Guys I'm really pissed at obama for ignoring this fisa thing and feel betrayed. What should I do?
Watch Olbermann's Special Comment from last night. It'll put some perspective on it for you.
I remain uncomfortable with that plan. Kill the damn thing, absorb the blow, and write a good law in six months and 19 days.
Except for the part where it's going to pass. Obama's going to take a hit no matter how he votes on the amendment to strip immunity or on the entire bill itself. It's crap, but there's no getting around it.
And he's the leader of his party, and if he can't get 41 Democrats to vote against this crap, he's a shitty leader of his party. And even if he couldn't, you still vote against it, and then you make it an issue in the election explaining exactly why you voted against it. Call it the Bill Foster strategy.
It doesn't matter what he does, as Olbermann rightly pointed out, the Republicans are still going to paint him as "weak on terror." That being the case, don't piss off the people who keep giving you money. Oh, and do the right thing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Guys I'm really pissed at obama for ignoring this fisa thing and feel betrayed. What should I do?
Write an angry letter.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be snark or not, but it's actually what I would have suggested. Write the Obama campaign and let them know how you feel. Enough people do the same and ideally well get some sort of explanation.
So, you're saying that an attempt to combat Manchurian Candidate smears is exactly the same as using religion as a wedge issue?
If "I'm going to do the Lord's work" in a Presidential campaign ad isn't a cyncial use of religion, I don't know what is. Especially given the "guns and religion" comment.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I drew a distinction between using religion as a wedge issue to demonize your opponents and using it as a tool to building a better community. If you can't see the difference between Republican "atheists aren't real Americans" and Obama's unity rhetoric, then I can't help you.
What "guns and religion" comment?
Clinging guns religion, big huge deal in April?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If someone (i.e. Bush and recent prominent Republicans) have a history of using something for cynical political ploys, are you more or less likely to take them seriously when they talk about it?
Pandering to get fractions of a percent of the electorate to vote for you (McCain) is not quite the same as pandering to maintain viability (Obama).
So, you're saying that an attempt to combat Manchurian Candidate smears is exactly the same as using religion as a wedge issue?
If "I'm going to do the Lord's work" in a Presidential campaign ad isn't a cyncial use of religion, I don't know what is. Especially given the "guns and religion" comment.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I drew a distinction between using religion as a wedge issue to demonize your opponents and using it as a tool to building a better community. If you can't see the difference between Republican "atheists aren't real Americans" and Obama's unity rhetoric, then I can't help you.
What "guns and religion" comment?
Clinging guns religion, big huge deal in April?
I figured as much, but I wanted him to clarify it himself, since that has nothing to do with his current point.
* McCain supported the drilling moratorium; now he’s against it.
* McCain strongly opposes a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.
* McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
* McCain defended “privatizing†Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
Wait, I’m not done with the last two weeks yet….
* McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.
* He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.â€
* McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.†He used to promise the opposite.
And these come after these other reversals from April and May:
* McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.
* McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations†with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.
* He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.
* McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.
* He wanted political support from radical televangelists like John Hagee and Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.
* McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
And these are the flip-flops I’ve noticed earlier:
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?†referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,†McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.â€
* McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback†as a focus of his foreign policy vision.
* McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain has changed his economic worldview on multiple occasions.
* McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions.
* McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.
* McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off than they were before Bush took office.
* McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.
* McCain believes his endorsement from radical televangelist John Hagee was both a good and bad idea.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded†for acting “irresponsibly.†His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback†on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.†Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.â€
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic†of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.†In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.†In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.â€
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance†in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved†the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.†By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money†to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’†Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
Confronted with the inconsistencies in McCain’s record in March, the senator’s aides told the New York Times that the senator “has evolved rather than switched positions in his 25-year career.†That’s a perfectly sensible spin — when a politician holds one position, and then, for apparently political reasons, decides to embrace the polar opposite position, it’s only natural for his or her aides to say the politician’s position has “evolved.â€
And who says Republicans don't believe in evolution?
edit: Links to ::Citation needed:: are in the linked article.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) plans to slam President Bush’s faith-based program as “a photo op” and a failure on Tuesday, and says he would scrap the office and create a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that would be a “critical” part of his administration.
Obama, unveiling a plan to overhaul and expand Bush’s faith-based program during remarks at a community ministry in Zanesville, Ohio, said the White House Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives — which Bush founded during his second week in office — “never fulfilled its promise.”
“Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded,” Obama says in prepared remarks. “Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.”
Obama was referring to accusations by John J. DiIulio Jr., the office’s first director, and David Kuo, his former deputy, that White House support for the program was driven more by swing-state politics than by compassion for the needy.
The White House views the office as one of the cornerstone's of Bush's legacy, making Obama's vow a very personal one.
Reaching out to evangelicals who are nonplussed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama declared: “I still believe it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grass-roots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership — not a photo op. That’s what it will be when I’m president. I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.”
“The new name will reflect a new commitment,” he continued. “This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart — it will be a critical part of my administration.”
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “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.”
The Obama campaign released plans saying his new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, working within the White House, “will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients.”
The campaign listed four goals:
—Train the trainers to enable local faith-based organizations to learn best practices, grant-making procedures and service delivery so that they can better apply for and use federal dollars.
—Partner with state and local offices so that federal efforts build on successes made at the state and local level.
—Hold recipients responsible by conducting rigorous performance evaluation, researching what works well and disseminating best practices.
—Close the summer learning gap by focusing faith-based and community-based efforts on summer learning programs for 1 million children.
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
The Grand Slam doesn't have waffles, you latte sipping elitist. :P
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
That is the problem, as Jeff pointed out. I mean, theoretically it's a fine idea (and yeah I was against this back in 2001, but I was much more... let's say Qingu-esque back then), but incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce. You are in fact, correct.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
So were you ninja'd or do you just have that level of Orwellian dissonance?
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “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.”
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
So the federally funded religious donations aren't going anywhere for several presidents unless SCOTUS says something about it, huh? Well...damn. I was hoping the faith based initiatives wouldn't last. Hopefully they won't become a slush fund.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
You're trying to fight a whisper campaign smearing you based on rumors about your religion, because you would like to get elected President
perhaps
Yeah, this.
Is it cynical? Maybe a little. But what do you do when your opponents' supporters have been telling a bunch of Working Class White Christian folks (read: xenophobic fundies) that you're a Stealth Muslim? Saying, "Dude, no I'm not" doesn't cut it. That flier targeted the type of folk who pretty much respond only to arguments based on religion. "Man, look at that cross behind me. That is one big effin' cross, I tell you what. See how effin' Christian I am?" He was fighting fire with fire. I don't really fault him for that.
It was pandering, but at least it's pandering based on stuff that he actually believes. It's better than the NAFTA shit, which he openly admits he doesn't completely agree with. We at least know that Obama's a Christian.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Anticipating criticism from the left, Obama said: “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.â€
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
It technically doesn't unless it can be proved that viewpoint discrimination is being used to funnel money to certain sects and religions but not towards others. Except in so far as the IRS labeling an organization as religious to ensure they get the tax free shtick and qualify for this can be considered an endorsement of religion.
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
That is the problem, as Jeff pointed out. I mean, theoretically it's a fine idea (and yeah I was against this back in 2001, but I was much more... let's say Qingu-esque back then), but incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce. You are in fact, correct.
I'm still Qingu-esque about this. I don't care if he overhauls it, he's still giving government money to churches. That is entirely unacceptable, and I agree with everyone who's pointed out that there is no way to enforce against using this money for proselytizing.
After Obama gets elected I am going to fight this shit to the death.
Qingu on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Rigorous standards on accounting plus judicious use of audits, with serious fines for anyone caught fucking around?
You don't need to spy on everybody all the time. You just need to make sure that those who are caught serve as adequate examples.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Allowing money to go to good charities, even if they're religious as long as they don't use federal money to proselytize, just doesn't qualify.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
That is the problem, as Jeff pointed out. I mean, theoretically it's a fine idea (and yeah I was against this back in 2001, but I was much more... let's say Qingu-esque back then), but incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce. You are in fact, correct.
I'm still Qingu-esque about this. I don't care if he overhauls it, he's still giving government money to churches. That is entirely unacceptable, and I agree with everyone who's pointed out that there is no way to enforce against using this money for proselytizing.
After Obama gets elected I am going to fight this shit to the death.
Change 'churches' to 'charities.' Do you feel the same?
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
You could have a department to accept complaints and investigate them, like we do for workplace discrimination. It's not perfect, but it doesn't require a government official at every workplace.
I'm still Qingu-esque about this. I don't care if he overhauls it, he's still giving government money to churches. That is entirely unacceptable,
Okay, let's stop there. Assume that it is, in fact, possible to make sure those funds only go towards charity. Why's it unacceptable? Because you're giving money to an organization that endorses religion? Doesn't matter what the money goes to, only who you're giving it to?
By that argument, wouldn't you also find it unacceptable to give unemployment benefits to a fundamentalist? After all, you're giving taxpayer dollars to someone who endorses God.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Rigorous standards on accounting plus judicious use of audits, with serious fines for anyone caught fucking around?
You don't need to spy on everybody all the time. You just need to make sure that those who are caught serve as adequate examples.
Exactly. Random spot-checks are more than enough, provided the penalties are stiff enough. "Okay, now you get to give back all the money, including the part you already spent. Oh, and we're fining you a hojillion dollars to boot."
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Rigorous standards on accounting plus judicious use of audits, with serious fines for anyone caught fucking around?
You don't need to spy on everybody all the time. You just need to make sure that those who are caught serve as adequate examples.
This. The fear of losing tax-exempt status is usually enough to keep religious organizations on their best behavior.
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Yes, it's a fairly risky proposition and could be potentially difficult to enforce properly. It's pretty much for those reasons that I don't really agree with it. It is also, however, not a fundamentally bad idea, simply one that is difficult to implement well.
Furthermore, and here's the thing, there are way bigger issues on the table than this. Forgive me for not shrieking until the windows shatter the second Obama does anything I don't completely agree with.
I believe it was said earlier in the thread that you probably won't find anyone in here who doesn't disagree with him on something. You don't seem to have listened, so let me try and lay it out again. Try and accept that it is possible, possible, that the support for Obama here is based on pragmatism rather than messianic awe, and that his goals are likewise rooted in pragmatism rather than an attempt to magically fix every problem the world has ever known all at once.
Because he is a pragmatist, he will engage in some degree of the usual maneuvering that a politician does, because if you don't get elected you don't accomplish jack shit.
And because the support for him here is likewise pragmatic, we won't automatically declare that to be a terrible thing.
There's a whole bunch of personal calculus that goes into the ultimate decision of "Obama is a good candidate, and McCain is a bad one." It includes a whole host of factors ranging from how often the usual bullshit goes on, to how egregious it is, to what the specific goals underlying it are, to whether or not the given candidate seems to have any goddamned idea what he's doing, and that calculus is different for everyone. It's also important to note that the "good" and "bad" in that conclusion are not moral judgements, either, in most cases.
So please don't roll in here and act like we're somehow not conforming to reality by not embodying the ridiculous strawman Left that Rush so dearly loves to Nail.
I just don't see what's going to stop a church from going to the training class, opening up a soup kitchen with federal funds, and asking everyone "oh btw have you accepted Jesus as your savior?"
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Rigorous standards on accounting plus judicious use of audits, with serious fines for anyone caught fucking around?
You don't need to spy on everybody all the time. You just need to make sure that those who are caught serve as adequate examples.
I call horseshit. The line between proselytizing and not proselytizing while doing charity work is a line in the sand. Are you going to fine the old lady who passes out church fliers to a sermon while chatting with poor kids in line for soup? What about the pastor who talks nonstop about how Jesus is what makes him do charity work to the people he's feeding, and isn't that great that he's saved?
There will always be a strong, subtle layer of emotional manipulation in religious charities. I do not want my money going towards that under any circumstance.
If Christians want to do charity work with government funds, they can volunteer at a government-funded soup kitchen or something, and follow the rules there.
I'm still Qingu-esque about this. I don't care if he overhauls it, he's still giving government money to churches. That is entirely unacceptable,
Okay, let's stop there. Assume that it is, in fact, possible to make sure those funds only go towards charity. Why's it unacceptable? Because you're giving money to an organization that endorses religion? Doesn't matter what the money goes to, only who you're giving it to?
By that argument, wouldn't you also find it unacceptable to give unemployment benefits to a fundamentalist? After all, you're giving taxpayer dollars to someone who endorses God.
For me the concern is that it becomes a patronage slush fund that simultaneously permits the government abdicating its responsibility to the poor, tired, huddled masses without necessarily giving them a better lot in their ever yearning quest to breathe free. It could be an incredibly efficient means to spend federal monies to ensure that redundancies occur less often and so more people get more help. It could also be a bunch of sweetheart deals wrapped up in the sacred cow of helping the less fortunate.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
There will always be a strong, subtle layer of emotional manipulation in religious charities. I do not want my money going towards that under any circumstance.
Not so much, actually. Some religious charities - hell, even some church sermons - don't come off as overly religious. Meanwhile, you can find people willing to preach to you while serving you a fucking burger at Mickey-Ds.
Are you more likely to see proselytizing at a religious charity than a non-religious one? Sure. Hence the oversight. Now, if you're of the opinion that it's an atrocity if some homeless guy hears the word "God" while getting his soup, then you're probably not going to care for this plan. Also, you have an unhealthy obsession with religion-hating and might want to get that checked out.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not directly related to the elections, but this is the sort of thing I always hoped to see.
How many print papers will go out with this error?
Yeah, I saw that on Sullivan's blog last night. It's hilarious that places automatically change some words like that to be PC or something. Well, words which aren't weeaboo, anyway.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
For me the concern is that it becomes a patronage slush fund that simultaneously permits the government abdicating its responsibility to the poor, tired, huddled masses without necessarily giving them a better lot in their every yearning quest to breathe free. It could be an incredibly efficient means to spend federal monies to ensure that redundancies occur less often and so more people get more help. It could also be a bunch of sweetheart deals wrapped up in the sacred cow of helping the less fortunate.
That sounds more like a critique of government-funded charity in general.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Gotta say, to a much less militant degree, I agree with Qingu on this one. I suspect anyone who's ever spent much time hanging around within a church group/other religious organization for a religion they're not part of can tell you that there's some degree of a 'join our church, come on' vibe that's somewhat endemic to what I guess I'll have to call the 'culture' of the group, even when they're not actively giving you food or rebuilding your house or whatever.
I'm not as outright opposed to all religion everywhere as he is, but giving government money to a group that will more or less by nature exert at least a subtle influence on the faith of those around them seems a little iffy.
Posts
And he's the leader of his party, and if he can't get 41 Democrats to vote against this crap, he's a shitty leader of his party. And even if he couldn't, you still vote against it, and then you make it an issue in the election explaining exactly why you voted against it. Call it the Bill Foster strategy.
It doesn't matter what he does, as Olbermann rightly pointed out, the Republicans are still going to paint him as "weak on terror." That being the case, don't piss off the people who keep giving you money. Oh, and do the right thing.
I can't tell if this is supposed to be snark or not, but it's actually what I would have suggested. Write the Obama campaign and let them know how you feel. Enough people do the same and ideally well get some sort of explanation.
Clinging guns religion, big huge deal in April?
Pandering to get fractions of a percent of the electorate to vote for you (McCain) is not quite the same as pandering to maintain viability (Obama).
John McCain.
How can you reasonably enforce that, though? I call shenanigans on this whole thing, and there's so much waffling going on we should rename it "Denny's Grand Slam Election Thread".
The Grand Slam doesn't have waffles, you latte sipping elitist. :P
That is the problem, as Jeff pointed out. I mean, theoretically it's a fine idea (and yeah I was against this back in 2001, but I was much more... let's say Qingu-esque back then), but incredibly difficult to impossible to enforce. You are in fact, correct.
So were you ninja'd or do you just have that level of Orwellian dissonance?
<insert joke about memory holes here>
You can get waffles if you ask them nicely.
Waffles > Pancakes
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Uhhh, if you really think of religion that way and also produce the flyer I linked, you're either cynical or bipolar. Totally salient.
You're trying to fight a whisper campaign smearing you based on rumors about your religion, because you would like to get elected President
perhaps
I guess this is for me, and it pretty much covers all of the responses that have been given. The problem I have with this is that you can't give money to a religious organization without proselytizing, as whoever is receiving the money is thinking "wow, my church/synagogue/mosque is really great" rather than thinking "wow, my government is really great". I guess it isn't really promoting a specific fundie agenda but I'm sure that fundies are going to love this program, as it is transferring some responsibility for the poor from the government to the church. That is why I think that this violates the separation of church and state.
I'm just hoping that this is more Machiavellian maneuvering and pandering, similar to the way he wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
Yeah, this.
Is it cynical? Maybe a little. But what do you do when your opponents' supporters have been telling a bunch of Working Class White Christian folks (read: xenophobic fundies) that you're a Stealth Muslim? Saying, "Dude, no I'm not" doesn't cut it. That flier targeted the type of folk who pretty much respond only to arguments based on religion. "Man, look at that cross behind me. That is one big effin' cross, I tell you what. See how effin' Christian I am?" He was fighting fire with fire. I don't really fault him for that.
It was pandering, but at least it's pandering based on stuff that he actually believes. It's better than the NAFTA shit, which he openly admits he doesn't completely agree with. We at least know that Obama's a Christian.
It technically doesn't unless it can be proved that viewpoint discrimination is being used to funnel money to certain sects and religions but not towards others. Except in so far as the IRS labeling an organization as religious to ensure they get the tax free shtick and qualify for this can be considered an endorsement of religion.
Unless you have some watchdog person at every charity event.
Problem is that denying money to a charitable organization that gives secular aid to the poor because that organization happens to be a church could arguably be deemed discrimination based on religion.
Also, I'm not exactly torn asunder by the knowledge that this program might make people feel less dependent on government to get by. If your argument rests on the idea that this policy will make fewer people think, "wow, my government is really great," then your argument is pretty lame.
It wouldn't be very christian of them.
After Obama gets elected I am going to fight this shit to the death.
Rigorous standards on accounting plus judicious use of audits, with serious fines for anyone caught fucking around?
You don't need to spy on everybody all the time. You just need to make sure that those who are caught serve as adequate examples.
Change 'churches' to 'charities.' Do you feel the same?
You could have a department to accept complaints and investigate them, like we do for workplace discrimination. It's not perfect, but it doesn't require a government official at every workplace.
Okay, let's stop there. Assume that it is, in fact, possible to make sure those funds only go towards charity. Why's it unacceptable? Because you're giving money to an organization that endorses religion? Doesn't matter what the money goes to, only who you're giving it to?
By that argument, wouldn't you also find it unacceptable to give unemployment benefits to a fundamentalist? After all, you're giving taxpayer dollars to someone who endorses God.
Exactly. Random spot-checks are more than enough, provided the penalties are stiff enough. "Okay, now you get to give back all the money, including the part you already spent. Oh, and we're fining you a hojillion dollars to boot."
This. The fear of losing tax-exempt status is usually enough to keep religious organizations on their best behavior.
Yes, it's a fairly risky proposition and could be potentially difficult to enforce properly. It's pretty much for those reasons that I don't really agree with it. It is also, however, not a fundamentally bad idea, simply one that is difficult to implement well.
Furthermore, and here's the thing, there are way bigger issues on the table than this. Forgive me for not shrieking until the windows shatter the second Obama does anything I don't completely agree with.
I believe it was said earlier in the thread that you probably won't find anyone in here who doesn't disagree with him on something. You don't seem to have listened, so let me try and lay it out again. Try and accept that it is possible, possible, that the support for Obama here is based on pragmatism rather than messianic awe, and that his goals are likewise rooted in pragmatism rather than an attempt to magically fix every problem the world has ever known all at once.
Because he is a pragmatist, he will engage in some degree of the usual maneuvering that a politician does, because if you don't get elected you don't accomplish jack shit.
And because the support for him here is likewise pragmatic, we won't automatically declare that to be a terrible thing.
There's a whole bunch of personal calculus that goes into the ultimate decision of "Obama is a good candidate, and McCain is a bad one." It includes a whole host of factors ranging from how often the usual bullshit goes on, to how egregious it is, to what the specific goals underlying it are, to whether or not the given candidate seems to have any goddamned idea what he's doing, and that calculus is different for everyone. It's also important to note that the "good" and "bad" in that conclusion are not moral judgements, either, in most cases.
So please don't roll in here and act like we're somehow not conforming to reality by not embodying the ridiculous strawman Left that Rush so dearly loves to Nail.
How many print papers will go out with this error?
There will always be a strong, subtle layer of emotional manipulation in religious charities. I do not want my money going towards that under any circumstance.
If Christians want to do charity work with government funds, they can volunteer at a government-funded soup kitchen or something, and follow the rules there.
For me the concern is that it becomes a patronage slush fund that simultaneously permits the government abdicating its responsibility to the poor, tired, huddled masses without necessarily giving them a better lot in their ever yearning quest to breathe free. It could be an incredibly efficient means to spend federal monies to ensure that redundancies occur less often and so more people get more help. It could also be a bunch of sweetheart deals wrapped up in the sacred cow of helping the less fortunate.
Not so much, actually. Some religious charities - hell, even some church sermons - don't come off as overly religious. Meanwhile, you can find people willing to preach to you while serving you a fucking burger at Mickey-Ds.
Are you more likely to see proselytizing at a religious charity than a non-religious one? Sure. Hence the oversight. Now, if you're of the opinion that it's an atrocity if some homeless guy hears the word "God" while getting his soup, then you're probably not going to care for this plan. Also, you have an unhealthy obsession with religion-hating and might want to get that checked out.
Yeah, I saw that on Sullivan's blog last night. It's hilarious that places automatically change some words like that to be PC or something. Well, words which aren't weeaboo, anyway.
That sounds more like a critique of government-funded charity in general.
None. Print papers are going to pull their stories straight from the AP, not reprint the altered version from some fundie rag.
I'm not as outright opposed to all religion everywhere as he is, but giving government money to a group that will more or less by nature exert at least a subtle influence on the faith of those around them seems a little iffy.