Faith-based groups got $1 billion in 2003

[Faithless]

In the past, government has refrained from giving money directly to religious groups, but it has required they set up independent, secular organizations to get taxpayer dollars. Bush tried to get Congress to change that. Congress refused, so he unilaterally put many of his changes into effect.

Records show $1 billion to faith-based groups (http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/breaking/010305faith_money.html)
Jan. 3, 2005

The Associated Press

advertisement

WASHINGTON - In New Haven, Conn., AIDS counselors don't hesitate to stop and pray anytime someone needs a boost. In Charleston, S.C., Crisis Ministries provides shelter and meals for the homeless and the hungry.
Both are on a White House list of "faith-based organizations" that together received more than $1 billion in federal grants in 2003. But when it comes to religion, the groups' philosophies are quite different.

The Connecticut AIDS program doesn't hesitate to incorporate religion into its program. But in South Carolina, Crisis Ministries doesn't consider itself religious at all.

"Someone has obviously designated us a faith-based organization, but we don't recognize ourselves as that," said Stacey Denaux, executive director of Crisis Ministries.

Hers was one of many groups with entirely secular missions that were surprised to find their names on a list of faith-based groups provided to The Associated Press by the White House.

Other grant recipients are overtly religious, offering social service programs that the government may have deemed too religious to receive money before President Bush launched his "faith-based initiative."

Visitors to TMM Family Services in Tucson, Ariz., which received $25,000 for housing counseling, are greeted by a picture of Jesus and quotes from the Bible.

"We believe that people being connected to the faith of their choice is important to them having a productive life," said Don Strauch, an ordained minister and executive director of the group, which offers a variety of social services. "Just because we take government money doesn't mean we back down on that philosophy."

All told, religious-oriented groups were awarded $1.17 billion in 2003. That is about 8 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments. White House officials expect the total to grow.

The list of 2003 grant recipients provided to AP is the first detailed tally of the dollars behind this "faith-based initiative."

Elected with strong support of religious conservatives, Bush came to office promising to open government's checkbook to religious groups that provide social services. Often, Bush says, religious groups do a better job serving the poor than do government agencies.

Civil libertarians fear the government will wind up paying for worship, eroding the constitutional separation between church and state.

Jim Towey, who directs the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said the administration has been clear that "government money is not to fund religious activities."

"This is a culture change in the way government provides social services," he said. "There's always going to be a very delicate balance."

In the past, government has refrained from giving money directly to religious groups, but it has required they set up independent, secular organizations to get taxpayer dollars. Bush tried to get Congress to change that. Congress refused, so he unilaterally put many of his changes into effect.

The White House also hosted several conferences explaining the relaxed rules and put out a book listing programs participants might want to apply for.

"We feel much more at ease," said Louis Wonderly, past president of the Luther House Foundation of Southern Chester County, Pa. The group was awarded $10.3 million to build an apartment building for low-income older people.

"We won't have to say, `Oh my goodness, is it terrible to have a cross hanging on a bulletin board?"' Wonderly said.

It is unclear how much religion is too much religion when government money is involved. The courts have issued mixed rulings. The administration says a group getting federal money can sponsor worship and other religious activities so long as they are separated by time and location from activities paid by the government.

In New Haven, Conn., Women in Search of Health Education and Spirituality got almost $500,000 to help AIDS patients who are just out of drug treatment. Each session begins with a daily affirmation, where each participant chooses something to read, religious or secular.

The program's director, Patricia Lafayette, said a spiritual connection is emphasized. "Generally, that's the key to recovery," she said.

"We pray anytime someone asks," added Joyce Poole, director of the AIDS Interfaith Network, which sponsors the program. "Some clients walk in and say they need a prayer and a hug and we stop whatever we're doing for them."

At the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., Life Connections got more than $50,000 to help inmates who are about to be freed and who volunteer to participate and pick one of six religious programs to follow. Activities include a two-week spiritual retreat and six weeks of intense religious study.

White House aides declined to say whether those particular programs were appropriate.

The grants on the White House list were not specifically targeted to religious organizations. Rather, the list includes all groups believed to be faith-based that won competitive federal grants open to all applicants.

Specifically, it includes recipients of competitive grants administered by five federal departments: Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Labor and Justice. Not included are the billions sent to the states for distribution.

An AP analysis of the $1.17 billion and nearly 150 interviews in 30 states with grant recipients found:

-Many are well-established, large social service providers that have received federal money for decades. More than 80 percent of recipients at HHS had received federal money before. At HUD, the figure was 93 percent.

-Two programs account for half of the $1.17 billion total: A HUD program known as Section 202 that builds housing for low-income poor people, and Head Start, a large preschool program for poor children. Both are dominated by longtime grant recipients able to handle large amounts of money - not the small church groups sometimes evoked by the White House.

-Many organizations insist they do not belong on a list of faith-based organizations, even though they may have religious roots. White House officials said the list included groups that had identified themselves as faith-based and groups that officials thought were religious, based on their names.

More common: groups with a religious perspective that steer clear of proselytization.

"We intentionally avoid references to God and his works in our educational material so that no one will feel intimidated or avoid our services because they're of a different religion," said Sue Ortiz, a home ownership counselor at Inner City Christian Federation in Grand Rapids, Mich., which got $65,000 in 2003 and $150,000 in 2004.

But religion inspires their work, she said: "We do what we do because of God's love."
.
http://www.progress.org/2004/stasi04.htm

To Bush and his ilk, life, despite its being a gift from God, is trivialized as nothing more than a dress rehearsal for the afterlife. Here you make your mistakes, and here you correct them in order to achieve salvation.
So, in essense, AIDS patients need salvation more than hospice care.

[deez nuts]

why are you always criticizing/bashing on church groups?

[Faithless]

why are you always criticizing/bashing on church groups?
It's my calling. :rolleyes:

With this issue, there's just something that sticks in my craw about saying, in affect, "come to god, and he'll help you", rather than saying, "come to us, we'll give you medicine, food, etc."

I realize that there are a few shelters that tie starvation in with salvation. I used to volunteer at the Richmond Rescue Mission (in CA).

But there's something to be said with saying that the Bible is the answer to all our ills, including AIDS.

There also seems to be something sort of shady with Bush going around congress when it seems that they said "no" before.

[yoMAMA]

why are you always criticizing/bashing on church groups?

because they are a bunch of hypocrites that say one thing and do another?

such as, but not limited to, supposedly doing God's work and molesting little boys and girls at the same time....and cover up for it too.

This "God" guy doesn't seem to care too much, though.

[deez nuts]

i don't know i was just curious about the etiology what almost seems like a deep rooted distrust and to a certain degree animosity towards churches amongst some of the members here.

like did one of those missionary guys on the streets get too aggressive with you? the door to door church guy wouldn't take no and stop ringing your doorbell? father nelson gave you an inappropriate version of the "half nelson" when you were young?

it's more curiousity than criticism on my part.

[yoMAMA]

i don't know i was just curious about the etiology what almost seems like a deep rooted distrust and to a certain degree about churches amongst some of the members here. like did one of those missionary guys on the streets get too aggressive with you? the door to door church guy wouldn't take no and stop ringing your doorbell? father nelson gave you an inappropriate version of the "half nelson" when you were young?

it's more curiousity than criticism on my part.

organized religion [especially the 3 abrahamic versions] seems to be more about mindless brainwashing than anything IMHO.

[Emperor_Mike]

why are you always criticizing/bashing on church groups?

He's merely posting a story and giving an opinion.

In any case, issues like these surface on the account of the theoretical concept known as the separation of Church and State. If the government leans toward any single denomination some may see it as biased support for a particular brand of doctrines. If church groups have the funds to provide social aid through community programmes, but require potential recipients to defer in some measure to the Christian faith which may offend practitioners of other religions (or atheists,) people would cry foul.

In addition, there's the First Amendment issue involving the religion clauses and especially the Establishment Clause. Everson v. The Board of Education considered without dissent that the preferential treatment of any one religion by the government is strictly forbidden by the Establishment Clause. Jefferson himself wrote to Danbury Baptists in 1802 stating in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment was designed as a wall to separate Church and State. Consider the following from Abington School District v. Schempp regarding two of the three standards for Establishment Clause validity:

''The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.''

Consider the third standard where the issue is whether the governmental initiative is...:

''...an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree . . . [T]he questions are whether the involvement is excessive, and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement.''

Package it all together and you have CJ Burger's opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzmann that restated the three standards for EC validity.

For the majority of the population it is less a legal matter and more of an issue of preferential treatment by the government of a single faith.

[deez nuts]

He's merely posting a story and giving an opinion.


wow. hi, master of the obvious,

i was just curious about the reasoning behind that opinion.

[Emperor_Mike]

wow. hi, master of the obvious,

i was just curious about the reasoning behind that opinion.

Edited for content, I see. :rolleyes:

You needn't be possessed of an opinion on any particular issue to post up a story of interest. In fact, I don't think CM even gave his two cents on the matter in the initial post.

[Faithless]

i don't know i was just curious about the etiology what almost seems like a deep rooted distrust and to a certain degree animosity towards churches amongst some of the members here.

like did one of those missionary guys on the streets get too aggressive with you? the door to door church guy wouldn't take no and stop ringing your doorbell? father nelson gave you an inappropriate version of the "half nelson" when you were young?

it's more curiousity than criticism on my part.
You mean like, did Father MayI say, "kneel before me son, and receive the nectar of god?" No. Nothing like that.

(Although, I do remember very boring, long, religious cerimonies when I was a kid, sitting around, waiting for my mom to finish singing Christian hymns in Japanese. Boy! That woman could sing loud -- like she was auditioning.)

No. I think my opinion of religion is one shaped by years of listening and reading other religious people who believe in separation of church and state, as well as, a liberal theology / non-evangelical.

[deez nuts]

Edited for content, I see. :rolleyes:

You needn't be possessed of an opinion on any particular issue to post up a story of interest. In fact, I don't think CM even gave his two cents on the matter in the initial post.


of course, i had to tone it down ol 'chap.


well i gathered from his previous posts and this comment:

So, in essense, AIDS patients need salvation more than hospice care.

he has some sort of distrust and borderline animosity towards organized religion. him and yell0man are like husband and wife when it comes to debating religion.

[Faithless]

.
organized religion [especially the 3 abrahamic versions] seems to be more about mindless brainwashing than anything IMHO.
Yeah, but, you look at some of these shelters (many of them), they bring you to god, but they're the many that are caring for the homeless, etc.

[yoMAMA]

You mean like, did Father MayI say, "kneel before me son, and receive the nectar of god?" No. Nothing like that.

LOL.......almost destroyed my monitor..... :wink:

[Faithless]

.
Edited for content, I see. :rolleyes:

You needn't be possessed of an opinion on any particular issue to post up a story of interest. In fact, I don't think CM even gave his two cents on the matter in the initial post.
In a way, I did.

I only post articles that stick it to religion. Yarrr!!! (Just kidding.)

[deez nuts]

.

In a way, I did.

I only post articles that stick it to religion. Yarrr!!! (Just kidding.)

no. you post about rap music too.

i don't necessarily say you post articles that stick it to religion. but, your general outlook when it comes to organized religion is more on the side of cynicism and distrust. i was just wondering where it was coming from. nothing more and nothing less.

maybe i can bring you back to jesus.

[Faithless]

of course, i had to tone it down ol 'chap.
I love EM. Whenever I read his posts, I have the voice of Sir UpperCrust in my head. :biggrin:

well i gathered from his previous posts and this comment:

he has some sort of distrust and borderline animosity towards organized religion. him and yell0man are like husband and wife when it comes to debating religion.
I think kuilong is better at debating religion. Pretty good for a 17 year old. :rolleyes:
But I am not an atheist.

I just see Christianity as being too dominated by conservative think. And I don't believe that a Jesus was really like that.

But yet we do all this stuff "in his name".

If he were alive today, I can imagine him asking for direct forms of aid to the needy, than a bible-in-hand.

.
maybe i can bring you back to jesus.
You can. You know a church that raps Song of Psalms? :rolleyes:

[yoMAMA]

CB, are you a christian?

Just wondering....nothing more, nothing less.

;)

[deez nuts]

CB, are you a christian?

Just wondering....nothing more, nothing less.

;)


no.

see how simple that was. nothing more. nothing less. straight foward and succinct.

[Emperor_Mike]

In all honesty, I believe the ones who scream the loudest about Church & State are those who, for some reason, fear religion. I admit that it's an unfounded opinion on my part, but when I was participating in a workshop on politics, society and Christianity last year in Ireland I had a chance encounter with a group of near-fanatical social activists. These people were completely anti-religion and were advocates of the total abolishment of Catholic private schools and the complete eradication of Catholicism from government institutions. Being of the curious sort, I questioned them on their faith and it came as no surprise when they all stated that they were atheists. To support the separation of Church and State on legitimate social grounds is one thing, but to join the cause on the account that you don't like the faith is deplorable in my opinion.

[yoMAMA]

no.

see how simple that was. nothing more. nothing less. straight foward and succinct.

here's a tougher question:

are you a bootyologist?

[Emperor_Mike]

of course, i had to tone it down ol 'chap.
...

Exxxcellent.

[deez nuts]

here's a tougher question:

are you a bootyologist?


no.

but, i'm thinking about becoming jewish and raising my kids jewish.

hence my initial question to chotto.

In all honesty, I believe the ones who scream the loudest about Church & State are those who, for some reason, fear religion. I admit that it's an unfounded opinion on my part, but when I was participating in a workshop on politics, society and Christianity last year in Ireland I had a chance encounter with a group of near-fanatical social activists. These people were completely anti-religion and were advocates of the total abolishment of Catholic private schools and the complete eradication of Catholicism from government institutions. Being of the curious sort, I questioned them on their faith and it came as no surprise when they all stated that they were atheists. To support the separation of Church and State on legitimate social grounds is one thing, but to join the cause on the account that you don't like the faith is deplorable in my opinion.

that's a good observation. it makes sense.

Exxxcellent.


i have to be a role model.

[Faithless]

In all honesty, I believe the ones who scream the loudest about Church & State are those who, for some reason, fear religion. I admit that it's an unfounded opinion on my part, but when I was participating in a workshop on politics, society and Christianity last year in Ireland I had a chance encounter with a group of near-fanatical social activists. These people were completely anti-religion and were advocates of the total abolishment of Catholic private schools and the complete eradication of Catholicism from government institutions. Being of the curious sort, I questioned them on their faith and it came as no surprise when they all stated that they were atheists. To support the separation of Church and State on legitimate social grounds is one thing, but to join the cause on the account that you don't like the faith is deplorable in my opinion.
Maybe they fear religion, and maybe they fear the people behind these religions.

Just look at what was done within the context of the King James version of the bible.

Like many have said, here, the bible is just an object with text in it (somewhat normalized -- widely instantiated). And lots of gold leaf.

But in the hands of many, the text seems to have been transformed into a lot of ill will.

But what gets me is Bush trying to push the faith-based non-profits in this realm. Why them over, say, Planned Parenthood <* lobs softball *>.

[hooligan]

Well, if we're going to start asking specific questions about what YWers does what, so why does Yell0man always post painfully obvious threads that either 1. have to do with a religious point of view on a subject (same sex marriage) or 2. point out how religion (ie christianity) needs to be promoted more often in our society? Where is HE coming from?

[Faithless]

Well, if we're going to start asking specific questions about what YWers does what, so why does Yell0man always post painfully obvious threads that either 1. have to do with a religious point of view on a subject (same sex marriage) or 2. point out how religion (ie christianity) needs to be promoted more often in our society? Where is HE coming from?
Hm.

It's his priviledge within YW's rules, as much as it is anyone else's.

[deez nuts]

Well, if we're going to start asking specific questions about what YWers does what, so why does Yell0man always post painfully obvious threads that either 1. have to do with a religious point of view on a subject (same sex marriage) or 2. point out how religion (ie christianity) needs to be promoted more often in our society? Where is HE coming from?

i think there's a misunderstanding and/or some of you are just being too sensitive.

my reasoning for asking why chotto seems critical about organized religion isn't to criticize him but rather because i am researching different religions. i want to hear the pros and cons.

i'm not denying or questioning his right to post. but, rather asking for his take. hence, my initial post. i can see how it can be misleading. i should've elaborated more.

now that's cleared up, we can all have a cookie now.

i believe some of you fuckers owe me an apology.

but, like jesus, i forgive you with or without an apology.

[kimpossible]

wow. what a sensitive bunch of ladies you are.

[Faithless]

now that's cleared up, we can all have a cookie now.

i believe some of you fuckers owe me an apology.

but, like jesus, i forgive you with or without an apology.

I don't like YW's cookies. The damn sesame seeds get stuck in my wide gaps.

And I don't mind the questioning, since I'm self-righteous about religion. :rolleyes:

It's a sexy topic. Everybody comes down with an opinion, it seems.

As far as the article goes:
The list of 2003 grant recipients provided to AP is the first detailed tally of the dollars behind this "faith-based initiative."
I'm wondering what percentage of these organizations are Christian.

Well, even if they were 50-50 Christian and other, there's still an issue with church and state to me.

[kitty]

In all honesty, I believe the ones who scream the loudest about Church & State are those who, for some reason, fear religion. I admit that it's an unfounded opinion on my part, but when I was participating in a workshop on politics, society and Christianity last year in Ireland I had a chance encounter with a group of near-fanatical social activists. These people were completely anti-religion and were advocates of the total abolishment of Catholic private schools and the complete eradication of Catholicism from government institutions. Being of the curious sort, I questioned them on their faith and it came as no surprise when they all stated that they were atheists. To support the separation of Church and State on legitimate social grounds is one thing, but to join the cause on the account that you don't like the faith is deplorable in my opinion.

I think that's unfair and inaccurate. I think it's possible to be vehemently for a separation of church and state, and still have no problem with healthy religion in the private sphere. I'm not for the abolishment of Catholic private schools, but I would be for a greater removal of Judeo-Christian religion from government institutions.

That's not a fear of religion, it's a belief that the status quo inadvertently or at least subtley promotes the practice of one religion over another. Having our government sanction or place one religion into predominance or greater validity over another pretty much counsels us that one religion is 'more right' than another.

I think your characterization is pretty unfair, given that there are plenty of people out there who advocate church/state separation who maintain a healthy spirituality. We're not all evil, heathen atheists, and I think this characterization diminishes that position as a that of a purely anti-religion 'hater', rather than one that might have some First Amendment merit.

[hooligan]

<3 sorry bunboy, now kiss my ass <3

[kimpossible]

<3 sorry bunboy, now kiss my ass <3

you going to post your cheeks again?

[deez nuts]

<3 sorry bunboy, now kiss my ass <3


bend over and spread them cheeks.

to all you fanatic religion folk and fanatic anti religion folk. i am watching this thread. i am watching you and

i.........

see.........

you.........

[nola]

That's not a fear of religion, it's a belief that the status quo inadvertently or at least subtley promotes the practice of one religion over another. Having our government sanction or place one religion into predominance or greater validity over another pretty much counsels us that one religion is 'more right' than another.

I think your characterization is pretty unfair, given that there are plenty of people out there who advocate church/state separation who maintain a healthy spirituality. We're not all evil, heathen atheists, and I think this characterization diminishes that position as a that of a purely anti-religion 'hater', rather than one that might have some First Amendment merit.No, she's right, there's a very heavy pro-Christian/anti-other-religion bias in this country. All religions should be equally supported/unsupported.

[A.R.A.M.]

I think I would have liked the article to break down how much each religion got in federal money. Bush's last State of the Union speech stressed that the money was available to all religions (well he only specifically mentioned the Judeo-Christian religions). But how was this money allocated in practice? Was it only Christian organizations that got money? I heard the big-time TV evangelists got shitloads of money, but did any Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim groups get any money for their social programs? What about the smaller religions that Bush doesn't think are actually religions? Did they get any money to carry out their social programs?

[Faithless]

I think I would have liked the article to break down how much each religion got in federal money. Bush's last State of the Union speech stressed that the money was available to all religions (well he only specifically mentioned the Judeo-Christian religions). But how was this money allocated in practice? Was it only Christian organizations that got money? I heard the big-time TV evangelists got shitloads of money, but did any Jewish, Buddhist, or Muslim groups get any money for their social programs? What about the smaller religions that Bush doesn't think are actually religions? Did they get any money to carry out their social programs?
I think, but I'm not positive, that a sampling maybe here --
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010625.html
Boys and Girls Town
Center for Public Justice
Empower America
Habitat for Humanity International
National Baptist Convention U.S.A. Inc., Housing Commission
National Association of Evangelicals
National Center for Community Economic Development
National Center for Faith-Based Initiative
National Catholic Council for Hispanic Ministry
New York Hispanic Clergy Association
National Hispanic Religious Partnership
Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development
Salvation Army
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations
U.S. Catholic Conference

Maybe someone can find a better link from here --
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

There is this link, as well, which talks about Bush's total faith based initiatives --
http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

[yoMAMA]

no.

but, i'm thinking about becoming jewish and raising my kids jewish.

hence my initial question to chotto.




but, can you give up chasiubao for God?

:wink:

[Faithless]

but, can you give up chasiubao for God?

:wink:
God is in chasiubao!

From that link -- http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm
The Washington Post reported back in July, 2001, that the Bush administration made a deal with the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army would spend upwards of $110,000 per month to lobby for Bush's faith Based Initiative, and the White House would give the Salvation Army a "firm commitment" allowing greater freedom in discrimination against gays in employment. The New York Times reports, 2/5/04, that the New York City Salvation Army is requiring employees to fill out forms stating their religion, among other things (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/25/nyregion/25salvation.html?ex=1104901200&en=e8391aca70500f4d&ei=5070&oref=login).
.
Another link to the Salvation Army lawsuit --
http://www.fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=62100048

[yoMAMA]

God is in chasiubao!

he is?

:eek:



We're not all evil, heathen atheists

I'm a heathen and atheist........but,

I'm not evil :tongue:

[Emperor_Mike]

Maybe they fear religion, and maybe they fear the people behind these religions.

Just look at what was done within the context of the King James version of the bible.

Like many have said, here, the bible is just an object with text in it (somewhat normalized -- widely instantiated). And lots of gold leaf.

But in the hands of many, the text seems to have been transformed into a lot of ill will.

But what gets me is Bush trying to push the faith-based non-profits in this realm. Why them over, say, Planned Parenthood <* lobs softball *>.

Mmmmhmmm, I agree with your assessment. I must say that it's a damned shame that certain practioners of the faith have taken it upon themselves to "spread the good news" in such a manner as to put people off Christianity. The atheists I spoke with viewed the religion as a "threat" to (Irish) social values and tolerance. To be sure, their crusade for the separation of Church and State was embarked upon in highly questionable circumstances, but it was sad to witness first hand just how a faith founded on good principles can actually turn people away from it on the account of intransigence.

I think that's unfair and inaccurate. I think it's possible to be vehemently for a separation of church and state, and still have no problem with healthy religion in the private sphere. I'm not for the abolishment of Catholic private schools, but I would be for a greater removal of Judeo-Christian religion from government institutions.

That's not a fear of religion, it's a belief that the status quo inadvertently or at least subtley promotes the practice of one religion over another. Having our government sanction or place one religion into predominance or greater validity over another pretty much counsels us that one religion is 'more right' than another.

I think your characterization is pretty unfair, given that there are plenty of people out there who advocate church/state separation who maintain a healthy spirituality. We're not all evil, heathen atheists, and I think this characterization diminishes that position as a that of a purely anti-religion 'hater', rather than one that might have some First Amendment merit.

I recognise that one can be for the separation of Church and State and still have a healthy relationship with religion. That's my status actually. I'm a practising Catholic and I'm completely for the construction and maintenance of a giant wall between government and religion.

I believe I missed a key word in my previous post: "most" as in "most of the ones who scream the loudest..." It's disturbing how the lack of four letters can throw an entire point of view completely off centre.

In any case, it was not meant to be a gross generalisation that all who protest vehemently against the joining of Church and State are fearful of religion.

Oops.

[kitty]

No, she's right, there's a very heavy pro-Christian/anti-other-religion bias in this country. All religions should be equally supported/unsupported.

agreed. I would make as big a stink if it were any other religion. It's just usually not.

I recognise that one can be for the separation of Church and State and still have a healthy relationship with religion. That's my status actually. I'm a practising Catholic and I'm completely for the construction and maintenance of a giant wall between government and religion.

I believe I missed a key word in my previous post: "most" as in "most of the ones who scream the loudest..." It's disturbing how the lack of four letters can throw an entire point of view completely off centre.

In any case, it was not meant to be a gross generalisation that all who protest vehemently against the joining of Church and State are fearful of religion.

Oops.

Okay. well I quoted your post, but it wasn't necessarily directed only at you, but at the general sentiment by those who misunderstand atheists who are for separation of church and state, thinking that it's all about hating on God.

[Yeahman]

With this issue, there's just something that sticks in my craw about saying, in affect, "come to god, and he'll help you", rather than saying, "come to us, we'll give you medicine, food, etc."

I realize that there are a few shelters that tie starvation in with salvation. I used to volunteer at the Richmond Rescue Mission (in CA).

But there's something to be said with saying that the Bible is the answer to all our ills, including AIDS.
The Christian Scientists are a very tiny minority in the US. If they were to get any government money it would be for psychological therapy (ie. drug rehab). They certainly won't be getting any money for praying over those with AIDS.

Okay. well I quoted your post, but it wasn't necessarily directed only at you, but at the general sentiment by those who misunderstand atheists who are for separation of church and state, thinking that it's all about hating on God.
Or the misunderstanding that Christians who are for God, are against the establishment clause.
There are atheists against Christianity and Christians against the establishment clause. Most Americans are neither.

I'm wondering what percentage of these organizations are Christian.
Well considering the fact that the overwhemling majority of all American faith-based organizations are Christian, I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of those receiving government funding are Christian.

But what gets me is Bush trying to push the faith-based non-profits in this realm. Why them over, say, Planned Parenthood <* lobs softball *>.
Planned Parenthood does receive government funding.
The faith-based initiative was originally Gore's idea. Most, if not all, of these faith-based groups are worthy institutions even by secular standards. It's just that a lot of people don't like that title "FAITH-based." Makes it sound like we're funding Sunday schools.

[kuilong]

Pretty good for a 17 year old.

I'm 18. You forgot my birthday? Is outrage.

[Faithless]

Many nice counter points, ye110man.

Let me respond to this one, then go to bed --
The faith-based initiative was originally Gore's idea.
Still doesn't make it a good idea with me. Don't know how Gore interprets the bible, but I swear Bush's interpretation is yucky.

It's certainly not the ways of the Prince of Peace. It is more like something out of Numbers or Deuteronomy with all this talk of war.

Bush needs to get his head out of the clouds with all this talk about the glorious afterlife. The problems are fartin' here and now.

[Yeahman]

What does Bush's interpretation of the Bible have to do with funding for faith-based groups? He doesn't pick them.

[deez nuts]

but, can you give up chasiubao for God?

:wink:


i moved on to knishes.

a long time ago.

wow things are actually civil in here so far.

[Faithless]

What does Bush's interpretation of the Bible have to do with funding for faith-based groups? He doesn't pick them.
We don't know how many he's picked. Never said he picks 'em all.

But his ideas, along with the ideas of other like-minded folk on his faith-based tasked force, set the "moral tone". Just read the stuff on the whitehouse.gov faith-based web pages (http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/).

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America's communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:
...
(b) to ensure that Administration and Federal Government policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President's stated goals with respect to faith-based and other community initiatives;
...
(c) to help integrate the President's policy agenda affecting faith-based and other community organizations across the Federal Government;
And doing so by going around congress -- the representatives of the people of the United States (not to say that Republican congress wouldn't endorse his plan):
(j) to eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems;
.
From the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy – a project of the Rockefeller Institute of Government (http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/docs/policy/FB_Administrative_Presidency_Report_10_08_04.pdf), this:
In the absence of new legislative authority, the President has aggressively advanced the Faith-Based Initiative through executive orders, rule changes, managerial realignment in federal agencies, and other innovative uses of the prerogatives of his office.
...
But as this report illustrates, the Bush Administration has made concerted use of its executive powers and has moved aggressively through new regulation, funding, political appointees and active public outreach efforts to expand the federal government's partnerships with faith-based social service providers in ways that don't require Congressional approval.
.
As far as mentioning Al Gore, he wasn't any sort of originator of this faith-based movement, according to that Rockefeller Institute of Government report, that distinction lies with the neo-cons of the 70's and 80's. Yes, some smattering of the idea has been around since FDR, but to the degree which it has evolved on the last few years.
.
Well considering the fact that the overwhemling majority of all American faith-based organizations are Christian, I would imagine that the overwhelming majority of those receiving government funding are Christian.
Well, according to this link (http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/001270.html) --
As of a news report from last month not a single dollar has gone to any non-Christian group. Not one dollar.

[deez nuts]

As far as mentioning Al Gore, he wasn't any sort of originator of this faith-based movement, according to that Rockefeller Institute of Government report, that distinction lies with the neo-cons of the 70's and 80's. Yes, some smattering of the idea has been around since FDR, but to the degree which it has evolved on the last few years.

al and tipper was a different type of crazy.

[Faithless]

al and tipper was a different type of crazy.
And you'll recall that before there was mad love for this dynamic duo, there was mass scorn for Tipper for her desire to put warning labels of explicit content on records.

Actually, that's not such a bad idea, now I know what to buy.

[kitty]

(j) to eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems;

awww.... unnecessary legislation like the First Amendment? How silly, Dubya...

And yell0, it IS absolutely important how the president interprets faith given his ambitious and vocal support for increasing the presence of faith in government institutions and programs. He is trying to promote an increase in faith and morality in the gov't, as instituted, enforced, and funded by the State -- we should be interested to know how he defines such 'faith' and 'morality'.

[Yeahman]

And yell0, it IS absolutely important how the president interprets faith given his ambitious and vocal support for increasing the presence of faith in government institutions and programs. He is trying to promote an increase in faith and morality in the gov't, as instituted, enforced, and funded by the State -- we should be interested to know how he defines such 'faith' and 'morality'.
Oh how the tides have turned! It was unimportant for Kerry but it's important for Bush, huh?

Anybody have a list of where the money is going so we can see if there are any non-Christian groups among them. But even if there weren't I would be too surprised. Out of the top 100 faith-based programs in the US, how many do you think are non-Christian?

[kitty]

Oh how the tides have turned! It was unimportant for Kerry but it's important for Bush, huh?

Kerry wasn't trying to promote an increase in faith and morality in the government. If he were, then yes, I would be interested in what his definitions of faith and morality are, as well.

Thanks for completely ignoring the argument that backed up that statement.

In the one case, I believe that a separation of church and state requires that we not care what a politician's religious values are when we vote for them, so long as he can keep that religiousity out of the white house. However, when the man becomes president and starts speechifying about increasing the standing of faith in american culture, subsidized by the government (and passing bills that make it happen), then it does become important to know what he means by those terms.

See the difference?


Anybody have a list of where the money is going so we can see if there are any non-Christian groups among them. But even if there weren't I would be too surprised. Out of the top 100 faith-based programs in the US, how many do you think are non-Christian?

It was posted earlier in this thread.

[Yeahman]

Kerry wasn't trying to promote an increase in faith and morality in the government. If he were, then yes, I would be interested in what his definitions of faith and morality are, as well.
Well let's hope that our government does act morally. As for faith, I'd like to know if a politican is anti-religion. Works both ways.

[Faithless]

One form of this list from the AP.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/wdc/faithbased/index.html

Link came from here --
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7594.htm

(I work hard for the Karma
So hard for the Karma
But you never treat me right :tongue: )

If I've read the news correctly, there's probably over 680 groups.

I read somewhere else that some were not really faith-based.

I noticed that the Berkeley YMCA was on the list for California. They don't strike me as being faith-based at all. Yet Bush lumps in there, so as to say, "See how well they're doing!"

These links concentrate on the faith-based initiative issues.

http://www.brook.edu/gs/projects/rcs/faithbasedinitiatives.htm

http://www.brook.edu/gs/projects/rcs/rcs_hp.htm

[Yeahman]

I noticed that the Berkeley YMCA was on the list for California. They don't strike me as being faith-based at all. Yet Bush lumps in there, so as to say, "See how well they're doing!"
YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association
Like I've said before, most, if not all, of these organizations are worthy causes even by secular standards. It's just the title "FAITH-based" that throws people off.

[Faithless]

YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association
Like I've said before, most, if not all, of these organizations are worthy causes even by secular standards. It's just the title "FAITH-based" that throws people off.
No shyat? I thought YMCA stood for "Yucky MiddleAged Clammy Adults" :tongue:

(I swear the smell of must/musk/whatever and pool chlorine makes me nauscious.)

Well, the other thing is that one article points out, Bush is wants to claim his faith-based initiative is working, when in reality not all of the organizations are. They're lumped in there to make his initiative look good.

In one article, the group that was listed by Bush for the AP didn't even know they were on there, and didn't really consider themselves faith-based.

[Faithless]

A sad turn of events. Why does it seem that Bush is turning his back on certain groups he was supporting before? First the Gulf War vets. Now, the faith-based group.

Although I wasn't thrilled with it, I was still hoping that Bush's faith-based support would make believers out of skeptics, since I know of (we probably all know of) a few faith-based outreach facilities that do fantastic work and the potential was there to really aid their causes.

Sounds like Bush has let-down this large group of Administration supporters. The sad thing is the needy are still out there.

Former Aide Blasts Bush's Faith-Based Plan (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=502706)

Former White House Staffer Blasts Bush's Faith-Based Program for Lack of Commitment

By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Feb 15, 2005 — The Bush administration is defending the president's faith-based agenda against criticism from a former White House staffer who alleges the president gained politically from his vow to let religious-affiliated organizations use federal money to help the needy, but lacks a commitment to the initiative.

David Kuo, former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says that as soon as the president announced his faith-based agenda, "hackneyed church-state scare rhetoric made the rounds," yet congressional Republicans matched Democratic hostility with "snoring indifference."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Tuesday took issue with Kuo's depiction of the program.

"The president has made the faith-based initiative one of his highest priorities," he said. "It was at the top of his list when he came into office and it remains on the top of the list as we move into the second term."

Kuo, in an article posted on the religious web site, beliefnet.com, argues that Capitol Hill gridlock could have been eased with minimal West Wing effort, but that over time, it became clear that the White House didn't need to expend Bush's political capital for "pro-poor" legislation.

"Who was going to hold them accountable? Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA," Kuo said of the powerful National Rifle Association lobby.

"The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders regardless of how much money was being appropriated," he writes. "Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith. … The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation. That was sufficient."
.
David Kuo's detailed commentary.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_1.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/160/story_16092_2.html

Shooting from the Heart
David Kuo

Please, Keep Faith: Former Bush Aide: 'Minimal commitment' from the White House plus Democratic hostility hinder the faith-based plan

Four years ago, while visiting a small urban charity, President Bush launched the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He called it "one of the most important initiatives" of his administration.

It was hard evidence of the "compassionate conservatism" that Texas Governor George Bush embraced in his first major policy speech of the Presidential campaign, "It is not enough for conservatives like me to praise [compassionate] efforts. It is not enough to call for volunteerism. Without more support and resources, both private and public, we are asking them to make bricks without straw." That day a conservative Texas governor promised more than $8 billion during his first year in office to help social service organizations better serve "the least, the last, and the lost." More than $6 billion was to go for new tax incentives that would generate billions more in private charitable giving. Another $1.7 billion a year would fund faith-based (and non-faith-based) groups caring for drug addicts, at-risk youth, and teen moms. $200 million more would establish a "Compassion Capital Fund" to assist, expand and replicate successful local programs. Legislation would ensure that reported government discrimination against faith-based social service organizations would end. A new White House Faith-Based Office would lead the charge.
It was more than a bunch of promises. It was a new political philosophy of aggressive, government-encouraged (but not controlled) compassion that simultaneously rejected the dollars-equal-compassion equation of the "War on Poverty" mindset and the laissez-faire social policy of many conservatives. It was political philosophy of the heart as much as the head.

This was a dream come true for me. Yes, I actually dream of social policy. But since the early-1990s I've been what columnist E.J. Dionne termed a "com-con" or "compassionate conservative." I worked for William Bennett and John Ashcroft in the mid-1990s on issues like immigration, welfare, and education as they tried to promote a more compassionate Republican approach. While pure com-cons were never terribly powerful in Republican circles, Bush's endorsement of this progressive conservatism was exciting. And when he became the president, there was every reason to believe he'd be not only pro-life and pro-family, as conservatives tended to be, but also pro-poor, which was daringly radical. After all, there were specific promises he intended to keep.

Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact. In June 2001, the promised tax incentives for charitable giving were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million during the past four years. And new programs including those for children of prisoners, at-risk youth, and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years--or approximately $6.3 billion less than the promised $6.8 billion.

Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly-announced "new" programs aren't what they appear. Nowhere is this clearer than in the recently-announced "gang prevention initiative" totaling $50 million a year for three years. The obvious inference is that the money is new spending on an important initiative. Not quite. The money is being taken out of the already meager $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund. If granted, it would actually mean a $5 million reduction in the Fund from last year.

This isn't what was promised.

I served in the White House for two-and-a-half years as a Special Assistant to the president and eventually as Deputy Director of the Faith-Based Initiative. I have deep respect, appreciation, and affection for the president. No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart. Likewise, the people around the president are good and caring people. I know this firsthand because I experienced it during a health crisis in my own life when their kindness was evident.

That is why writing this is difficult.

I take solace in realizing that the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives that now sits outside the White House gates has effected change. The Office has used regulations and executive orders to end overt religious discrimination in the government grant-making process. Groups like the Metropolitan Council for Jewish Poverty, once denied an HHS application because it had "Jewish" in its name, are now welcome partners. Tens of thousands of faith-based social service groups, churches, synagogues, mosques, and secular non-profits attended free White House conferences where they were given information needed to navigate the federal grants labyrinth and the rules about what to do with money if they get it. A website now allows all social service groups to sort potential grants by category. These are good things.

But they are a whisper of what was promised. Irony of ironies, it leaves the faith-based initiative specifically, and compassionate conservativism in general, at precisely the place Gov. Bush pledged it would not go; it has done the work of praising and informing but it has not been given "the resources to change lives." In short, like the hurting charities it is trying to help, the Initiative has been forced to "make bricks without straw."

Why?

The first reaction might be that the recession or 9/11 made it impossible to do the full faith-based initiative. And, to be sure, 9/11 - with the ensuing effort to secure America, hunt down terrorists, and eliminate Saddam Hussein - made the world a very different place from what it was when Gov. Bush made domestic promises during his run for the White House. There are two things worth noting, however; first, the White House didn't even come close to fulfilling those promises before 9/11. More important, since then it has pushed an ambitious domestic agenda: three huge budgets have been submitted, each of which had billions of dollars for other domestic "priorities" but lacked any new money to pay for "compassion agenda" promises, which are ever more in need of fulfillment. After all, there are now more poor Americans than ever before.

So what happened?

1) On Capitol Hill, Republican indifference couldn't overcome knee-jerk Democratic opposition.

The moment the president announced the faith-based effort, Democratic opposition was frenzied. Hackneyed church-state scare rhetoric made the rounds; this was "radical" and "dangerous" and merely an "attempt to fund Bob Jones University." One Democratic African-American congressman came to the White House to back the president but was threatened by influential liberal groups that they would withhold funding if he didn't denounce the President. The next day he was forced to retract his statement. All of this came despite the fact that former Vice President Al Gore had endorsed virtually identical faith-based measures during the 2000 campaign.

Congressional Republicans matched Democratic hostility with snoring indifference. Sen. Rick Santorum spent endless hours alone lobbying Senate Leadership to give some floor time, any floor time to get a bill to help charities and the poor - even after 9/11 when charities were going out of business because of a decline in giving. He was stiff-armed by his own party.

At the end of the day, both parties played to stereotype -- Republicans were indifferent to the poor and the Democrats were allergic to faith.

2) There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda.

Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort. No administration since LBJ's has had a more successful legislative track record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the "poor people stuff."

Not only were the tax items dropped from the 2001 tax relief bill, they were also ignored on numerous occasions when they could have been implemented. In December 2001, for instance, Sen. Daschle approached the Domestic Policy Council with an offer to pass a charity relief bill that contained many of the president's campaign tax incentive policies plus new money for the widely-popular and faith-based-friendly Social Services Block Grant. The White House legislative affairs office rolled their eyes while others on senior staff yawned. We had to leave the offer on the table.
They could afford to. Who was going to hold them accountable? Drug addicts, alcoholics, poor moms, struggling urban social service organizations, and pastors aren't quite the NRA. Charities haven't quite figured out the lobbying thing yet. More significantly, over time it became clearer that the White House didn't have to expend any political capital for pro-poor legislation. The initiative powerfully appealed to both conservative Christians and urban faith leaders - regardless of how much money was being appropriated.

Conservative Christian donors, faith leaders, and opinion makers grew to see the initiative as an embodiment of the president's own faith. Democratic opposition was understood as an attack on his personal faith. And since this community's most powerful leaders - men like James Dobson of Focus on the Family - weren't anti-poverty leaders, they didn't care about money. The Faith-Based Office was the cross around the White Houses' neck showing the president's own faith orientation. That was sufficient.

At the same time, the White House discovered urban faith leaders had been so neglected for so long that simple attention drew them in. Between 2002 and 2004 more than 15,000 white, Hispanic, and African-American religious and social service leaders attended free White House conferences on how to interact with the federal government. The meetings, held regularly in battleground states, were chock-full of vital information and gave thousands of groups invaluable information about government grants. They were hardly pep rallies for the President. But the conferences sent a resounding political message to all faith-oriented constituencies: President Bush cares about you.

Some liberal leaders have been quoted as saying the administration was looking to "buy minority votes." Nothing could be further from the truth. There wasn't enough money around to buy anyone. The conferences actually underscored how difficult it was to even get a grant. But by traveling across the country, giving useful information, and extending faith-based groups an open hand, powerful inroads were made to "non-traditional" supporters. One senior Republican leader walked into an early conference, stared wide-eyed at the room full of people of diverse ethnicities and said to me, "This is what Republicans have been dreaming about for 30 years." This is more damning of Democrats than anyone else. Where, exactly, has their faith outreach been for the last decade?

3) Liberal antipathy magnified the Initiative's accomplishments.

Secular liberal advocacy and interest groups attacked every little thing the faith initiative did. When Executive Orders were issued permitting an organization to simply display a cross or a Star of David, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State called it "a crusade to bring about an unprecedented merger of religion and government." When we helped Boston's historic Old North Church (of Paul Revere fame) get new windows through a historic preservation grants program at the Department of the Interior, the clamor was the same. The net effect of all the jabbering was the appearance that great progress was being made.

Had these liberal groups or an alliance of charities held the White House accountable for how little was being done -- especially compared to what was promised -- there is no telling what might have happened...or what might still happen.

I left the White House in December 2003. By that time, I'd grown quite frustrated with White House and Congressional approaches to faith-based issues and I let those in power know it. Virtually everything I've written here I told to those above me more than a year ago. I hoped things would change. But frankly I didn't quite trust my own judgment. I'd survived an intense health crisis but quickly returned to work; I wondered if my grumpiness came from fatigue, stress, or something my doctors secretly did to me while I was sick. I left, and went fishing. Literally. I joined the professional bass fishing tour and spent a chunk of my time on my (loaned) Skeeter boat stalking fish, clearing my head, and pursuing God. I figured that with time, my anger would subside.

I was right. The anger did. The sadness hasn't.

I'm writing this now because there is a lot of time left. There are more budget supplementals to come for Social Security and Iraq totaling scores of billions. The White House can still do a great deal for the poor. It can add another few billion to insure every American child has health care. It could launch a program to simply eliminate hunger. Groups like America's Second Harvest have the plan. Bump up the Compassion Capital Fund to $500 million a year and be marveled by change.

Given new budget realities, climates, and conditions it is easy to dismiss these suggestions as naive. But no one ever said faith was easy...or cheap. In 2000, Gov. Bush said, "I know that economic growth is not the solution to every problem. A rising tide lifts many boats, but not all." He then went on to propose a new approach to those who were still stuck behind. The promises are still there and I am trying to keep the faith.

[Yeahman]

^ That was an awesome article. I feel the same way. The Republicans in the White House today seem like heartless brats and the Democrats always have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose anything having to do with religion.

[Faithless]

An even more awesome (not) article. :rolleyes:

Bribing of black pastors gives new meaning to 'Uncle Tom' (http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~11851~2734247,00.html)

Article Published: Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 7:29:08 AM PST * By Jasmyne Cannick

RECENTLY, a group of black pastors under the name of the Hi Impact Coalition held a press conference and summit in Los Angeles to announce the kickoff for their "Black Contract with America on Moral Values.'

Led by Bishop Harry Jackson of Washington, D.C. and white Christian evangelical Reverend Lou Sheldon and his Traditional Values Coalition, the press conference and summit gave new meaning to the phrase "sleeping with the enemy.'

According to the newly formed coalition, topping the list of issues that black Americans need to focus on is the protection of marriage. Never mind the war, access to health care, HIV/AIDS, education, housing and social security, the No. 1 problem facing Black America is same-sex marriage.

Standing before the press in their Sunday best and eager to get their 15 minutes of fame and achievable share of President Bush's Faith-Based Initiative, these Black pastors seemingly allowed their pulpits to be purchased by the GOP and Lou Sheldon, who is to gay people what Strom Thurmond was to blacks.

Sheldon at one time even went so far as to support the quarantining of people with AIDS and accused the federal government of "running a network of whorehouses,' when the U.S. responded to the AIDS crisis with resources.

Later that afternoon more than 100 black pastors gathered at Reverend Fred Price's Crenshaw Christian Center, another prominent mega-church in Southern California, where Sheldon showed his infamous "Gay rights, special rights' video and urged the pastors to have their congregations lobby African-American legislators who hadn't taken a position on the issue of same-sex marriage.

From the outside, one might have thought they were listening in on a Klan meeting, but after one look around the room, I remember thinking of Dave Chappelle's portrayal of a blind, black, white supremacist who had never been told he was black.

Black pulpits are for sale to the highest bidder and black Christians are quite possibly being sold to the GOP under the guise of protecting America's moral values. With claims that gays are "hijacking' the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr.'s message, Sheldon is bribing black pastor after pastor and church after church with check after check to take another look at the GOP and partnering with their white Christian counterparts, all while using the Bible as a justification for their commonality. Yes, the same book that was used to justify racism, sexism and anti-Semitism has both black and white Christian evangelicals reading from the same page.

Few remember that there were significant members of the black church, including the National Baptist Convention led by Dr. J.H. Jackson in the 50s, that vehemently opposed the civil-rights movement and didn't want progressive ministers like King to have any confrontations with the government. So much so, that was one of the major factors in King's decision to create the Southern Christian Leadership Conference along with Los Angeles ministers the Reverend James Lawson and the late Dr. Thomas Kilgore.

These black pastors who have aligned themselves with white Christian evangelicals and conservatives are the ideological descendents of the same people who opposed King in 50s and what he stood for but today want to claim his message as their own in the name of protecting the institution of marriage, thereby giving new meaning to the name "Uncle Tom.'

However, don't think that these new partnerships come without strings attached. The black vote is expected to be hand delivered on legislation that supports discrimination against gays and lesbians and their right to protect their families, denying a woman's right to choose and pushing the president's abstinence only campaign.

In addition, our religious leaders are also expected to remain silent and not be the prophetic voices they should be on issues of critical importance to blacks. In exchange for money, they've essentially sold their congregations to people who continue to oppose universal access to health care, education and housing, the very issues at the core of the black struggle.

There's a coordinated religious campaign to get ministers across the state to speak out against gays, and the debate is not about religion but more about politics, power and keeping that political power in the hands of people who stood in the schoolhouse door, fighting for segregation and against the full inclusion of blacks in society.

Zora Neal Hurston once said, "Not all black skin is kin.'

Can I get a witness? Los Angeles resident Jasmyne Cannick is a frequent presence on television and radio and has appeared on Black Entertainment Television News, the Tavis Smiley Show, Fox News and the Bev Smith Show. She is director of public relations for the Black AIDS Institute. can be reached at www.jasmynecannick.com .

[Faithless]

^ That was an awesome article. I feel the same way. The Republicans in the White House today seem like heartless brats and the Democrats always have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose anything having to do with religion.
And Kuo has been given more airtime to air his grievences lately.

Seems he has a book out, detailing them. And he was on 60 Minutes talkin g to Leslie Stall.

He is pissed at Bush supposedly. He feels "faith based" initiatives at the White House have fallen by the waste side.

Interestingly, they had him take them on a tour of some christian roadshow (or whatever you call it), and he was dismayed by the literature most would show. Rather than talk about poverty and issues like that, by and large, he showed pamphlets dealing with anti-choice and anti-gay issues.

[haplesshobo]

I know a lot of people have an irrational hatred for Bush, but this is going a bit far. On one hand, you criticize him for even initating faith based programs. Yet, later, you also criticize him when he really doesn't support those faith based programs. I would think you'd celebrate that Bush ended up not supporting those faith based programs, but then that also became a new avenue to attack Bush.

I get the feeling that the same people who attack Bush on his stance against gay marriages and abortion would then also attack him if he ever came around and supported those rights.

[Faithless]

Whose criticizing Bush-o both ways? I'm just posting the facts.

Bush does deserve the criticism from his faith-based supporter for abandoning them.

I like to stand back and watch the shit fall out.

It certainly makes for better entertainment than Survivor. Less guilt too.

[haplesshobo]

Whose criticizing Bush-o both ways? I'm just posting the facts.


:rolleyes:

You'd have more credibility that you were just posting facts if you hadn't ignored so many facts and statistics in so many other threads on this forum.

[Yeahman]

Time to resurrect this thread now that Obama has announced that he would expand Bush's faith-based initiative (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html).

“Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square,” Mr. Obama intends to say. “But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups.”
I've been convinced that Obama will be a largely uniting president. Perhaps not in terms of substantive legislation but in terms of national dialog. Twice this year he has defended Justice Scalia's decisions. He's backing FISA. In fact many of his supporters are now having second thoughts.

Meanwhile McCain is doing just the opposite. He's trying to court the Republican base by trying to prove that he's partisan enough to represent them.