I seriously hope I read this wrong, but it looks like Obama is for government support for faith-based community programs. Uh, what? Separation of Church and State is one of the highest ideals upon which this country was founded...must we continue to erode it? Many days it seems like we are significantly less enlightened than the free thinkers of the 1700s were!

I work really, really hard for my money, and cough up a large chunk of it to the government, and I don't want to see a DIME of it go to ANY faith-based program, be it through church, temple, mosque, or Trattoria of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If "the people" think that religious organizations are the way to go for services like homeless shelters and whatnot, then "the people" can darn well tithe.

Does anyone else find this completely outrageous and appalling, or am I just having an Extreme Rage Day?

I swear, if this is highly supported and a chunk of taxes starts/continues to go to faith based programs, I'm totally opening a Pasta Kitchen run by Pastafarians.  See how taxpayers like that.

I'm with you.  I just read your post to my hubby and he also agrees- pretty awful what this country has become.  I have no idea who to vote for??  McCain is no gift to person kind.  I live in a town that hides their heads behind churches and yet can't figure how to spare a dime for such things as animal shelters or recycling.  Wacky world. 

Can I join the Pastafarians?

www.venganza.org

Wikipedia has a nice writeup on the tenets of Monsterism.

May you be touched by his Noodly Appendage!

They need to include Atheist organizations equally in those hand outs of tax payers money then. :D

I'm thoroughly disgusted and am not looking forward to voting at all.  Our government continues to scare the bejeebers out of me.

source?

I first saw it in the NY Times, but it's an AP piece...

The AP reports, "Taking a page from President Bush," Obama said "he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican." The Washington Post reports Obama "proposed strengthening the White House program assisting faith-based social service organization Tuesday, while insisting that those groups not discriminate against aid recipients or aid workers." Obama's "proposal for a $500 million-a-year Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships would also create 1 million slots for summer jobs and education programs."

Thanks for that.

I think the key point here isn't that the money is going to "churches" it is is going to religious charities. The way you put it (in your first post), it implied he would be giving money to churches to promote a religious tenet, whereas in fact he is promoting giving money to (religious) anti-poverty groups that already have a volunteer base so they can do more good. You take help where you can find it imo and I really don't see the problem. If you already have a network in place that are already helping on the ground, why not utilise it to extend access and help more people?

Lets not forget - the Salvation Army is a Christian organisation and they do an amazing amount of good despite having the odd dodgy policy.

"On Tuesday, touring Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, the Democratic senator said he would get religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty efforts if elected."

What upsets me personally is that I already donate a large chunk of change to a particular charity that I have chosen.  I don't want the government butting in and deciding where my hard earned money will go; I prefer to decide if and how I will spend my money on my own.

It's tax money. In my book, Separation of Church and State dictates that my tax money doesn't go anywhere NEAR a religious institution, no matter what they're doing with it.  Sure, they do a lot of good, but that doesn't mean they get my money. Their believers can donate/tithe.  There are too many antagonistic religions and unreligions in this country for any government finance to go to any faith based organisation...you think a fundamentalist Christian wants their tax dollar going to a soup kitchen run by a Mosque? Or that a Muslim wants theirs going to a women's shelter run by a jewish temple? Hell, I won't even donate used clothes to women's shelters run by churches because I know darn well part of their agenda is marketing and I want NO part of that.

I, personally, believe that strict separation is mandatory.  And constitutional.

Ok I guess that's your perogative. I can just say that for me, personally, it is more important that the help is given than to quibble over who is giving it. Each to their own I guess.

I don't think this is any thing new??  I have no problems with the idea because I live in a small town and most charities are religious based.  I am not catholic yet if I needed financial assistance or other emergency I would have no choice but to go to my local Catholic social services and apply like every other person in need - there is no food bank here in my town run by the gov't its another Catholic organization. 

I also think these "faith based" religious organisations are far better at managing their money since they have learned how to survive on so little for so long - not near the beuracracy as in other larger charities.  I won't give to the Red Cross ever because of their "financial responsibility" I won't give to United Way because I don't believe they fairly distribute their money and I know lots of "Pro lifers" who won't give to them because of Planned Parenthood being a part of their charities.

I believe also the gov't requirement for giving to the faith based group is they have to prove they don't discriminate.  I think with the economy the way it is right now there isn't going to be anyone giving to any charity faith based or otherwise in the near future.  I know I'm about ready to go beg for assistance from anyone and everyone and what ever they believe is fine with me.

Exactly.  It is very important that the help is given, to those in need, which is why I choose to give generously to an organization that has little to no overhead, which means 99% of my donations go directly to those in need.  I quibble because I can't stand certain "charities" that take such a huge chunk of change for overhead.  I just don't trust the government to apply my money responsibly.

I definetely agree with you... If you do not believe in religion then y would you have to contribute.. let the believers do it...  And the US will have plenty of money once they get what they wanted from going to Iraq.. Oil....

Religion anyways should not be in laws of a country...  that is bringing bad news to you..

And you never know if the money actually goes to where it is supposed to go.. or in people's pockets.

But it should come down to a CHOICE not an obligation.  

Your comment Ponda about quibbling is somewhat similar to a sentiment Obama expressed about why he supported empowering  faith based charities - 
"That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today - from saving our planet to ending poverty - are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach."

   

BTW Im all for keeping religion away from government - in our pledge, on our money, in our courthouses, etc but I dont see falling under the same umbrella.

If a faith based charity turned away people of certain religions, that would be a different issue but being faith based, even having an agenda, doesnt in my eyes take away the undeniable impact theyve had on the countless in need.  Choice - yeah, I'd probably give lean towards a non-faith based charity but with the good work so many of them do, Im all for supporting all charities that change the lives of the destitute.  Bottom line, its about getting help to those in need and if its truly charitable without discrimination, I say we should get behind them.

The charity that I choose to give to is faith based, and absolutely nondiscriminatory.  It's amazing how much good it does, and people are willing to give more because of that.  Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why must the government get involved?  I don't agree with the way government manages finances in the first place.  I may not be religious, but I certainly feel a responsibility to help those in need.  Separation of church and state...in all instances.

Edit: bah, I am having difficulty putting my words to screen today, so I change my post to simply agree with what bp and sun said, as they are both far more eloquent than I could ever hope to be.

POnda I read your post before the edit and your words were fine...I sincerely hope that my fears (and mistrust) are unfounded; you're right, our world is quite a mess and in definite need of repair.