MyDD :: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay faith-based organizations.

Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay faith-based organizations.

by ChitownDenny, Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:24:51 PM EST

Dave Noble, Director of LGBT Vote for the Obama campaign, has stated Obama's faith-based initiative will include Gay faith-based organizations. In replying to Pam Spaulding, author of Pam's House Blend blog, the Obama campaign has confirmed that "under no circumstances will funds from the program will be granted to FBOs for proselytizing or reparative therapy". In addition, "MCC congregations, LGBT-welcoming Methodist and Unitarian congregations, and other affirming churches will have access to funds". These funds may be used for HIV/AIDS education and relief efforts.

The full article is here:
http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?d iaryId=6086

Now this is CHANGE Democrats can believe in.

Tags: Barack, Obama, Gay, faith-based intitatives (all tags)

Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment

Good. (2.00 / 5)

As I have expressed previously, I am pro-faith based initiatives. This is a good sign that they will be used fairly to help all communities.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST

Re: Good. (2.00 / 9)

I haven't been. But this is very progressive. In a Dem year, I think being progressive is of little risk.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:34:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 4)

I was discussing the issue earlier who is also against it. They expressed great concern that initiatives like this have become corrupt and will always be so. If that is the case, I have serious problems with the problem continuing.

If we can keep such a program on the up and up (there will always be some corruption), then I think it is a great idea. Churches, synagogues, and mosques run some great programs that are already in place and just need some funding to stay great. I would rather fund an already running soup kitchen than to try to build one from scratch.

I am an idealist so we will see how it goes.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 1)

Corruption and proselytizing have concerned me with government funded faith-based initiatives.
I agree with you; with checks and balances, a lot of benefit to be had.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:47:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 3)

I fully agree, and that's also part of why I support Obama in this...faith-based funding is popular and isn't likely to disappear (nor should they, necessarily), so it's better to bring these programs into the sunshine and properly regulate them.

The key task will be to ensure that any such regulations can't simply be wiped away by any future Bush clones.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 2)

Instead of an already running soup kitchen, why not fund jobs training and creation so people can work and buy their own soup? Why should we allow church ladies to run about playing Lady Bountiful with public funds?

The Swedish Social Democrats had a saying that roughly translates as: 'In the old days we had only charity, now we have rights. Bitter is the bread of charity.'

by DaleA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 4)

Or we could do both. It's hard to focus on vocational training when you're starving.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a separate argument. (none / 0)

As long as you grant there is an immediate need for charitable work and that it should be publicly funded (the more liberal view), we should focus on whether religious groups are an appropriate vessel for that.

As they say: "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Give a man a poisonous fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

by corph on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:32:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 1)

The project involves potentially thousands of agencies in every little corner of the country. No matter how effective & efficient oversight is, there will be slips.

No doubt there will be some (minor) corruption along the lines & it will be used to pillory Obama.

No doubt there will be someone connected to one of these agencies that hits hard on the proselyting. And it too will be used to pillory Obama. (And I bet you that Dobson et all will pull more hypocrisy out of their collective asses & bash him for allowing proselyting.)

But I also expect the administration will be proactive in fighting off any of these potential abuses, and they'll deal aggressively with any agency, or member thereof, that violates the rules.

January 20 & sricki join with The engels in love!

by January 20 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 03:14:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

It's a good thing. Plus, Obama's stance reminds everyone he is a Christian. That keeps one rumor in its place.

I'm a pagan. I'm all for whatever faith based program is worthy. They worked during Katrina when our government was nowhere to be found.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 2)

Let's see, ProGay churches make up about what, say 10% of all churches. AntiGay ones are the clear majority. So, giving a proportionally larger sum to the anti's is a progressive idea? Nope, not buying it. This is just a right wing measure to fund right wing supporters. Letting a small number of left wing churches receive funds accomplishes nothing.

Our motto should be: DEFUND THE RIGHT. Which means taking away grants and subsidies from them. This is absolutely dreadful and should be struck from Obama's platform.

by DaleA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:09:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (none / 0)

Religion is not always part of the "right". That is part of our problem. The republicans have played to the shitty parts of religion but they are not the only parts. I think we should embrace the parts of religion that play to the strengths of the democratic community. Helping others, etc.

Not that it adds much to the debate but I am saying this from an atheists position so I am fairly unbiased as far as the religion issue goes.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 1)

Religion is not always part of the "right".

Ahh, but the right always has a large and vocal religious contingent. And garners a clear majority of the votes of regular church attenders. This entire presentation appears to be some sort of flim flam concerning what US religions do.

On LG issues, one of the shittiest of the shitty is the Salvation Army. It is also one of the churches most into helping others. Yet if a LG person seeks services, funded by tax dollars, they are turned away. In Chicago, the Salvation Army would routinely roust gay men from their cots and turn them out into winter nights.

Wanting to help others does not equate to being pro-gay. Seems like a lot of low information going on here.

The old progressive view:

http://www.fortunecity.com/tinpan/parton /2/pie.html

the song:

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:
CHORUS:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
The starvation army they play,
They sing and they clap and they pray
'Till they get all your coin on the drum
Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:
Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,
They holler, they jump and they shout.
Give your money to Jesus they say,
He will cure all diseases today.
If you fight hard for children and wife --
Try to get something good in this life --
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

Workingmen of all countries, unite,
Side by side we for freedom will fight;
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

FINAL CHORUS:
You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and to fry.
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,
And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

by DaleA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 2)

I am not sure I would classify myself as "low information" but thanks. My impression was that we were trying to have a substantive disagreement not trying to be condescending.

The religious right has hijacked the politics of religion. I am suggesting that we take it back. This is a start. That is my only point.

My impression is that you agree with the fact that the religious right has hijacked the politics of religion but have no interest it trying to reclaim the good religious messages as purely democratic.

McCain = bad Obama = good

by CAchemist on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (2.00 / 1)

Quote: My impression is that you agree with the fact that the religious right has hijacked the politics of religion but have no interest it trying to reclaim the good religious messages as purely democratic.

I find that the reason the Religious Right 'hijacked' was that the RR constitutes an enormous part of the active Christian community in the US. They did not really 'hijack', they simply use what was theirs to begin with. The pro-gay churches are a very small fraction of the Christian churches. They are the UUA, UCC, MCC, some Science denominations, many ECUSA, and a scattering of individual congregations in the Mainlines. Probably no more than 10% of all US Christians.

My point is that I do not know what 'the good religious messages' consist of. I suspect I know who you are talking about. And I am here to say these 'good' messages are used by groups as hateful and nasty as Fred Phelps. The overwhelming proportion of the funding will go to RR groups, simply because the RR controls the majority of churches.

Also, most AIDS organizations I am aware of are not church run. They are secular NFP's through which services etc are provided. Churches may provide volunteers, meeting space etc; but these are secular efforts. So, the examples provided are useless and outside reality. In short: low information.

Like all the other Obama outreaches to LGBT people, the presentation and arguments used are ignorant and uninformed. They fail to grasp the reality of how AIDS organizations operate. They are unaware of the long history churches and AIDS, which is a very sad story. Remember one church got some AIDS care money, used it to set up a 'how to protect your children from homos' educational effort. Others that took the money and then refused to accept any advice or support from established AIDS orgs. Just let PWA's die without proper support and care.

I have been an AIDS activist since the early 80's. This is an issue I care deeply about. And know something about. The presentation is very low information.

by DaleA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts or nothing (none / 0)

Got any facts to back up what you're saying?

Hillary is voting for Obama, so why aren't you?

by BrighidG on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:45:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's church (2.00 / 1)

is known for being fairly pro-Gay.

just saying

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's church (none / 0)

Word on the gay grapevine is that this is just window dressing. Group listed on website. Group never met, had no members, no one was ever refered to it. Just set up for show. Would really appreciate some actual proof that the group ever did anything.

by DaleA on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 01:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good. (none / 0)

The most important distinction between Obama and the republican policy lies in the fact that in order to receive funds from the former for the purposes of delivering social services, the religious organization would not be allowed to discriminate in employment. So if a Catholic charity wants federal funding for its social action project, it could not refuse a qualified muslim applicant, nor could the baptist charity refuse a gay applicant. Bush, on the other hand, sees such discrimination as an expression of religious liberty.

SO here is the difference. A synagogue may refuse to consider for employment a Rabbi who is a Jew for Jesus. Under the Bush system, that same synagogue could refuse to employ a Jew for Jesus in a soup kitchen or literacy initiative. Under Obama, the synagogue would be obligated to consider the qualified Jew for Jesus for a position in their delivery of these services as a condition of receiving federal funds. Now some may object that this is very difficult to enforce. What it does do, however, is make acceptance of federal funds by religious institutions unwilling to comply with this condition of non-discrimination fraudulent. The idea that an individual or organization would exploit a federal program or participate in bad faith is hardly shocking. That may be enough for some to want to keep this window closed. On the other hand, many right wing religious organizations, or sound conscience, will refuse to participate under these conditions. Either way, this difference between Bush and Obama, represents a maneuver that co-opts a republican strategy and undermines their rhetoric. On balance, I support it. But only with this non-discrimination condition.

The future is unwritten

by Strummerson on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess miracles do happen (2.00 / 4)

Now this is CHANGE Democrats can believe in.

-ChitownDenny

Thanks for the heads-up, in any case. :)

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:34:03 PM EST

Sorry to bust this balloon too (1.60 / 5)

The vast majority of people attending church in this country attend churches whose official position is anti-gay. This is a gnat on the tail of a very big ugly pig. And it still violates church-state separation principles, however noble the purpose.

Here's a 2005 membership list --

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001481.h tml

Largest U.S. Churches, 2005
Members (thousands)
The Roman Catholic Church     67,260
Southern Baptist Convention     16,440
United Methodist Church, The     8,251
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The     5,503
Church of God in Christ, The     5,450
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc     5,000
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America     5,038
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc     4,985
Presbyterian Church (USA)     3,241
Assemblies of God     2,730
(and a bunch of tiny churches like)
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod (LCMS), The     2,489
Episcopal Church     2,320
Churches of Christ     1,500
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America     1,500
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc     1,500
[see entire list -- I had to shorten it]

Only a handful of smallish churches on that list support gays. Look at the first two groups on the list. You can read what Pope Benedict thinks about gays. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2005/10/07/AR2005100701844. html
According to the Religious Tolerance website, the Southern Baptist Convention's position on homosexuality is: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_sb c.htm

1-The many Bible passages that are commonly quoted as condemning homosexuality are valid.
2-People can change their sexual orientation.
3-Homosexuals can only lead moral lives by remaining celibate.
4-Discrimination against gays and lesbians is proper, in the areas of:employment, to protect the (presumably heterosexual) "family" and to protect other social institutions.

The most powerful religious institutions in this country are anti-gay -- and Obama plans to give them a ton of money -- and once again how is this going to advance gay rights?

You're trying to put a gloss on a Rethuglican position adopted by Obama.

It's about time Obama started being a Democrat again.

by strongerthandirt on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:51:03 PM EST

Re: Sorry to bust this balloon too (2.00 / 3)

I don't disagree with any of your points except:
"You're trying to put a gloss on a Rethuglican position adopted by Obama.
It's about time Obama started being a Democrat again."
I find this proposal to be very Democratic. I find it takes courage. IMO, such behavior, and support for continued progressive ideals, will bring more Democrats out to support Obama in November.
Let me be clear; I haven't heard a lot of progressive ideals coming out of the campaign recently. I'm watching and I'm listening.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:02:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to bust this balloon too (2.00 / 4)

I sort of agree. I'm an avowed atheist, but I still don't see how pulling religious people into the Democratic fold (f#$king finally) is somehow anti-progressive. There are lots of things about churches that are anti-progressive, and lots of their members are generally anti-progressive as well. But I see this as much the same as Obama's foreign policy leanings: engage your rivals/enemies, find common ground, and go from there. Let's not continue ignoring religious voters in the hopes they will go away.

by ProgressiveDL on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:15:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry to bust this balloon too (2.00 / 1)

It's not a Republican position. As I mentioned in another post (anti-FBI), Democrats have been doing this for decades.

We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.

by Jess81 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:14:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama helping out (2.00 / 3)

the more liberal christians overpower the fascist right-wing Christians is a Democratic ideal in my book.

Or would you rather we just ignore religion completely...cause that's been working so well for us so far.

The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.

by nrafter530 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:59:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 4)

Thanks ChitownDenny. I didn't know this, and it's taken a lot of the sting out of the whole faith based retention.

In the UK, though we actually still have an established church, there's always great concern about religion entering politics. I think we have a church attendance around 30 per cent for the whole population, whereas in the US it's around 70 per cent. So nobody who wants to be active in US civil society can ignore the role of faith and churches in social change and social cohesion.

I think the left needs to reclaim christianity in the US. In the UK, non conformism was the bastion of the Liberal and Labour parties in their early years, and my grandfather, a great activist on social reform and healthcare, was a believer of the Sermon on the Mount: i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself.

What that has to do with driving SUVs, bashing gays, and invading small countries has always perplexed me about (some) of the Bible Belt. I'm actually glad Obama is using the vehicle of faith based support to fight what, I would argue, are Christian values of tolerance.

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:52:27 PM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 5)

This is quite a departure from what most of us consider to be faith-based initiatives. I found it to be very progressive.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Christians don't have to be Republicans (2.00 / 7)

Most I know aren't (given that I don't know if most people I know are Christians or not). Let's not forget that many Civil Rights leaders have names that start with "Reverend".

Christianity actually has at its foundation the "love our neighbor", "judge not, lest you be judged", "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ethos that is quite counter to the entire Religious Right extremism.

Step-Dad Rev. Karl Lutze's 1967 book "To Mend the Broken: The Christian Response to the Challenge of Human Relations Problems." was the first Christian press (Concordia) book about the Christian role in Civil Rights. The way he tells the story is that he wrote them a scathing letter asking why the Christian press was silent on the topic and they replied "Why don't you write it?". His reply was that he wasn't going to write anything they were just going to edit to death, and in the end they promised not to change a word, and they did not.

That book is out of print but you can buy used copies here. Karl is 88 and doesn't need your money, but I'm going to keep pushing his books because a/ they should be required reading and b/ the man deserves all the credit he does not seek.

-chris

Donate!

by chrisblask on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Christians don't have to be Republicans (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for the book reference. I knew a little bit about the role of Christian, mainly black churches, in the Civil Rights movement, and am heartened by anyone who fights to reclaim Christianity from the bigoted right wing. They always cite Deuteronomy (on the issue of men 'lying with men' but not on slavery etc) and never seem to have opened the New Testament.

Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain

by duende on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 4)

The sermon on the mount is one thing that truly convinced me I couldn't belong to the Baptist church any longer. The meek were not championed. The poor were not celebrated (only pitied, being RICH was the way to go!). The merciful, the peacemakers, these were not the men that we admired.

I knew the verse, never really deliberated on it. Once I did, I pretty much thought, "Screw this. You people don't give a damn about Jesus Christ."

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice catch.. (2.00 / 3)

..much appreciated.

A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin

by hootie4170 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:03:38 PM EST

Let me get this straight... (2.00 / 2)

This is a bad thing, right?

'Cause it sounds pretty good to me.

by UrbanRedneck on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:03:54 PM EST

Re: Let me get this straight... (2.00 / 4)

Sounds pretty good to me, too.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know this is off topic but (none / 0)

I am a Chicago denizen too.

Bike geek. Beer drinker. Hopeful political activist.

Look Forward.

by UrbanRedneck on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I really appreciate this info, Denny. (2.00 / 3)

I'm against faith-based initiatives, but this redeems Obama's position somewhat.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you what's up with your sig??

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:16:26 PM EST

The sig (2.00 / 2)

I'll field that one, because I may be the cause of it.

There is a site 777denny that is an anti-obama Repub site. There was a rumour floating around that it was our Denny here and, being the loadmouth I am, I confronted him with it.

Pretty clear the rumor was unfounded.

-chris

Donate!

by chrisblask on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:22:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sig (none / 0)

It was way more than just you. It happened ALL the time.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sig (2.00 / 2)

Actually, if memory serves me, you started the, ahem, smear. Shortly afterward, I couldn't post without being confronted with it. I tried to get you banned. Alas, here we are; commenting with eachother, letting bygones be gone. (But the primary wars were fun!)

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:27:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, I'm glad to hear (2.00 / 4)

you're not a Republican smear artist. Though you never struck me as one. ;)

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, I'm glad to hear (2.00 / 2)

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't start the rumor (2.00 / 2)

I was just the first one to actually ask you if it was true. Never could stand whisper campaigns, though I understand why you got cranky (I would have accepted a "no it's not me" though... ;-).

-chris

Donate!

by chrisblask on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't start the rumor (2.00 / 3)

Well, maybe I can remove the sig now. ;)

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:45:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ahh, gotcha. n/t (2.00 / 1)

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really appreciate this info, Denny. (2.00 / 1)

Ask Chris. Chris, do you remember....?

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

Most of the regulars on here know where I stand when it comes to Obama. However, I may surprise some of you on this. It doesn't do a thing for me. As far as I'm concerned, feeling better about FBIs because of this move is no different than liking FISA because the government says it will hire gays to do some of the snooping. What's wrong is wrong, no matter who is involved in it.

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:36:00 PM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

Well, as I've stated often the past few weeks, Obama needs to "pander to the Democracts; it's a Dem year". This is good. I'd like some more.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith- (none / 0)

Nice diary. Rec'ed.

It's nice when you're constructive. Thank you.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:57:59 PM EST

Re: Obama's faith- (none / 0)

Hmmm...

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 10:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not very confortable with these faith based (2.00 / 1)

initiatives. However ok with Obama doing whatever he wants to in this frontend. However didn't hear him say that he wants to increase the funding for secular NGOs too when he is looking for increased funding for faith based organizations.

by louisprandtl on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:19:17 PM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (none / 0)

Is this new? Does Bush's Faith Based Community Initiative exclude gay faith based organizations? I see no evidence that it does, though since I rejected Bush's faith-based effort categorically I have not followed it closely.

by souvarine on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:11:15 AM EST

Religion does not belong to the right (2.00 / 2)

I am agnostic who is not comfortable with the notion of an office of faith based intiatives in the White House.
I am uncomfortable because I dont want any religious entity to have undue influence on the executive branch.
I am also concerned about the influence of the White House on religious groups that accept funding;I was educated by the Society of Friends,who refuse to take money from the goverment because the Friends don't want the goverment to have undue influence.

That being said I am afraid that progressives over the last couple of decades have given G-D over to the right.
There are plenty of religious progressives here are just a few:
Cornel West, theologian, academic, activist

William Sloane Coffin, Jr., UCC minister and peace activist

Daniel Berrigan, Catholic priest & peace activist

Stephen Colbert, host of The Colbert Report and Sunday School Teacher

Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement co-founder

Martin Luther King, Jr. - Nobel Prize winning civil-rights activist.

Rev. Joseph Lowery Civil Rights Leader

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Pauli Murray, first female Episcopal minister and co-founder of the National Organization for Women

Mike Papantonio,Lawyer and radio host

Cindy Sheehan peace activist

Rev. Lennox Yearwood‎ Veteran and anti-Iraq War Activist

Philip Berrigan, anti-war activist

César Chávez labor and social activist

Angelo Liteky - former priest, soldier, activist

Sister Helen Prejean - anti-death penalty activist (portrayed in movie Dead Man Walking by actress Susan Sarandon)

Martin Sheen Roman Catholic activist/actor.

P.S The Episcopal Church has both men and women serving as priests as well as openly gay and lesbian members of the clergy.

Ida B. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.-Mark Twain

by Ida B on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:15:47 AM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 2)

I'm a gay man and no matter who the money is given to, I still think Faith Based Initiatives stink.

I don't care if the program gives all the money to gay faith based organizations, I'm still against the idea.

Left, Right, Center -- all religion should stay out of the government and no religion should use public tax dollars.

Use that money to let the government do the work without any religious affiliation.

Letting gay religious organizations share in this rotten initiative is a ploy which doesn't make that program smell any better.

by cuppajoe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 12:24:55 AM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you. This could be an outreach and support organization for non-profit charities. There is no reason it has to be faith-based. If the churches want to be involved they can convert their charities to straight non-profit orgs. It's that simple. If they don't, it is because they want the church to get the credit for the charity. In that case, it isn't a charity, it is a marketing ploy. No matter how you look at it, this is tax dollars going to religious organizations. Why should anyone have their tax dollars going to religions they don't support?

"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson

by MS01 Indie on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

I agree completely. Thanks for the reply.

by cuppajoe on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 11:37:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

I have been less than thrilled with FBIs...there is so much room for abuse. That said, I do understand the concept of maximizing the benefit of government funds by piggybacking off existing programs rather than recreating those programs from the ground up. History is rife with the heroic actions of Faith Based Charities as well as full of horror stories.

We need to watch this like the proverbial hawk, but it is nice to know we are finally going to have someone around that isn't going to actively push the money into some wackjob hatefilled churches.

accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking

by Sychotic1 on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 02:23:10 AM EST

Re: Obama's faith-based initiative to include Gay (2.00 / 1)

"Faith-Based Initiatives" are pure and simple vote buying from the day Karl Rove thought them up. Barack's support, then oppose, then expand strategy toward them does not change the purpose and effect one damn bit.

by SuperCameron on Mon Jul 14, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.