Blend exclusive: Obama faith-based initiative plan will bar reparative therapy, proselytizing

This is good news, I guess.

But it would be even better if Obama would decide to govern by the Constitution, which clearly says that the government should not fund religion, period.  But then, his vote for the FISA bill makes it clear Obama doesn't have much more regard for the Constitution than Bush has.

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:06:57 AM CDT

the Constitution, which clearly says that the government should not fund religion

The Constitution says no such thing, which any cursory reading would make obvious.  The Constitution forbids establishment of religion by the State while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of exercise of same.  It in no way prohibits the establishment of government grants to religious entities who wish to do civil and social good as long as one religion is not favoured over another and they do not engage in political discourse or bias.  

Where this falls apart is when certain sects insist that the States was founded on Christian principles and is therefore a Christian nation.  Where it does not fall apart is with the insistance that America is a nation where there is separation of church of state, when it is clear that any candidate for public office has to troll out his/her God creds to be considered viably electable.  As much as it would like to claim to be otherwise, America is still a nation held hostage to religion.  

Obama is thus doing what all presidential candidates have to do if they want to be elected.  The difference is that he is trying very hard to hold to his integrity whilst still taking into account the disparate voices that the moronic American media insist need to be heard.  American politics is not about substance, but about perception; Clinton understood this; Obama, far more intelligent than Clinton, is now starting to play the game.

Would it be good if he stood his ground on DOMA, made his stand on DADT? Yeah sure.  But it won't get him elected.  Americans don't trust intelligence and look upon intellectualism as an elitist conceit.  I've seen this time and again with Americans overseas, in Asia, the Arab world, and Europe.  They watch the star-fucker trash that passes for news on CNN, Fox, AFN, and the networks.  And that's what informs them.

QScribe's skewed post is indicative of this, and is classical Rove, in that she/he hasn't read the First Amendment properly, is counting that others haven't, and using the assumed ignorance of others to make political capital.

My fear is that Obama will go wrong in that he, as an intelligent man, will assume that others will share his passion for America based on his intelligence and worldview.  He understands politics, it's a messy game. It's not the "fer us or agin us" legacy of tidiness of 9/11 and Bush, and never has been.   But Americans loved Reagan and shunned Carter because Reagan made them feel good whilst Carter wanted to make them feel responsible.  

And precisely that, and not Obama's stand on FISA, or DOMA, or DADT, is where he will fail.  

---

by: Brian @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 14:14:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just as I Suspected

This is nothing more than repackaging federal grant rules, which likely pre-date the reign of King George II, to ensure faith-based organizations know what's out there - not to merely increase funding to FBOs or redirect existing funds away from secular/progressive organizations, as the Bush administration has done.

I would bet, when all is said and done, Obama's plan will be no different from what existed in the 1990s, with perhaps more assistance for groups to find grants. The easiest way to comply with Obama's rules, of course, will be to set up an independent arm of the religious-based organization to separate federal funds from religious activites - it's just Catholic Charities but writ larger.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 09:21:37 AM CDT

I Don't Like It

I know that I don't have all the knowledge to understand this probably the way someone in the system might, but it just seems Wrong to me to let these FBO's just have all this money with what would have to be little oversight. The government is not going to be able to oversee how this money is used the way it needs to be overseen. There are just too many organizations out there for them to be able to. And I see SOOOO many loopholes that less than honest and bigoted organizations can use to grab this money and use it for their own purposes. I'm sure many of you can give all kinds of good reasons that I can't think of right now. All I know is... It's Just WRONG!  

---

by: Fiona @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:13:57 AM CDT

Oversight & Guidance Are What's Key Here

And today's statement indicates that Senator Obama would be clear on his guidance about what programs faith-based funds could and could not be used for.  There will, of course, have to be administration oversight of the faith-based initiative, and we can hope (and encourage) that Senator Obama will choose someone who is competent, committed to his guidelines and who will administer the funding as the administration intends.

Surely, LGBT people have benefitted from faith-based funding that has gone to HIV/AIDS programs, as well as soup kitchens, homeless shelters and the like.  

It's understandable that our community is always cautious about faith-based programs, but today's statement is also a hopeful sign that Senator Obama intends to administer this in a different way.

---

by: SteveR @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oversight is next to impossible ...

Once the money leaves Washington it's next to impossible to follow.  By continuing the existing program, Obama is leaving open the possibility for discrimination.  He would be much better served to simply repeal the Bush executive order that launched the current 'faith-based' initiatives, and return to the way things were handled BEFORE the laws changed in 1996.

Announcing that he plans to not only continue the program, but expand it, is a terrible idea.

BAC

Don't agonize, organize!

---

by: BAC @ Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:08:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sign up with MoveOn

I'm sure many out there are members already, but those who aren't can join by signing this petition:

"FOX must stop injecting racism, prejudice, and fear into our political dialogue. We intend to hold FOX, its advertisers, and its personalities accountable for FOX's attempts to smear the Obamas."

You can watch some collected footage here and here.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:14:14 AM CDT

As far as funding religious organizations...

...it's ultimately a bad idea.

The government won't currently enforce the provisions that allow churches to pay no taxes--i.e. no campaigning for political candidates.  It seems doubtful it would enforce new rules on them either about how they're allowed to operate their charities.  And there are plenty of well-funded organizations who will challenge any rules in court anyway, claiming they're a restriction on freedom of religion.  Such groups often win, given the current political make-up of the courts.

"Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain" -- Iowa state motto

---

by: Sportin' Life @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:19:13 AM CDT

I still don't buy it

I still don't buy it.

Suppose I run a church that has $1000 available from donations.  I plan to spend $500 on social services, and $500 on anti-gay reparative therapy programs.

Now President Obama comes along and offers me $500 of government money for my social services.  So naturally, since my social services are now funded by the government, I can spend the whole $1000 I had before on reparative therapy programs!

The end result: just as much money spent on social services - and twice as much money spent on anti-gay programs.

Is there something I'm missing here?

---

by: eastsidedave @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM CDT

Nope ...

You have address the problem with the current program.

BAC

Don't agonize, organize!

---

by: BAC @ Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:11:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, there's something everyone is missing...

Just about every week, somone says "I can't vote for Obama because he did this or that which isn't exactly what my particular splinter group sees as 'the perfect liberal'...

Look folks, in order to win, Obama has to attract the middle ground voter - those who are not rabid fundies AND those who are not rabid tree huggers - just the middle class schlebs who want security, cling to religion and guns, and vote their pocketbook.

Even if he does shift towards the center in some policies and panders to this large uncommitted center -

HE IS STILL SO MUCH BETTER THAN THAT WINGNUT MCCAIN THAT WE MUST VOTE FOR HIM.!!!!!!


Question:  What does an atheist do when they fall to the floor and start "speaking in tongues"?

Answer: Get a CAT scan.

---

by: Snooky Ookums @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM CDT

It's not enough to get me excited

That Obama is not McCain might be enough to get me to vote for him, if the election looks at all close in my state in November, but it is not enough to get me excited or to get my donation dollars or volunteer hours.  There are much more progressive candidates out there for me to support, even they aren't "viable."

I can understand why someone would go with the strategy of ignoring the progressives, leftists, gays, and people of color, who they figure will vote Democratic anyway, and go after "the middle."  That doesn't mean that I am happy about it.

"Vote Democratic: We're Less Evil Than The Republicans!" is not the kind of rallying cry that is going to get me worked up and into the trenches.

As for the faith-based stuff, I've already sounded off about this.  I still don't see why faith groups can't organize and encourage their members to volunteer in secular organizations.  This neatly steps around the issue of constitutionality, gets rid of the problem of having to regulate against biases that will no doubt creep in at the margins, and has the added benefit of bringing diverse people together, where they could <gasp> learn something about each other.

---

by: pgraydon @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Faith based groups have always had funding

Charities run by "faith based" groups such as Catholic Charities have always received governmental funding. While funding religions is unconstitutional, so is discriminating against groups with religious basis. You can regulate their behavior to keep their charitable programs open to all and free of sectarian preaching and government always has done so. The only difference between Obama's plan and the pre-Dubya situation is that there will be an office to educate groups on what they can and what they can't do.

---

by: kathygnome @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM CDT

The law changed in 1996

Groups like Catholic Charities have been receiving federal grants for decades, but they were subject to regulations that are no longer in place.  

In 1996 then-Sen John Ashcroft added an amendment to the welfare reform bill that allowed for "charitable choice," which basically removed the safety net ... it removed the requirement that faith groups receiving federal tax dollars must set up a separate 501(c)(3) ... they are also no longer bound to follow non-discrimination laws.  Under the new 'faith-based' initiatives program a house of worship can receive tax dollars to establish a social service, and on the same day hang up signs that read "Help Wanted" and "Lesbians and Gays Need Not Apply."

Concern over taxpayer funded discrimination is what has prevented Congress from passing any of the 'faith-based' bills that have been put forward these past seven and a half years.

Obama should scrap the current program and return to pre-1996 days.

BAC

Don't agonize, organize!

---

by: BAC @ Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:24:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Press for federal ENDA with narrow religious exemption

The religious exemption should apply only to church personnel (ministers, administrators, religion teachers, church-based social workers) and theology/religion teachers in higher ed. institutions with substantial federal student loans or federal research grants. Church-owned or affiliated higher ed. institutions (ie, Bible colleges, seminaries) that don't take federal funding can discriminate based on religion (to an extent, see Bob Jones Univ. case in early 1970s), as could K-12 schools not taking federal funding.

Catholic Charities are generally well run, and if they stick to areas where they aren't discriminating against clients or refusing contracted services, I don't have problems with them or similar professionalized service organizations.

Small organizations are difficult to monitor, but it's true that they may have better access to certain populations.

Some kind of data needs to be kept on # served, outcome of intervention (efficacy in achieving stated goal) if appropriate.  

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:10:56 AM CDT

If it is true that MCCs will have access, ours may go for it sometime.

MCC of Greater St. Louis is setting up a counselling, health care screening, referral center aimed at indigent and underserved LGBT, particularly targeting the poorer or closeted black LGBT population looking for confidential services, and special needs populations like Trans youth, LGBT AA and drugs equivalents, etc. There is no LGBT community center at the moment, and it is unclear if one will get off the ground, and if it will be located convenient to bus transportation and near poor or homeless neighborhoods. We will be setting up in a warehouse - office building that we are turning into church sanctuary (the warehouse space), church offices, and community services offices. It's pretty centrally located, just south of downtown on a major commuter and bus artery, convenient for  the target underserved population (and at demographic center of widespread congregation).

We are starting out by planning to solicit small grants from private sources, and operating a phone referral service (there isn't a gay hotline in town anymore). Most of the congregation's money now is going to purchase and renovation of the warehouse and office space. Once the renovation of the office space is done, we can look into providing face to face client services. We rent a banquet hall for Sunday service currently, and have church offices in a bungalow several miles away - don't have the infrastructure or space now for much in the way of on-site social services.

It's a long-term project, to put it mildly. I hope we can pull it off, it's ambitious for a congregation just stepping into church ownership. (~ 350 members, ~250 average Sunday attendance)

---

by: NancyP @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM CDT

good... but...

still dont think we should have faith based programs.  

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 12:37:44 PM CDT

Perfect example of denial of reality on ENDA!

Pam's post demonstrates the importance of enacting some version of ENDA -- however rudimentary -- as soon as possible. Leaving gays and lesbians in Alabama, Michigan, Texas, and Arizona with no employment protections leaves them at risk.

The absurdity comes, however, when Pam -- though obviously well-intentioned -- demands "swift passage of an inclusive ENDA," as though it's just a matter of a few obstructionists preventing passage of a bill that otherwise would fly through.

What Pam -- and far too many advocates -- irresponsibly avoid addressing by this rhetoric is the gut-wrenching dilemma that we face and will likely continue to face for years and years on this issue: A basic ENDA has a good shot (though not a guarantee) of passage in the next Congress, and trans-inclusive one realistically is probably not enactable for a half-decade or more because much more education will be necessary to generate sufficient support to (a) win passage in the House, (b) win the 3/5 necessary to surmount a GOP filibuster in the Senate, and (c) secure a president endorsement and signature.

For her position to be responsible, Pam must answer the following two categories of tough questions that her rhetoric evades: (1) How do you plan to generate the 30 to 50 additional House votes not to mention the significant number of additional Senate votes that will be necessary for "swift" passage of a trans-inclusive version of the bill? How? What's the strategy for convincing moderate Democrats from conservative districts to support it? How do you envision that working? How do you persuade, for example, conservative Democratic Congressman Heath Shuler of Western North Carolina to vote for a trans-inclusive ENDA (or any ENDA, for that matter)? (2) If passage of the inclusive version of ENDA is impossible for a half-decade or more, do you endorse passage of the convention version of ENDA that lacks the new gender identity language, or do you insist that gays and lesbians in Alabama, Michigan, Texas, and Utah continue to go rightless during the half-decade or more that it will take to generate support for an inclusive ENDA? What do you say to the gay man in Georgia who is enduring an abusive hostile environment right now? What does selling him out in the name of supposed unity do for the movement? It won't protect a single transgender worker but will simply leave gays and lesbians at risk in the interim.

Until Pam answers those questions, her cutesy dropping of "inclusive ENDA" language in posts about some other issue is utterly irresponsible.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 13:35:00 PM CDT

We get off our collective duffs, that is how.

We write to our legislators. We organize a massive letter writing campaigns, which we can do at the grassroots level. We encourage everyone we know to do the same thing; send a clear message to our representative that their are plenty of voters out there who do support inclusive ENDA--and it probably would not hurt if at least some of us make a point of saying that our campaign contributions will be directed only to candidates who support inclusive ENDA. We write letters to the editor of our local papers and we cite verifiable facts to refute the hate and fear mongers. In other words, we work our tails off.

This blog alone gets somewhere around 5000 hits a day. If HALF of those hits come from people who take the five minutes out of their day to e-mail their representatives in favor of inclusive ENDA and take another five minutes to e-mail everyone in their e-mail address books, the number of people contacting their representatives increases exponentially. Now multiply that by all of the LGBT blogs, plus the other progressive blogs. Every single letter, every e-mail, every visit, every phone call counts--because they add up.

We do everything in our power to persuade our representatives and we also do our damnedest to elect representatives likely to vote in our favor. We don't need a unanimous vote, and we may not even need a veto proof margin---but we shoot for one anyone.


susanferman.wordpress.com

---

by: Susan_F @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 14:26:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what power do you think I possess?

Ultimately I cannot do anything about the scenarios you pose because I am in no position to generate those votes, or convincing Blue Dog Dems to do anything. I have only the power of my vote, my letter to my representative, and my voice on the blog. Each person who reads the blog has the power to call, write or lobby their elected officials, to organize and effect change through action.

I'm sitting here in a state without the rights you mention, yet that doesn't mean I will cave, carp or complain when it comes to exploring my opinions here, certainly not proposing that my answers are right or wrong -- it's only my opinion. There is, however, nothing cutesy about stating the fact that ENDA will indeed need to be passed to address the problems posed in my piece.  

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 15:18:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ENDA Advocacy

What makes you think a trans*person doesn't live down the street from the gay man in Georgia? Isn't also trying to get/keep a job and a roof over his or her head? And what makes you think these neighbors are not out there fighting for each others rights at the state level already? Are the numbers of trans*people less than those of gay people? Likely. Does that mean we should leave them behind rather than joining them in advocating for our larger community? I think not.

The only PAC/advocacy group which heavily promoted dropping the gender identity & expression portion of the bill was HRC. I'm pretty sure the main promoter in Congress, Barney Frank, has been apprised of how terrible a move it was to push so hard for a stripped-down version of the bill. Tammy Baldwin was pressing her fellow representatives for full equality. The most conservative rep in PA (5th district) is stepping down, and will be replaced in the November election. I have a mind to work on the candidates to make sure they are aware their constituents are invested in their civil rights.

There will be continued turnover in the House and Senate. If we make it clear ENDA is an issue in the election and impress upon our CongressCritters once elected that ENDA is a high priority, we may actually have some success. Is it a lot of work? Absolutely. In my (progressive for PA) town, the struggle to pass legislation guaranteeing equal opportunity of employment and public accommodation took a year to pass.

Fortunately we don't have to do it all alone. Contact your state affiliate of Equality Advocates. They do this work as a full-time job and can help you get a jump on convincing your legislators that ENDA -- whichever version you think is best -- is a good idea.

---

by: DC @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 15:57:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I take issue with this quote:

While there may be honest disagreement over whether federal funds should be used to assist local FBOs of any kind to do work that government agencies do poorly (or not at all), it's clear that progressive FBOs with ties to the local communities would benefit from Obama's plan. Arguably, the most vulnerable parts of our society would be hurt by placing such services in the hands of federal drones and mountains of paperwork rather than FBOs. We know what that results in. Look at Katrina.

A big part of the whole argument to replace Republicans in the Federal Government, not just at the elected official level, but all the way down, is because they neither run government well nor do they want it run well.

It's very characteristic of someone like George W. Bush to destroy the ability of the government to be run well, to loot the federal treasury, and then to observe that since the government "cannot" do x, y, or z, that the appropriate thing to do is replace their funding by giving it to churches.

What we ought not be doing, though, is feeding that argument.  I know, Pam, you believe that the Federal Government can run better with Democrats in charge.

But when I look at Katrina, I do not see a helpless government unable to function with no first causes.  I see a mendacious Republican government crippling the federal government as an instrument to help the needy and then using their own deliberate incompetence as a justification for looting the Treasury.

Look, my position on FBO's is well known.  They ought not get a dime they wouldn't be able to get in a secular manner, and they are already funded through the tax exemption (which also ought to be looked at in the degree they invade the political sphere).

But the first obligation of all citizens and elected officials is to insure the government runs in as Constitutionally correct and efficient manner as possible before even discussing giving the people's tax money away.  Certainly that should be done before insouciantly violating the First Amendment.

If we don't think government can be improved, then what is the reason for replacing Republicans with Democrats in it anyway?

---

by: Firefly @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 16:08:55 PM CDT

Blah Blah Whine Complain

But offer no purpose and agenda. Just bash any efforts at helping people who NEED it. I belong to a Methodist-based church that offers health services, low-income housing and shelters, provides 3 meals a day and actively supports LBGTQs. Just because some of  you have problems with how you view religion or the implementation of faith-based initiatives in theory doesn't give you the right to call for their demise. How much experience do any of you have with working with them in your communities?  

---

by: heartsandflowers @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 16:21:25 PM CDT

Raising my hand

I routinely donate goods, clothing and food to 2 different churches in our small town, as one runs a second hand shop and the other the only local food bank (collection and distribution).

Would I prefer to donate to an organization with local distribution/space w/o religious affiliation? In a heartbeat; I'm an atheist. But the reality is that both of these churches have provided services desperately needed for my town and especially well at that; I will continue to support their efforts in any way I can.

When the local teens think "it's cool" to donate out-grown clothes to the Vestry and buy "new" ones there, when the schools have contests within the classrooms to see whose room can collect the most cans or packages of non-perishable foods, when these same kids routinely have days where they rake leaves or clean up the yards of the elderly or disabled who cannot do so as a "Community Spirit Day", when the schools collect toys/hats/mittens/school supplies/ toiletries for gift baskets for other students in need... you add in the wonderful work of these churches and you have a community that regardless of one's religious affiliations WORKS TOGETHER TO HELP EACH OTHER. And all without shame, stigma, snobbery- we're neighbors who do not quibble over differences but rather help each other.

And as much as I have some reservations about government FUNDING for faith-based programs, I do whole-heartedly recognize the true need and good of such programs.  

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners

Click here for DADT photobook

---

by: Louise @ Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 17:50:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]