-mail sent. We'll see what kind of response I get. His office usually responds within a week or so.
     
  8. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #8
    Well, all I see in that article is a guesstimation and reaction to it. Am I missing something here.

    As a side not, I'm not sure that "I absolutely do not want my tax dollars going to religion" is a great way of looking at it. I don't smoke, does this mean it's OK for me not to vote for a candidate in an election just because he's putting more money into saving people with lung cancer (this example can be adapted for countless things that society pay for, depending where you live).
     
  9. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    What? Did you read the article? It's reasonably detailed.

    I don't know what else you want. That's a very intentional statement.

    Churches don't pay taxes. They don't pay taxes for a very good reason- separation of church and state. I don't know if you have that in Britain, but we're supposed to have it here.
     
  10. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #10
    Religious or not, charities are usually a good thing. Obama has been criticized for moving center to woo independent voters. link
     
  11. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #11
    **** june/july obama.

    where has january obama gone?
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12
    Of course I did.



    Intentional by whom. Unless I'm reading this wrong, hardly any of it is quotes from Obama and the quotes are from things they think he's going to say.

    I'm going to read it again, but from my first scan I've got a 'wait and see what actually happens'
     
  13. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #13
    Yeah, if he keeps up this turn toward the "center" he's gonna lose all the energy and excitement he built up with the people who helped him beat Hillary and could help him beat McCain.

    Very troubling.
     
  14. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    You're really reaching here. Here's another:

    Apparently, he was talking about this in Zanesville.
     
  15. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Yep- this is the scariest thing I've seen him do yet. This won't help him, it's gonna hurt.
     
  16. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #16
    It's not reaching, it's an understanding of the media built up over years of experience.

    I could write a whole article with a couple of lines from any speech you want from history and turn it into something different. Now, I don't know the reputation of the Tribune but like I said, I'm going to wait and see what actually was said.
     
  17. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #17
    I don't understand the outcry.

    Many communities already have charitable organizations set up by religious organizations. The town I live in has a very well-respected soup kitchen that is put together by about a dozen churches working together. No proselytizing or indoctrination is a part of the programme; a person in need of a meal simply shows up, eats, and walks out. A few years ago they applied for and won a grant from the government; they used the money to build a new kitchen so that they could serve even more people.

    My question is this: would it have been better for the government to take that money and create its own soup kitchen? It seems to me that it is more effective for the government and charitable organizations (whether religious or otherwise) to team up and pool their resources for the common good than it is for them to essentially have to compete with one another.

    I am curious to know whether there is widespread documentation of religious organizations using government money to proselytize. If there is, I certainly agree that these uses of taxpayer money needs to stop. But if we want to use taxpayer money to give homeless people a meal, why is it wrong for the money to be used to expand existing charitable organizations on the grounds that they are organized by one religion or another? I don't see how this violates separation of church and state; the funds aren't going toward pastors' salaries or paying for altar candles or anything like that as far as I know.

    I'm generally supportive of the Democratic party, but this issue really grinds my gears. It's the left-wing version of "Let's end welfare because most people on welfare are goddamn welfare queens." Cf. "Let's end faith-based initiatives because most churches applying for the grant money intend to use it to convert everybody to Christianity." Unless there is hard proof that the system is being abused in this way, then I will continue to support the concept of the faith-based initiative programme (though I reserve the right to criticize particular policy implementations, as always :D).
     
  18. JG271 macrumors 6502a

    JG271

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    What!!
    Separation of church and state is in the american constitution if I'm not mistaken.
    This sort of thing should be done by a charity, with personal donations from the public only, in my opinion, so that the person donating can choose to spend their money on such things. It will be impossible (i imagine) to allocate money in a fair way.
    I thought better of him really... although it shouldn't concern me at all really!
     
  19. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    Look at it this way Dave- how much cash do you think churches are saving now that the government is paying them to do work that they should be paying for themselves? They already pay no taxes so they can discriminate within their membership legally. Now they're going to take tax money too? Are you kidding me? You really see nothing wrong with this?
     
  20. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #20
    I dunno....Im not overly religous, but to be perfectly honest,I dont have a problem with it, and I dont see why its such a big deal.

    Alot of my tax dollars go to support programs I could care less about....
     
  21. Daveman Deluxe macrumors 68000

    Daveman Deluxe

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Corvallis, Oregon
    #21
    leekohler: I certainly hope that churches and parishoners aren't reducing their own contributions to charitable causes just because they can get grant money from the government instead. I don't have any hard data to suggest this phenomenon isn't happening and you didn't provide any to suggest that it is happening. I agree that it is one concern and ought to be looked into.

    Again, I say: if government money for charitable purposes will be more effectively used by expanding an existing programme than by creating a new one, I favor that, regardless of the nature of the existing programme. I wouldn't give a damn if the programme being funded were explicitly Christian, Buddhist, atheist, Wiccan, or Satanist. If my tax money is going to be used to feed, shelter, and clothe those who are worse off than me, I certainly want it to be used in the most effective way possible.
     
  22. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #22

    Sorry, Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

    The constituion prohibts the establishment of state sponsored religion, and also allows people to exercise freely whatever religion they choose...
     
  23. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    I see- you're and "ends justifies the means" type of guy. I'm sorry- Have to completely disagree. The "means" matter. If churches want to do charitable work, that's fantastic!

    BUT- tax money should absolutely NOT be going toward any religious group, period, for any reason, for the very simple fact that it's a religious organization and tax exempt.
     
  24. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #24
    The most effective way possible that doesn't give money to religious-based charity groups. I don't care how good they are at what they do (there are other charities that are non-faith based that to as good of a job), the government should not be giving money to them. This is unconstitutional.


    EDIT: I'll let leek speak for me. He has the exact same opinion on this issue as I do, and muddling up the thread with two extremely similar viewpoints would probably be a little confusing.

    EDIT2: Glocke: The government giving money to a charitable organization is making that religion state sponsored. Plain and simple.
     
  25. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    can you quote the exact section of the article? That's a statement you wrote.
     

Share This Page