Obama's faith initiative

Email Print posted by calturner 07/02/2008 10:41:22 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
I was raised a Christian but I think its all crazytalk--Im the Atheist in my family, but Im cool about it.

Cenk is a vicious Agnostic which he has the right to be.

Meanwhile, Ive always been a patient, tolerant atheist who knows the Bible enough to win arguments and start trouble.

Personally I dont have beef with Obama and his faith-based plans. The guy is a legit Christian and like people I know, he is fully capable of using the two sides of his mental capacity to govern logically and rationally while keeping his faith comfortable with that other side.

DO I personally agree. No. Religion is a virus in my book.

But this is America and no one can take away the fact that Obama is very subtly hitting McCain's "strengths" and causing the GOP a great amount of distress with his moves.

Obama is the Paul Pierce of Politics--let him play his game and win the fight...Hes going to move to the center and hes going to make the hardcore libs and progressives nervous...so what--just deal with it. The far left doesnt have any more right to steer the party than the center left.

The point is we dialogue and put the messages out there and slowly bring the center supporters to the left--which is what Obama is doing.

Obama puts winning ahead of alot of "progressive principles" that have NOT lead to executive victory in the past.

 

We are moving left, but its a gradual process for an entire country...be patient. 

 

Inshallah, we can get it done. JK

< Any DC TYT fans out there? | Why is this GOOD news so troubling? >
 Display:
Obama's faith initiative | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
I do. (none / 0)
"Personally I dont have beef with Obama and his faith-based plans."

And, if he would keep his faith based plans to himself and away from the public pocketbook, I wouldn't have much of a problem either. I may have heard wrong, but from what I gather he wants to expand one of Bush's follys. He also called for mandatory service to the country in one form or another.

You may be comfortable with his move to the "center" but he STARTED OUT too close to the center for me and the direction he's moving, I don't like one little bit.

I may have to go back to supporting Mike Gravel....

by MedfordTim on 07/03/2008 12:00:26 AM EST

'Settle Down, Francis' (none / 0)

From "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" to this?

You think the country will fix itself or would you rather hire a bunch of migrant workers to fix it?

I didnt realize you agreed so much with where you money is going now...

Its soup kitchens, drug rehab, and basic social work/outreach as far as the religious programs go.

Big Deal. Who is that actualy hurting?

And as for mandatory service... Im a six-year Iraq Veteran--you fuckers owe this country six BACK years of sacrifice and service for goofing off during wartime and voting for Bush twice.

What are you doing that you cant serve your country? Plus its not like youre doing it for free--hes offering plenty of incentives for people to help out the country, especially young people.

If youre complaining about the effort to fix the country being to much work---youre kind of a lazy prick.

 

 

 

by calturner on 07/03/2008 06:12:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Fun with one liners (none / 0)
From "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country" to this?

Well, my favorite cliche is "It's the stuff that dreams are made of," but under the circumstances I think I'll go with the old standby, "Duck!"

You think the country will fix itself or would you rather hire a bunch of migrant workers to fix it?

Uh huh. Riiiiight. Say, you know what might be a good thing here? Maybe cutting back on that Ritalin dosage...I could swear I just heard a sequiter say "Where's my 'non'? Oh, there it is!"

Thise are your only two choices? Automation or exploitation? It's sooo much easier on the reader with sentences like that if you actually have a point.

I didnt realize you agreed so much with where you money is going now...
Could you repeat that? Maybe flesh it into a complete or at least coherent - hell, I'll even settle for cogent - thought, please? As it stands I feel like I should argue with my wallet about paying the rent, and that can't be right...

Its soup kitchens, drug rehab, and basic social work/outreach as far as the religious programs go.

I'm on the board of a resource center for homeless and disabled people - the only one of it's kind in Southern Oregon. The woman who started it is deeply, fundamentally Christian, Republican, and pretty much as opposite me as one can be philosophically - except that we agree that when it comes to helping those in need, there shouldn't have to be a sermon as the price of admission.

The government should stay the hell out of the religion business - period, completely, 100%. There are plenty of community organizations out there who can use the money funneled to these "faith" groups.

Big Deal. Who is that actualy hurting?

If you're referring to the melding of religion and government, YOU, you dolt! i know you don't understand and probably never will. I guess you'll just have to take it on faith...

And as for mandatory service... Im a six-year Iraq Veteran--you fuckers owe this country six BACK years of sacrifice and service for goofing off during wartime and voting for Bush twice.

If you are a vet, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you are a vet, you'll know why.

What are you doing that you cant serve your country? Plus its not like youre doing it for free--hes offering plenty of incentives for people to help out the country, especially young people.

If someone CHOOSES to enter some form of public service, I say, "Rah! Rah!" and more power to them. It's the "mandatory" part that is a slap in the face to any true American. Oh, and the word "incentive" applies to something when you want to entice them into choosing to do something. Requiring doesn't take incentives - it takes tyranny, fear, punishment, coersion, and threats.

If youre complaining about the effort to fix the country being to much work---youre kind of a lazy prick.

Well, since I didn't say anything even close to what you're asking, I feel it safe to assume that I am NOT, in fact, a lazy prick. At least, not in the sense that you mean it...

by MedfordTim on 07/04/2008 05:11:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
A little wary (none / 0)
I am normally a stauch supporter of the Separation of Church and State, but this initiative leaves me with a strange viewpoint.  I still believe in that separation, without question, but if the initiative uses religious organizations as a tool to assist social issues, while, at the same time, remaining secular, then I have to wonder "why not"?  Based on what I've read, there can be no religious discrimation for hiring and firing of employees/volunteers (unlike Bush's plan) and the churches can disciminate where their assistance goes based on religion, either.

Whether or not you are a religious person, surely, you can see the value in using community-based organizations to provide bottom level support for people in need, provided they do not discriminate who gets the aid.

On the other hand, it is a dangerous path to have organized religion involved in government at any level.  They do nto get taxed, yet they can get taxpayer money?  Doesn't seem equal.

Still, I'm not sure about it.  Not totally for it.  Not totally against it.

"Like lipstick on a pig"

by TJD on 07/03/2008 11:41:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
just not good policy (none / 0)
'...but if the initiative uses religious organizations as a tool to assist social issues, while, at the same time, remaining secular, then I have to wonder "why not"? "

Try leaving out the "not". WHY use religious organizations? As a separatist, THAT is the question to ask. I'm not suggesting that religious people be prevented from helping, but let them do it by working at a secular facility if they want government help.

Community-based organizations = good. Church based organizations receiving federal funds = bad.

Do you really want someone like Kenneth Copeland getting a pipeline into the Treasury? Pat Robertson? Brent Bozell?

There is already a perfectly sound program in place, been around since long before George. This pretty well sums it up:

"Some faith-based organizations set up separate charitable organizations (so-called "501(c)(3) corporations") to keep programs that receive government money separate from those that engage in inherently religious activities"

All separate, all good. Oh, that quote? It's from The White House's Partnering with the Federal Government: Some Do's and Don'ts for Faith-Based Organizations

That one little paragraph is all it takes to understand that there is no need for a "faith based initiative program." ANY group, religious or otherwise, can set up a 501(c) and avoid any questions of intermingling - plus, it's easier to track down those who are abusing the system.

As usual, I could be wrong...

by MedfordTim on 07/04/2008 05:42:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
He was in Colo Springs today (none / 0)
And Ken Salazar told him that the key to winning the state was wearing a cowboy hat, driving a pickup truck, and moving to the center to pick up votes.  We see how that's turned out with Senator Salazar, who votes to the right on every issue he can.

by schmoab on 07/03/2008 03:46:09 AM EST

And yet (none / 0)

I would say that a National Call to help fix America is about as leftie as you get these days, if the church people want to help fight poverty and do their part, why not let them and give them incentive to do the right thing?

You cant have it both ways.

by calturner on 07/03/2008 06:14:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There was a time... (none / 0)

When the church was the heart of the most important liberal causes in America.

Civil rights, fighting against poverty, help for orphans and abused women.

I think ti become angry Obama wants to work with the churches is a gross misunderstanding of the historical reality.

I would much rather see the churches return to their true and traditional purpose, aiding those who need aid and standing up for love in the face of hate, than to allow them to wallow in the narrow self-interest, reinforcing of prejudices and political manipulation Reagan, Bush and Nixon steered them into.

Remember, Martin Luther King Jr. was really nothing more than a minister speaking the word of his God.

I am not a religious man, but if we could put the church back on the path of Jesus teachings, we would gain a mighty ally in the war for right, justice and charity.  I welcome the effort, personally.

Finally, we keep talking about this election being a realignment.  Groups are going to switch sides.  Perhaps some religious groups will return to the Democratic fold.

by ProfRich on 07/03/2008 12:53:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh yeah and almost forgot... (none / 0)

The only two Democrats who talked at length about their faith in a meaningful way that actually won...

 

Carter and Clinton

Deal with it, Fellow Heathens.

by calturner on 07/03/2008 08:00:51 AM EST

I pretty much agree with you calturner (none / 0)

I'm a scientist and would prefer we keep faith out of government, but this doesn't really get my dander up, especially if it is inclusive of all religions and not just Christian sects. 

I would also be okay with mandatory service.  If a person had some ability to match their skills with their service, I could see it being beneficial to the service workers.  I've always been a person who has wanted to make a positive difference in the world though, and have thought about doing time in the Peace Corps even as an adult.

by desertpear on 07/03/2008 04:25:50 PM EST

Say what? (none / 0)

DP, are you really for a Draft? That's what "mandatory service" is. Involuntary servitude. What are the non-compliance penalties? Ya gotta think about the ramifications of this stuff.

"...and have thought about doing time in the Peace Corps even as an adult"

And that is the idealized version of what you're imagining. But how would you feel having a government agent come to your door and drag you away to be a prison guard at Guantanimo? "Mandatory" means they get to choose the assignment, not you. ANd they get to throw you in jail to serve your time if you refuse your assignment. More than likely, a mandatory sentence...

Do you see what I'm getting at?

I'm not saying it's the only way, or even the right way, but I think the way to get people to do stuff is to make them want to do stuff - not tell them they have to.

by MedfordTim on 07/04/2008 05:56:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Point of Order (none / 0)

Where are you getting this "serve or jail" gimmick from?

Obama has never said the national service is mandatory for every citizen--there are opportunities for people who choose to serve, but theres not a gestapo forcing you to do anything.

Nice try though--feel free to back up your point and argue this if you like. 

by calturner on 07/04/2008 09:43:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Pop quiz (none / 0)

1. Whar foes the word "mandatory" mean?

2. Did you know the DRAFT used to be "mandatory"?

3. Does the name "Muhammad Ali" mean anything to you in this context?

"So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year."
 
Not "mandatory" you say? Just wait. This is how it starts.

What happens if an 18 year old boy refuses to sign up with Selective Service?

"A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.  Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed."

We fought HARD to end Conscription in this country and won. Then Ronald Reagan said "Fuck you" to America and went ahead and reinstated the whole damn thing. And America yawned and turned back to watching "Diff'rent Strokes".

It's a very simple concept. "Mandatory" is WRONG.

by MedfordTim on 07/04/2008 12:35:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
of coooouuurse ;) (none / 0)

I reserve the right to withhold my support of any program I don't like!  I can imagine a program I would support, but it wouldn't look like the draft.  I realize I'm dreaming here, but it would be neat if "service" could be filled in various ways, such as high schoolers helping out for a week on habitat restoration or other efforts. 

I'm dreaming, huh?

by desertpear on 07/04/2008 09:07:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
pop quiz? Blogger please (none / 0)

2. Did you know the DRAFT used to be "mandatory"?

And yet there were exceptions to the draft if you qualified. And we wouldnt have won WWII without the draft, so its not like there isnt a reason for mandatory service.

I already did my part. "Draft" is only a scary word to some. Bring it on.

3. Does the name "Muhammad Ali" mean anything to you in this context?

Yes it does. Refusing to serve has repurcussions. If You refuse to serve and you have the right to do so, then you may face sanctions, which people are free to impose on you.

Freedom means facing up to your responsibilities. Ali was found guilty by a JURY. He didnt qualify for conscientious objector status because he said he would fight in a Muslim Holy War, but not for the USA.

He called Joe Frazier a gorilla, an Uncle Tom, and some other crap, his blantant misogyny, womanizing and kids outside his marriage.

by calturner on 07/05/2008 12:30:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My mistake. (none / 0)

Sorry, I'll give up now. We obviously disagree on the very basics of the situation, and since you're throwing in things like, "we wouldnt have won WWII without the draft"...well, I just can't compete with that sort of logic.

Nor can I wrap my head around the concept that you're all for "mandatory" but don't mind "exceptions." Rather than spend a day trying to follow that pretzel from end to end, I will just remove myself from the fray.

by MedfordTim on 07/05/2008 10:05:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Enough (none / 0)
Amazing. Obama is a politician! Who would of thunk it?

Now he's a centrist, now he is Roy Rogers to Clinton's Annie Oakley, now corporations are immune from prosecution but individual citizens can be executed. Obama can triangulate too. So much for the "new" type of politics!

I wonder can the religious Obama select a pro-choice Supreme Court Justice? Does anybody really know what he stands for? He's holding up 3 fingers, read between the lines.

Does anyone really doubt that Obama's faith based initiative is an attempt to take care of his religious friends like Phlager and Wright?

Maybe he does need Clinton on the ticket, that way everyone can blame her when Obama changes his positions.

I know, I am being to sarcastic. I can't help it. I have been telling you guys for months that Obama is a politician just like Clinton. Have you noticed the MSM? how they have switched gears? They are not his friend anymore.

You've been had, hoodwinked and bamboozled. This is what happens when you leave the old reliable bitch at home and try something new. Sometimes you get crabs.



by LORD FOUL on 07/05/2008 11:49:11 AM EST

Lordy, ysa don't get it. (none / 0)

Don't you realize that to some of us, he could bite the head off a kitten and he would still be preferable to the Dragon Lady?

She lost, dude.

Get over it.

by MedfordTim on 07/05/2008 02:25:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's faith initiative | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: