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.
People would incorrectly give credit to the churches for the aid, not the government which is responsible for the aid. And this is discriminating in favor of religion, as opposed to secularism.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
So you believe secular groups that want to help the poor should raise their own cash without government aid?
As an aside: Religious based charities are the same thing. The soup kitchen is an active face to the charity. Where do you think said charity's money Goes? You can raise money to help the needy all you want, but unless you spend it helping them, you aren't doing Dick.
Note: That's what the faith based initiatives thing is. It's not giving money to church X, it's having church X make a group to do project Y, and giving that group money. You're funding their after school education program, their soup kitchen, whatnot. Not the fucking church itself.
Thank you.
I guess I should actually, you know, read. I now appreciate the fact that churches have to go through the same line as everyone else in order to get federal aid. If a small church does a better job helping the poor than a large established charity, then give it to the church. I am still a bit wary of the ability to keep the lines separate, but I am willing to sit down and wait for the results.
Picardathon on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
I always agreed with the concept of "faith-based initiatives" but criticized Bush heavily for his implementation.
There's nothing inherently wrong with using an existing infrastructure and labor base (churches) to help the needy, and if done "right" it would probably get us much more bang for our buck.
But the oversight needs to be there, and so far it's all been of the nudging and winking variety.
Also, from what I understand there's some pretty heavy discrimination against non-Christian (and maybe Jewish) groups.
This.
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.
Maybe this discussion should be spun out into it's own thread. The general consensus is (or at least I think should be) Obama is treating this issue as well as it can be, the problem seems to be a fundamental disagreement about the nature of religious charities, which has a pretty tangential connection to the election.
No, I don't think he's handling the issue as well as it could be. I don't think that religious organizations should be treated as the charitable arm of the government.
My point was, given the idea that religious charities should be allowed to compete for federal grants with secular charities, Obama has addressed the issue of separate of church and state, oversight, and so on as well as it is possible to do so.
The issue people seem to be having (and your reply is exactly this) is whether or not the given is a valid proposition. Which is a fine thing to debate, but it has nothing to do with whether Obama is right or wrong on this issue and everything to do with a personal belief about the nature of religion and its role in society. Which is a fine thing to debate, and I'd be glad to chip in, but is just cluttering a thread about the election and would (maybe, so I was suggesting) better dealt with in a separate thread about this specific issue.
The church deserves some credit for getting the charity together and running it. Just like any group deserves some credit for it. The government helps fund it. By the same token, if churches can't give charity aid as well as secular groups, doesn't it mean you're biased against churches since these same people will think churches don't care about the needy?
Howabout we give charity funding to charities?
If they care about the needy they can organize their own charity with their own cash and get their money privately. Rend unto Caesar and some such.
And religious based charities are not the same thing. Religious based charities must know their shit and have a concrete focus on helping the poor only. That is true for random Church X.
Damn straight, collaboration is for commies and pussies (and pussy commies). We need 8 different soup kitchens competing with each other to get the hungry in their seats before the extra food has to be thrown out. Beggars are consumers too, and they should have a choice. Let the market figure out which ones survive to help others another day.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply. I don't think that Obama would do the same. Two, there were very few safeguards to make sure the money was only used for aid.
To be honest, the co-opting of progressivism by the militant atheists really bothers me.
Honest question: For the people who are defending the "faith based initiatives," how many of you criticized Bush for the same thing?
I realize that many of you probably agreed with it then, too. I'm just curious.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply. I don't think that Obama would do the same. Two, there were very few safeguards to make sure the money was only used for aid.
To be honest, the co-opting of progressivism by the militant atheists really bothers me.
Militant atheists have only taken on a couple roles. Most significantly their opposition of Intelligent Design in schools. I have no issues with their taking a leading role on that.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply.
How? cite please.
Speaking of which, you still have not explained what "that way" means in your post here You said Obama thinks "that way" about religion, but you never explained what that meant or cited where he said he believed it.
I guess I don't understand your reasoning then. Faith-based intitiatives are bad or good... depending on who the President is?
There are fundamental structural and regulatory differences between the two initiatives; Obama's plan seems (on paper) more institutionally resistant to the abuses (mild as they were) of Bush's plan.
You're looking for hypocrisy, but you aren't going to find it. Well, you are- people who opposed the very idea of a faith-based initiative are probably being hypocritical here, but the main problems with Bush's initiative wasn't that it used religions to achieve desirable social ends, but that it allowed those religions to appropriate public money for purposes specific to that religion's interests and not the general welfare.
EDIT: And also the system was...ah...reluctant, so to speak, to engage with non-Christian charities.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited July 2008
In general, Deacon, I think you'd find yourself in better discussions if you didn't treat every dialogue as a game of "Spot the Hypocrite".
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.
In general, Deacon, I think you'd find yourself in better discussions if you didn't treat every dialogue as a game of "Spot the Hypocrite".
Yeah, as annoying as hypocrisy is, a hypocrite can still speak the truth. It's not really a valid avenue of discussion and I think it's even on the Logical Fallacy list.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply.
How? cite please.
Speaking of which, you still have not explained what "that way" means in your post here You said Obama thinks "that way" about religion, but you never explained what that meant or cited where he said he believed it.
You indicated you were familiar with the comment in question.
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.
Is there any particular person i should write? I'm kind of bad at letters, anyone have suggestions what I should say?
98.3% of the Money given out via faith based initiatives went to Christian orgs.
Kalla said CARE made special efforts to fund faith-based groups, but she said administration officials sometimes criticized the grants that went to Muslim and Jewish groups.
``We were told repeatedly by staff at USAID directly in meetings that these were not the `right types' of faith-based organizations that the White House faith-based office was looking for," Kalla said. In an effort to placate USAID, she said, CARE awarded a $100,000 grant to Samaritan's Purse, a group run by Bush's friend, Rev. Franklin Graham, for work in Mozambique. She said USAID informed her it was the right type of faith-based group.
In general, Deacon, I think you'd find yourself in better discussions if you didn't treat every dialogue as a game of "Spot the Hypocrite".
Yeah, as annoying as hypocrisy is, a hypocrite can still speak the truth. It's not really a valid avenue of discussion and I think it's even on the Logical Fallacy list.
Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's argument can move them to figuring out why those inconsistencies exist, ultimately changing their stance on an issue, or at least pushing them to realize they support the positions for different reasons than they previously thought. I mean, it can result in good.
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
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.
In general, Deacon, I think you'd find yourself in better discussions if you didn't treat every dialogue as a game of "Spot the Hypocrite".
Thank you for the generalization, but I don't see the problem with asking for a basic level of internal consistency.
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama. You mainly exist in these threads to try and sow discord amongst those who do support him. What the hell do you really care? You're obviously not interested in real discussion.
On topic (as far as I can be, anyways): I've never liked the Faith Based Initiative, mainly because it favors religious charities over secular ones- and as referenced- is used to support the "right" kinds of charities. Another example of Bush's ideals trumping the common good of the people.
Tach on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
On topic (as far as I can be, anyways): I've never liked the Faith Based Initiative, mainly because it favors religious charities over secular ones- and as referenced- is used to support the "right" kinds of charities. Another example of Bush's ideals trumping the common good of the people.
Yes, but this mostly stemmed from Bush cronyism, rather than a flaw in Faith Based Initiative itself.
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
When the person who believes something other than X is the party's candidate, it is salient.
98.3% of the Money given out via faith based initiatives went to Christian orgs.
Kalla said CARE made special efforts to fund faith-based groups, but she said administration officials sometimes criticized the grants that went to Muslim and Jewish groups.
``We were told repeatedly by staff at USAID directly in meetings that these were not the `right types' of faith-based organizations that the White House faith-based office was looking for," Kalla said. In an effort to placate USAID, she said, CARE awarded a $100,000 grant to Samaritan's Purse, a group run by Bush's friend, Rev. Franklin Graham, for work in Mozambique. She said USAID informed her it was the right type of faith-based group.
Now that many of you have responded, much of it boils down to "Obama will do better with it than Bush did." So what happens after Obama leaves?
If a program is so dependent upon who is running it to determine whether it's abused, the program probably shouldn't be implemented. And I realize this could technically be applied to any program - but everyone seems to agree that this one seems more prone to it than most others.
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
When the person who believes something other than X is the party's candidate, it is salient.
And here again you fail to realize that you can support someone without supporting 100% of their stances.
Now that many of you have responded, much of it boils down to "Obama will do better with it than Bush did." So what happens after Obama leaves?
If a program is so dependent upon who is running it to determine whether it's abused, the program probably shouldn't be implemented. And I realize this could technically be applied to any program - but everyone seems to agree that this one seems more prone to it than most others.
I don't grant your last point. I think this administration is more prone to these kinds of ethical violations than any in recent memory. They are at the very least less worried about hiding these kinds of lapses.
Woooo! Pew poll shows that 10% of America thinks Obama is a muslim which I think is down from the 12% it was at previously. I can always pretend that this is progress and not just statistical variation, right?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I love Kathleen Sebelius. I think she is as talented a public official as there is right now. Integrity. Competence. She can work with all people of all walks of life, but I promised that I am not going to say anything about my vice president until I actually introduce my vice president.
Woooo! Pew poll shows that 10% of America thinks Obama is a muslim which I think is down from the 12% it was at previously. I can always pretend that this is progress and not just statistical variation, right?
I just assume that anyone who thinks that Obama is a Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway if they knew the truth. I assume this because its rather obvious.
peaking of which, you still have not explained what "that way" means in your post here You said Obama thinks "that way" about religion, but you never explained what that meant or cited where he said he believed it.
You indicated you were familiar with the comment in question.
Yes, and how do you interpret it? Because for you to say the comment indicates that Obama feels "that way" about religion, it's obvious that you've got a different interpretation from me (and presumably templewulf).
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
When the person who believes something other than X is the party's candidate, it is salient.
That seems to be assuming that a party's stance should match 100% a party member's stances.
This is amazingly false in almost all cases, and boils down to individuality. It's also the reason straight ticket voters are horribly stupid.
So you're basically arguing against a caricature of what you think a candidate should be?
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama.
This is a general election thread. People who don't like McCain don't stop posting about him because they've already expressed that opinion.
You mainly exist in these threads to try and sow discord amongst those who do support him. What the hell do you really care? You're obviously not interested in real discussion.
Sour grapes. I think we've had several really good, deep discussions because of points I've brought up. No one likes being challenged, so I'm obviously not going to win any popularity contests.
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama.
This is a general election thread. People who don't like McCain don't stop posting about him because they've already expressed that opinion.
You mainly exist in these threads to try and sow discord amongst those who do support him. What the hell do you really care? You're obviously not interested in real discussion.
Sour grapes. I think we've had several really good, deep discussions because of points I've brought up. No one likes being challenged, so I'm obviously not going to win any popularity contests.
I like challenges, your average challenge usually boils down to picking the weakest responding post to you and propping it up as the position of "the left" and arguing against that.
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama.
This is a general election thread. People who don't like McCain don't stop posting about him because they've already expressed that opinion.
You mainly exist in these threads to try and sow discord amongst those who do support him. What the hell do you really care? You're obviously not interested in real discussion.
Sour grapes. I think we've had several really good, deep discussions because of points I've brought up. No one likes being challenged, so I'm obviously not going to win any popularity contests.
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
When the person who believes something other than X is the party's candidate, it is salient.
I'm not sure how to parse this - are you saying that a party's candidate may not possess opinions different from the party's? I don't even know who you're accusing of hypocrisy any more. Obama? The Left? Party Dems?
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.
Now that many of you have responded, much of it boils down to "Obama will do better with it than Bush did." So what happens after Obama leaves?
If a program is so dependent upon who is running it to determine whether it's abused, the program probably shouldn't be implemented. And I realize this could technically be applied to any program - but everyone seems to agree that this one seems more prone to it than most others.
I don't grant your last point. I think this administration is more prone to these kinds of ethical violations than any in recent memory. They are at the very least less worried about hiding these kinds of lapses.
Even with institutional frameworks to prevent abuse this is likely going to become a big chunk of patronage/pork from the administration du jour. It isn't a deal breaker or anything like that, but I still think it's a bad idea.
moniker on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama.
This is a general election thread. People who don't like McCain don't stop posting about him because they've already expressed that opinion.
C'mon, do we really want to establish Obama-love as a pre-req for posting in here?
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.
That seems to be assuming that a party's stance should match 100% a party member's stances.
This is amazingly false in almost all cases, and boils down to individuality. It's also the reason straight ticket voters are horribly stupid.
That's a fair point. I guess from my perspective I've seen go many people rage against a_bush_policy_00 over the years that when Obama comes along and the same people start searching for ways to give him a pass... I suppose I overreact.
DeaconBlues on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Now that many of you have responded, much of it boils down to "Obama will do better with it than Bush did." So what happens after Obama leaves?
If a program is so dependent upon who is running it to determine whether it's abused, the program probably shouldn't be implemented. And I realize this could technically be applied to any program - but everyone seems to agree that this one seems more prone to it than most others.
I don't grant your last point. I think this administration is more prone to these kinds of ethical violations than any in recent memory. They are at the very least less worried about hiding these kinds of lapses.
Even with institutional frameworks to prevent abuse this is likely going to become a big chunk of patronage/pork from the administration du jour. It isn't a deal breaker or anything like that, but I still think it's a bad idea.
You may have answered this already, but are you opposed to the faith-based part, or the idea of the fed giving money to charities 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.
Posts
Thank you.
I guess I should actually, you know, read. I now appreciate the fact that churches have to go through the same line as everyone else in order to get federal aid. If a small church does a better job helping the poor than a large established charity, then give it to the church. I am still a bit wary of the ability to keep the lines separate, but I am willing to sit down and wait for the results.
My point was, given the idea that religious charities should be allowed to compete for federal grants with secular charities, Obama has addressed the issue of separate of church and state, oversight, and so on as well as it is possible to do so.
The issue people seem to be having (and your reply is exactly this) is whether or not the given is a valid proposition. Which is a fine thing to debate, but it has nothing to do with whether Obama is right or wrong on this issue and everything to do with a personal belief about the nature of religion and its role in society. Which is a fine thing to debate, and I'd be glad to chip in, but is just cluttering a thread about the election and would (maybe, so I was suggesting) better dealt with in a separate thread about this specific issue.
I lol'd, even though it was at my expense.
The main reason that I opposed the Bush version is twofold. One, he made it clear that only Christians need apply. I don't think that Obama would do the same. Two, there were very few safeguards to make sure the money was only used for aid.
To be honest, the co-opting of progressivism by the militant atheists really bothers me.
Militant atheists have only taken on a couple roles. Most significantly their opposition of Intelligent Design in schools. I have no issues with their taking a leading role on that.
How? cite please.
Speaking of which, you still have not explained what "that way" means in your post here You said Obama thinks "that way" about religion, but you never explained what that meant or cited where he said he believed it.
There are fundamental structural and regulatory differences between the two initiatives; Obama's plan seems (on paper) more institutionally resistant to the abuses (mild as they were) of Bush's plan.
You're looking for hypocrisy, but you aren't going to find it. Well, you are- people who opposed the very idea of a faith-based initiative are probably being hypocritical here, but the main problems with Bush's initiative wasn't that it used religions to achieve desirable social ends, but that it allowed those religions to appropriate public money for purposes specific to that religion's interests and not the general welfare.
EDIT: And also the system was...ah...reluctant, so to speak, to engage with non-Christian charities.
I hope you were joking.
Yeah, as annoying as hypocrisy is, a hypocrite can still speak the truth. It's not really a valid avenue of discussion and I think it's even on the Logical Fallacy list.
You indicated you were familiar with the comment in question.
Is there any particular person i should write? I'm kind of bad at letters, anyone have suggestions what I should say?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/09/religious_right_wields_clout/
98.3% of the Money given out via faith based initiatives went to Christian orgs.
Thank you for the generalization, but I don't see the problem with asking for a basic level of internal consistency.
Pointing out inconsistencies in someone's argument can move them to figuring out why those inconsistencies exist, ultimately changing their stance on an issue, or at least pushing them to realize they support the positions for different reasons than they previously thought. I mean, it can result in good.
But when that's the main weapon in your arsenal, and when it's not even well applied, it just bogs down discussion. Deacon's principle form of this accusation is "The Left says X, but you, specific person on an internet forum, say Not X. Hypocrite!" One might be led to believe that perhaps whoever this idea of The Left is, it's not coherent enough to be useful as anything other than a convenient strawman.
Obama doesn't support abstinence only education.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Why? You've already made it clear you don't like Obama. You mainly exist in these threads to try and sow discord amongst those who do support him. What the hell do you really care? You're obviously not interested in real discussion.
On topic (as far as I can be, anyways): I've never liked the Faith Based Initiative, mainly because it favors religious charities over secular ones- and as referenced- is used to support the "right" kinds of charities. Another example of Bush's ideals trumping the common good of the people.
When the person who believes something other than X is the party's candidate, it is salient.
Awesome. Thanks for this.
If a program is so dependent upon who is running it to determine whether it's abused, the program probably shouldn't be implemented. And I realize this could technically be applied to any program - but everyone seems to agree that this one seems more prone to it than most others.
And here again you fail to realize that you can support someone without supporting 100% of their stances.
Depends on whether or not Obama installs an institutional framework to preserve his modifications.
I just assume that anyone who thinks that Obama is a Muslim wouldn't vote for him anyway if they knew the truth. I assume this because its rather obvious.
Edit: Verrrry eeeenteresting, Lion.
That seems to be assuming that a party's stance should match 100% a party member's stances.
This is amazingly false in almost all cases, and boils down to individuality. It's also the reason straight ticket voters are horribly stupid.
So you're basically arguing against a caricature of what you think a candidate should be?
This is a general election thread. People who don't like McCain don't stop posting about him because they've already expressed that opinion.
Sour grapes. I think we've had several really good, deep discussions because of points I've brought up. No one likes being challenged, so I'm obviously not going to win any popularity contests.
I like challenges, your average challenge usually boils down to picking the weakest responding post to you and propping it up as the position of "the left" and arguing against that.
I like having you around.
Circle jerks are boring.
I'm not sure how to parse this - are you saying that a party's candidate may not possess opinions different from the party's? I don't even know who you're accusing of hypocrisy any more. Obama? The Left? Party Dems?
Even with institutional frameworks to prevent abuse this is likely going to become a big chunk of patronage/pork from the administration du jour. It isn't a deal breaker or anything like that, but I still think it's a bad idea.
C'mon, do we really want to establish Obama-love as a pre-req for posting in here?
That's a fair point. I guess from my perspective I've seen go many people rage against a_bush_policy_00 over the years that when Obama comes along and the same people start searching for ways to give him a pass... I suppose I overreact.
You may have answered this already, but are you opposed to the faith-based part, or the idea of the fed giving money to charities in general?