So, it's been a whole day since this happened and I haven't seen a blog about it, which surprised me, so I decided now is as good a time as ever to actually write another blog.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7484574.stm
Obama has made a clear grab at all those people who voted Huckabee. He's said that he intends to expand President Bush's Faith-based programs. The speech he gave in Ohio was specifically talking about "A council involving religious groups [that] would help to set the national agenda". Clearly, that's just what the doctor ordered for our nation. Clearly, the way to get good, honest, moral policies created and executed is by involving religion. And this from the candidate who admits that there is a separation of Church and State....
Sarcasm aside (a hard thing for me to do), this kind of things is really frightening. It is one of two things. It is either honest, and therefore a presidential candidate willing to brush aside the Constitution because of his personal beliefs. Or it is a person who is willing to promise to ignore the Constitution in order to get the job of protecting it. Personally, I would say it is most likely a combination of the two.
The problem is that religion does not simplify or clarify matters. It confuses them and blows them out of proportion. When it is not only the worldly consequences of your actions that matter, but the approval of some hermetical deity with the power to punish you for choosing wrong, secular good can easily fall by the wayside in the hopes of appeasing the deity of your choice.
The only logical way to avoid this conundrum is to keep faith out of policy making. Whatever else your faith is, no matter how public or private it is, it is yours and to insist that a nation follow the dictates of your faith (which is just as substantiated as the next guy's) rather than a course of action that could benefit the country, is being self-centered.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Personally, I want someone who is either very devout in their faith or is a libertarian who makes fact-based decisions. Either way, I can predict their actions.
-acertainsaint-
Obama has no idea what he is doing! I think that most if not all the Dems have lost their minds. They have no love for their country they are out for themselves. Obama doing this action of involving religion in the matters of government how crazy can one person get. Some one needs to send Obama a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Apparently he has forgotten all about it. Or maybe this is his plan part of that Change that he keeps talking about he wants to change of from a democracy into a religious dictatorship.
Maybe one day I will wake up and this will all have been a bad bad dream.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ~ The Preamble
Are you aware that the faith-based initiatives that Obama is talking about expanding originated as a republican initiative? I agree that these programs are highly inappropriate (and IMHO, unconstitutional), but you really can't hang the democrats for this one.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I've had the article bookmarked and was actually intending on writing something about it, but my entry would be full of emotion more than anything.
I don't have much problem with him appealing to different groups (the system is inherently flawed and is what I have a problem with; I can't really fault people for working within that system if it means achieving their goals when doing otherwise will get them nowhere). But when he's blatantly ignoring the Constitution and Separation of Church and State, that's when I have a problem.
Part of the issue is that he's not appealing to religious people. He's appealing to Christians, and by doing so, he's leaving out all other religious groups. Several members of the Pagan "community" have already foreseen the effects of this. We've had a hard enough time trying to get things as simple as symbols on headstones. What's going to happen when the Christian Church, who would now be in a position not far off from the large businesses that provide most of the funding for candidates, has this kind of control and a major part of the spirit of the Constitution is completely and blatantly disregarded?
By doing what Obama is doing, he's making this country well on its way to becoming a theocracy.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I still wouldn't have a problem if he were courting christians. I have a problem when we're dealing with evangelicals, whatever the faith.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
From Yahoo! News:
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but this seems to me to be a slap in the face for Separation of Church and State.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
That it is.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
When it comes to constitutional vs uncostitutional it is useful to actually READ the constitution.
From the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
In no way do ANY of the current or proposed (by Obamas' comments) 'faith based initiatives' violate this. No religion has been established as superior to any other and no religion banned, or made a state sponsored one. YOU are stil free no matter what faith you follow (or don't).
Your suggestion does violate the constitution:
"The only logical way to avoid this conundrum is to keep faith out of policy making."
It clearly violates the 'free exercise' clause by prohibiting it for every policy maker. Though you THINK you have no religion it also appears, to me, to be a desire to make your religion (Atheism) a state religion.
The fact that you do not see the rights of those that you disagree with as important is the frightening thing. You are right, everyone else is wrong, and THEY should be prevented from their religious freedom.
"Every happening, great and small, is a parable whereby God speaks to us, and the art of life is to get the message."
Malcolm Muggeridge
...I will point you to the Anti-Defamation League's discussion of the topic...
The Faith-Based Initiative and ‘Charitable Choice’:
Harmful to Religious Liberty and Civil Rights
...and specifically quote for you the following points...
Q: How has the Faith-Based Initiative been implemented so far?
A: ADL shares the President’s appreciation for the vital role religious institutions have historically played in addressing many of our nation’s most pressing social needs, as a critical component of government funded programs. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Faith-Based Initiative to date has been deeply troubling on policy and constitutional grounds. It allows proselytizing of social service beneficiaries, permits government-funded employment discrimination, and impairs the integrity of our nation’s religious institutions through the specter of government monitoring and onerous audits.
Necessary safeguards not currently incorporated into the Faith-Based Initiative include the following:
* No program beneficiary is subject to unwanted and unconstitutional religious proselytizing when he or she receives government-funded social services
* Government money does not fund religious discrimination in the hiring and firing of people who deliver these social services
* Secular alternatives to social services provided by houses of worship and other religious institutions are readily available to beneficiaries. All beneficiaries are made aware of secular alternatives, and have realistic and convenient access to them
* Recipients of government funds must establish accounting systems and procedures to separate government dollars from core religious activities. Referred to as “firewalls,” these procedures ensure that taxpayer dollars are not channeled into religious activities of religious organizations. As a practical matter, the best way to establish this division is through the creation of a separate corporate structure distinguishing the religious organization from its government-funded social services program
* Recipients of government funds must comply with all the requirements and limitations imposed upon all government-funded activity by the religion clauses of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, and
* Extremist, terrorist or hate mongering groups are not eligible for government funds
Q: Are “Charitable Choice” and the Faith-Based Initiative unconstitutional?
A: Probably Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed the constitutionality of “Charitable Choice” or the Faith-Based Initiative. In other contexts, the Court has ruled that religious institutions, such as houses of worship, cannot receive taxpayer dollars because government funding and monitoring of these institutions would violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. For instance, a federal district court judge recently ruled that a rural health service program funded through the Faith-Based Initiative violated the Establishment Clause because nurses visiting patients provided religious services — prayer and Communion — in addition to health services.
The ADL is unarguably a pro-religious organization, and even to them these programs are "deeply troubling." As Thomas Jefferson once said, "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief..."...a principle which these programs PLAINLY violate.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I support secularism in the government. That means that any charitable organization should be considered. There should be no specific religious test to receive funding. That is the unconstitutional aspect.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson