about some of this. I guess Hillary might have done some of the same things, but I would have been equally disappointed. I don't know, but I'm in a very poor mood.

Dear Mad and Sad Welcome to Mydd I'm sure President Obama will make it up to you in other ways.

First of all, I'm an atheist too.

I've heard Obama talk about Faith Based Initiatives and I have to admit that just the term grated on my nerves.  But I really listened and what he says makes sense.

He wants to get some $$ into the neighborhoods to help with programs for kids, the elderly, etc.  He needs people familiar with the problems in their particular neighborhood.  The cost of the program would be greatly increased if he had to set up government offices with their associated buraucracy in each neighborhood.  By using churches, mosques and synagogues in the neighborhoods he solves the problem inexpensively.  

This is not the same as the churches (particularly the odious Evangelicals) setting the agenda for the programs.  This will include all types of religious organizations who will be used as the distribution system for the programs set up by the Obama administration.

Obama is being pragmatic.  He wants to set all these programs up but he has to do them within the budget.

with much of what you say.

But... I never vote for the lesser of two evils, I vote for the person that has most of what I want. The one that best represents me.
politics seems to be the only thing in life where people say they are choosing the lesser of....

Other than that... I do understand your anger and frustration.

While I understand where you're coming from (and I was concerned when I first read this news, as well), I don't think that reaching out to religious voters in and of itself is bad policy.  There are plenty of churches that espouse beliefs that fit quite well with typical progressive ideals.  Reading this quote from Obama made me more comfortable with the idea:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

This topic was discussed further in another really great diary earlier today: http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/7/1/17413 2/7871

It probably won't change your mind, but it might make you a little less concerned about the idea.  Or it might not... haha.  Either way, if you've got some free time you should check it out.

it sucks that churches can do so much good by reaching out and helping out others in need, but still be hateful in their methods.

its quite contradicting. to be religious and represent good yet represent hate for certain things at the same time.  

I think if you asked most Republicans how they viewed where Obama stood politically, most would still say that he is a far-left liberal even in light of these new discoveries.

I'm probably to the right of most on this blog and some of the more "conservative" members of this community are praising Obama for this shift towards the center.  It's one of the issues that this party has had to deal with for some time with casting a big tent: you get the Dennis Kucinichs but the Bob Caseys as well.

I consider Clinton and Obama to be pretty much mainstream liberals.  The only difference is that Clinton was perceived by the public to be centrist because of her style while Obama was perceived to be liberal stylistically.  It'll be interesting to see how much the American public still views him to be "politically liberal" in the next Rasmussen poll.

Bush's faith was not only bullshit, it was also entirely pointed at conservative religious people. This is not giving them a voice in government, it is not appointing a clergyman to a Cabinet position. It is simply getting money to the organizations that already work for the community. There is a HUGE reason he added the word "community" in there. I don't think the thinly veiled pro-life clinics will be getting a huge amount of funding in this deal.

People are surprising me by how much they are against this policy. Do you not realize how important this is, to get religious voters away from the Republicans? If you want tolerance, isn't that the first step, to take them away from the anti-abortion and homophobia agenda and towards the sort of social welfare that they used to represent?

How many times did the Clinton supporters warn you that Obama was not the progressive he played on TV? Too many to count! "But no!' you said, she voted for the war while he, a state senator in an extremely liberal district, came out against it with no information other than published reports and little political risk. How dare she say the line that ended with "Barack Obama made a speech?"

And now, barely a month after he clinched the nomination, it is you who he's throwing under the bus. But wait, you rationalize, he's just saying this stuff to get elected. Ironic, isn't it, that one of the major complaints against Hillary was that she'd say anything to get elected. But still, where ya gonna go now? Clinton? Too late. McCain? Not an option. So you'll dance with the one who brung ya, you'll support and vote for Barack, and hope it all turns out well. Surely the candidate that made those beautiful, if substance free, speeches, must be what you envisioned him to be. And if he tacks right on a few issues, or a great many issues, or even all of them, you're stuck with him.

You made your bed, now lie in it, that's on you. You have to vote for Obama and hope you were right about him. But to Clinton supporters like myself, you put us in a box. We have to vote for Obama and hope we were wrong about him. Your complaints, your silly little posts, will have no effect on "the one you've been waiting for." He's on a mission - to get elected - and it's getting pretty crowded underneath that bus. I wonder what you'll say when he names Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell as his Vice Presidential choice. By that time all the possible Democratic nominees may well be under the bus with you.

to get some sleep.  Thx for the discussion.  Sweet dreams to all :)

While I appreciate the passion, the diarist and many of the commentors here are painting religious people and organizations with a mile wide brush.  

Unfortunately, GWB has been defining religiousity for the rest of us for the past eight years.  Belief in God and belonging to a church DOES NOT equate to homophobia, intolerance and small mindedness. Try to remember that the term "Christian" has been co-opted by untra-conservatives to brand and push a political agenda.

What Obama has done is acknowledged the millions of Christians and other believers in this country who do not ascribe to a narrow ultra-Conservative mindset.  And long before his recent statement he has been pulling persons of faith to his message of service, charity, tolerance and compassion -- the true bedrock of Christianity.

Religions are human constructs no less, no more, subject to the worst of mankind's failings than governments, secular oranizations and ideologies and all other creations of man.

Do not confuse all religious people with the Fundamentalists, be they Christians or the Taliban, that would push thier intolerance at all cost.  Without the work of churchs in the inner cities of America there would be precious few soup kitchens, shelters, after-school programs, crisis intervention programs.  

While not a particularly religious person myself, I have witnessed the extraordinary selfless work of individuals driven by their faith alone to selflessly care for the less fortunate and been deeply moved and inspired by their character and commitment.

Obama has seen this too, I suspect.  He has seen the work of churchs like Trinity, creating miracles where no government or secular organization has given a damn.

It takes a particular level of commitment, grit and spirit to look some of the most tragic problems of this country in the face and tirelessly fight the effects of poverty, blight, disability and despondency.  Perhaps Obama, unlike anyone before him, will be able to marshall the secular will to selfless sacrifice.  But until then, faith based organizations are the only hope, the only lifeline for millions.  

He has laid out clearly and strongly the parameters -- no discrimination, no prosthelitizing.  The best of Christians know this -- you will know them by their work.  

I applaud Obama for wresting away faith from the clutches of the decidedly unChristian right wing agenda and refocusing it on all the charitable work out there that so desperately needs to be done.  

I'd tell you to go to hell for further eroding our constitution by giving MY FREAKIN tax dollars to CHURCHES!!!

So you're in favor of pulling federal research grants, federal Pell grants, and federal Stafford loans from religious schools like Georgetown, Baylor, Boston College, and Notre Dame?  Those schools are all run by churches.

Why, if a religious organization follows federal anti-discrimination laws in delivery and hiring, should they be barred from receiving federal funding like any other organization working in the community would?

I am a big believer in the fact that Presidential candidates are obliged to take really dumbass positions during General Elections and that if you were to judge a president solely by the pandering they did during the campaign you would have no winners. Cut the guy a little slack at this point. Though no doubt if he were to go all faith based initiative while in office I would 1) be shocked and 2) be really angry too.

I'm on the fence with this issue.  On the one hand, I'm not religious and would be totally happy if there was a complete separation between religious institutions and politics (which doesn't describe the US today, of course).  On the other, though, I can see the political brilliance of what he's suggesting.  Something like 1/3 to 2/5ths of Americans take religion very seriously, many think they have no choice but to vote Republican because they see the Democrats as a "godless" party, and if Obama can convince even half of these voters that they have no reason for such strong political allegiances, a Democratic victory still gives them something, well, that would be sending a wrecking ball into one of the foundations of the modern Republican coalition (the Dems will never win over the Pat Robertsons, but the rank and file are a different story, because there are competing narratives here, for every fundie who thinks GOP stands for "God's Own Party" there's another who thinks DC is Babylon and by getting too involved in politics they're corrupting themselves).

So a lot would depend upon scale and implementation.  Would I be happy with billions of dollars going to religious organizations engaged in various kinds of social work?  Not at all.  Would I have the same problem if the figure turned out to be hundreds of millions, though?  Frankly, no.  This is a drop in the bucket.  And if these organizations really came to see the federal government as one of their benefactors, and came to accept that by taking federal money this created some reciprocal responsibilities (ie. they had to adhere to various federal regulations), over the long-term that could be very positive.  But yeah, this isn't boilerplate.

I really have no problems with funding to churches. They do a lot of good in local communities. While I haven't attended a church service since I was trying too hook up with this girl in high school, I have seen churches doing community service work and have volunteered my time and money when time and money were available.

Churches really are someof the first responders in a community and although I don't recite the Bible, the Commandmants nor pray to any deity; I do realize and agree with what most churches essentially teach and that is to be a good person and help people in need.

From Obama's association at Trinity I think he realizes the good influence church programs can have on the local community.

Religion has no place in government, especially since no two people's religious beliefs are the same and peoples feelings about it are diverse.  There is too much resentment, suspicion and hurt involved in religion, although many people see it the opposite.  And people should not have to fund it with their tax dollars.  What Obama is doing, I see as pandering big time, and it offends me.  OUr constitution is built on freedom from endorsement and pushing of religion by the government. The move to this country was partly to get away from that. It is supposed to protect us all from the government pushing it on us.  Using our money against our will to support religious efforts, gets pretty damn close to violating that principle.

I just saw a mention about realestate.

During the last 7 plus years, the righties through their "religious groups and churches" have been pushing to buy more local radio stations so they can keep them out of the liberals hands ... like Air America, Jones Radio, NovaM, etc.

So if we are giving money to the groups, we are letting them take money from the "good" they MIGHT do and use it instead to do bad.

One last thing. How do you figure you can only target a small local religious group/church and not a mega church or TV church?
Casey Treat, in my area, does NOT need our money. They con people out of enough money for their "church".

This is nothing new.

The Bush administration often promoted the faith-based agenda by claiming that existing government regulations were too restrictive on religious organizations seeking to serve the public.

In fact, when Bush asks Kuo how much money was being spent on "compassion" social programs, Kuo claims he discovered the amount was $20 million a year less than during the Clinton Administration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15228489/

For the last time:

Not all religion in this country is Christianity, and not all Christianity is intolerant.  And I say that as a Jew who has met my fair share of (to put it mildly) intolerant Christians.  This "RELIGION=EVILFUCKINGBASTARDS" is stupid, bigoted, and completely divorced from reality.

The truth is, many atheists are proselytizing assholes, and many theists are not.  (I've actually met far more proselytizing atheist assholes than proselytizing Christian assholes myself.) You can't paint whole groups with a single brush and expect to be taken seriously.

As long as the money is being used for public good and works of charity which are made available to people in need regardless of their personal religious beliefs and without making them endure proselytizing to receive aid, and  the funding is made available to the charitable groups of all religions, not just Christianity, then I have no problem with it whatsoever.  But hey, I tend to think that improving the quality of life of people in need is more important than your anger that somebody somewhere thinks you're going to hell.  Too damn bad...my father's family probably all think I'm going to hell, but since none of them has any control over or superior knowledge of the workings of the afterlife, their opinions don't make any real difference.  There is no law that says that people have to approve of you.  Get over it and grow up.

Yes, that was a bit of a rant.  But it gets on my nerves whenever people handwring about "OMG, they think I'm going to the hot place, that's, like, OPPRESSION!"  Uh, no, unless they actually act on that conviction by trying to hurt you or take away your power/rights in some way, it isn't oppression.  Trust me, once you, like me, have been physically attacked twice before reaching age eighteen solely because a group of people have a problem with the fact that your religious views don't match theirs, you will damn well know the difference between shit that actually matters and shit that doesn't really impact you in any way and is stupid to whine about.

I am shocked and appalled to see Barack Obama running a general election campaign in an effort to (gasp!) win.

I am also (not so sarcastically) shocked to see those claiming Barack couldn't relate to regular people become (again, not sarcastically) appalled that he is appealing to the religious and the gun owning.  When he couldn't win them, it was a fatal flaw.  Now that he's trying to do so, it's the end of the fuckin' world.

atheists are having difficulty understanding the benefits of Faith based initiatives as Obama has spoken of them. It's not derived from malice, but rather from ignorance. As a community organizer, Obama knows first hand the contributions of the churches, synagogues, and mosques in social justice, education, anti-delinquency, meals on wheels, visiting and advocating for the sick, neighborhood cleanup, taking back the streets from drug dealers and speaking truth to power at the local level.
 Atheists see church on TV and think TV evangelists and mega-churches are who and what Obama is referring to.

So, don't be a retard. Go on a field trip to a church (just avoid 4-square baptist churches and any church whose name has 'sword' or 'arm of the lord' in the name.

My feeling about government funding of religious organizations?

Rescind the Tax-Free status of churches and then (maybe) we can talk.