Obama kicks off his Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships - and it's vague on protections

Obama skips every opportunity

to stand for justice and equality for lgbt people.  i'm just curious how long the apologists are willing to keep holding their breath.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:04:32 PM CST

How long?

Eight years, maybe?  During the campaign we kept hearing, "Wait till he's actually elected."   Once he was elected, we got, "Wait till he's actually in office."  Now that he's in office we're hearing, "Wait a while--he can't do this too fast, but he'll get around to it sometime."

One of the Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, I think) predicted that the Messiah will come, riding a white ass across a bridge of paper.  He'll get here before Obama does anything for LGBT people.

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:25:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still okay for churches and religious groups to discriminate

against GLBT citizens using my tax dollars.

More of the same as I see it.  No change here.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:06:42 PM CST

Here's something the Fed's should really think about..

A checkbox on our tax forms that says "Do you want X dollars of your refund to go to faith based initiatives?"

"No" would be my answer, not as things stand.  I should not have to pay taxes to help anyone discriminate against me.

Hate stops a beating heart.

---

by: KarenS @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:07:18 PM CST

Time to drop the 'R Bomb'

In answer to a reporter's question, Obama said federal anti-discrimination laws do not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Obama said he believes local laws in some states prohibiting discrimination against gays would apply to faith-based social programs funded with federal money in those states.

Well, that doesn't do those of us in states where there are no protections, and the Obama administration knows that.  

Its time for someone - or organization that allegedly is looking out for our best interests - to assert in court that discrimination based on sexual orientation IS discrimination based on religion, the religion of the discriminator.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:22:31 PM CST

More than that

discrimination based on sexual orientation IS discrimination based on religion, the religion of the discriminator

Is is that, to be sure.  But it is also discrimination based on the victim's having religious beliefs different from those of the other person.  Either way, it should be illegal under current law.  And I'd love to see a case brought on this basis.  If you think fundie heads are exploding now, just imagine what would happen if we could get their own discrimination protections turned against them.  

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:13:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I worked with Catholic Charities ages ago

and in my experience with them, it was all about your individual supervisor when it came to hiring and firing. I worked with one supervisor (female) that (if anything) seemed to prefer working with gay men. On the other hand, I had a male supervisor that preferred working with women and seemed to have issues with men generally, and gay men specifically. And there were a lot of gay employees throughout the various departments. So I'll vouch for them. Also, there was no prosletyzing by anyone in the delivery of social services or employee-employee prsletyzing.

 

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:47:19 PM CST

You've put your finger on the problem

The fact that the way gay employees (or any other minority) are treated varies from one supervisor to the next is precisely why we need to have strict, clearly defined legal guidelines for what kinds of treatment are permissible.  Nobody's own personal tastes and hangups ought to determine whether I get or hold a job or am treated fairly while doing it.

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:56:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But you know

that people's personal tastes do get in the way all the time, even in for-profits. Add to that, I was just a damn good worker. Even the boss that didn't like me cut me more slack than he should have at times (although think that was because of his superiors, who were the actual ones mentored me.)

I am just sayng that mine was, overall, a very good experience. Not all social service wings within religious organzations are anti-gay.

I agree with you that clearly defined legal guidelines need to be in place, for all organiztions but especially religious organizations.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:22:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More politics

Obama's obsessed with currying favor with the Religious Right and it's really disappointing.  Normally, I'd see very little wrong with this "office", other than the fact that government should not respect the establishment of religion.  Many religious groups do contribute a great deal of social support to the needy without any governmental support (other than the tax-exempt status).  

But while this is not the establishment of religion, it does come very close and what's more, it's the establishment of particular religion.  Most, though not all, of these groups are Evangelical and Christian.  The 26-year old guy who's in charge is a Pentacostal of the Assemblies of God variety.  

So, this guy, if he's faithful to his religion believes in all of the bizarre stuff that Sarah Palin does, including the Rapture, dispensationalism, and that witches are real.

If it was Rick Warren, there would be outrage.  But with Joshua Dubois, Obama's just as guilty as the Republican Party of using a black face as a pacifying front for something many Americans are wary or suspicious of.

---

by: kevin @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:47:34 PM CST

See, I want to know...

the particular organizations that Obama is working with. I am noticing, for example, Rev. Wallis, President of Sojourner's and he by no means a right wing fundie.

If this were simply Illinois and Obama were proposing this as Governor of Illinois, I wouldn't mind this so much. But the Southern Baptists? They want something.

Also, even with Charities, it does vary from Archdiocese to Archdiocese.

My gut tells me this: Obama means well (esp. in these economic times where agencies like this will be (and already are! in the front lines) but given his execution of this type of thing with McClurkin and Warren, I am leery.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:06:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They want something, all right: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

They want a cut of the pie.  Unfortunately, it's a pie that you and I fund with our tax dollars.

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:19:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

True, but some of

these organizations really, really do reach out and help a LOT people, including, myself (over 15 years ago, that is).

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:41:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That is irrelevant

Presumably the exact same people could give the exact same help within a non-religious organization.

---

by: pgraydon @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 17:47:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Religious Wall Street

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:58:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Confirms my worst fears

Every time that the President has a chance to speak up for LGBT rights, he doesn't.  Anyone else feel the bus run over us again?

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:53:09 PM CST

Bus?

At this point, it's more like a Sherman tank.

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:57:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Abrams, Maybe. Sherman, No.

Actually, the Sherman tank was a tiny job compared to today's tanks. It was a little bit bigger than the Grant tank, but still not up to the job of crushing all of Obama's LGBT supporters.

---

by: S1 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:40:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Its time

to take this very seriously.  I think the same person who was responsible for the Donnie McClurkin fiasco in SC is the person who will be the director of this office.   Let all orgs who want to provide services to the poor create a separate secular c-3 that provides those services. Then, let them apply for the funds through very specific grant programs that prevent any crossover to the religious mission.  Careful auditing and reporting would be required with stiff penalties for any violations.  

Personally, I'd like check boxes on my 1040 for every dollar that I pay in taxes.  Let me decide how it will be apportioned.  

---

by: annwsc1 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 12:53:38 PM CST

Does that person have a name?

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:11:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

annwsc1 must be referring to Joshua Dubois

Do a google search on him....and guess what?  First on the list is a link to good ole Saddleback.

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:17:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The government has no business in the church business.

But Obama's not doing anything he didn't say he was going to do during the campaign.  It's just that he was wrong then, too.

Everything the illegal Cheney regime put into place must be dismantled.  That's just common sense.  No more "Homeland", no more crimes against the citizenry and no more government money going to already rich exclusive clubs that promote childish superstition and hate.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:02:55 PM CST

Praying won't help the economy

And I am glad to see LDS Mormon's are not included with the Southern Baptists on the faith-based bandwagon.  Will LGBT's be allowed in the Southern Baptist soup lines ?

Same-Sex Marriage is good for the economy.

---

by: CharlesMerrill @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:05:18 PM CST

Wish that LGBT groups had the balls and power

that these religious groups have.....to insist on gov't. $ and demand that the gov't. abide by their beliefs.  

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:29:45 PM CST

Now that we're in a new session

how hard can it be for someone to reintroduce the ENDA. Obama has promised to sign it, and it would force his hand. I don't really care who does it, we just need to get it done.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:42:39 PM CST

Yep.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 13:47:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, But ...

Don't be surprised if whatever version of ENDA some day gets passed allows discrimination against gay taxpaying Americans if, ya' know, the discriminator's religion tells him that's the thing to do.

---

by: S1 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:08:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't see that happening

Maybe for organizations run BY the churches themselves, but otherwise, it would defeat the whole purpose.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:13:08 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's the Point

The religious right is increasingly working the argument that not allowing them to discriminate against us interferes with their freedom of religion, and not allowing them to speak against us interferes with their free speech rights. The bad four on the current SCOTUS might buy that argument, should a case come before them.

So, yes, the religious right's servants in Congress most certainly would oppose a version of ENDA that doesn't let people continue to discriminate on the basis of their religion.

Whether timid Democrats would block such crap remains to be seen. But the argument will be made.

---

by: S1 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:33:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe

but how many people actually buy their argument. Besides the religious right's servants in congress will oppose any ENDA.  

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:12:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Back to Anthony Kennedy again and

with him, who knows?

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:20:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kennedy bases his votes

on the current trends. Since the majority supports workplace protection for us, there's a good chance we can get him.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:33:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

They will NEVER convince me....

They will never convince me that any money they get from the fed govt will NOT be used to promote their religion.  Even if there are laws in place prohibiting the use of this faith based initiative money for religion.  Try this calculation.

Church A has a budget of $100,000.  Of this they currently use $50,000 for religious activities and $50,000 for charitable work.

Now they ask for and receive $25,000 from the federal govt for their charitable work.

Their new budget looks like this

Religious activity - $75,000
Charitable work - $50,000

All they did was get the government to fund half of their charity work without increasing their charitable activities.  They were then able to funnel half of their old charitable funds back into religious activities.

So, the government has given them $25,000 to ADD to their religious activities.  And, they use that new $25,000 to fight against equality for gays and women's reproductive rights.

---

by: timNC @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:09:32 PM CST

Why Are Faith Based Initiatives A First 100-Day Priority?

When any issue concerning lgbt rights is raised, such as repeal of dadt and doma, passage of an inclusive ENDA and the Matthew Shepard Act and proposal of civil union legislation-- all things Obama supposedly supports-- the expectation is always that such items will not be front burner while the administration takes on the failing economy and bailout, the health care debacle, among other pressing needs. I have always believed that the administration can act on many fronts at once and that the attempt to resolve one urgent need doesn't mean another must wait. Faith-based initiatives are certainly not going to solve the economy, health care, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other huge problem. They are largely a slush fund for religious organizations that are of dubious constitutionality. If Obama finds time to move this forward, all the more reason he should be moving something forward to benefit the lives of lgbt Americans, as he promised. That he does not is yet another reminder of his tin ear and lack of empathy when it comes to lgbt issues.

---

by: David Goroff @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:36:58 PM CST

Well, faith based initiatives can help

soften the blow of a severe economic downturn and create a more secure social safety net.

But GLBTs are hitting the unemployment lines, can't find work, and losing their retirement savings too, in that sense, we are the same as everyone else. And without the protections that you describe, David, our community could get seriously hit. And if these faith-based initiatives are allowed to legally practice discrimination against gays (and not all of them do), then there is  safety net for us.

It's not an either/or situation, though I would disagree that they are simply a slush fund for religious organizations.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:54:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great question! The answer of course is that churches are like banks

lining up to collect $$ from the gov't.  Wait, what's that sound?  Why it's the sound of empty collection plates being passed around churches!

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:17:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Faith-based funds are bribes...

The original idea to use federal funds to bribe mendacious clerics (are there any other kind?) is the brain child of Rick Santorum and Hillary Clinton, fellow Senators and  members of the Fellowship, the protestant version of Opus Dei.

The bipartisan concept was perfected by Rove who used it to whip up a storm of anti-GLBT sentiment around same sex marriage and now is being refined by Obama and his Minister of Pandering Joshua DuBois, who like Leah Daughtry is an anti-GLBT Pentecostal cleric.  

Joshua Dubois organized the religious support groups for Obama's presidential bid that began with vermin like MaryMary and Donnie McClurkin and ended with Obama's sanctimonious statement that "god's in the mix" at Warren's Saddleback bigotfest. Those four words, repeated millions of times by Yes on 8 doomed our chances of defeating Prop 8.

Now Dubois will repeat, and this time with even more money, Rove's goal of harnessing religion to politics. In practice, as we've seen, it's the other way around: politics are harnessed to religion and Dobson and scum like him smile all the way to the bank.  

The Democrats (sic) are our enemies as much as the Republicans. The GLBT movement needs to create an organized fighting left wing to get anywhere.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:41:41 PM CST

According to Time, Dubois was also behind

the choice of Warren to give the inaugural invocation.

Change we can believe in...

"If the apocalypse comes... beep me." -- Buffy Summers

---

by: Kathy @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:53:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So was this a promise he made to Rick Warren??

This is unconscionable. The US Government should not be involved in any church in any way.

Hope the ACLU takes them on I will send $$$$ for that! 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:49:57 PM CST

Another bribe...

To Reich Theofascists to keep quiet while DOMA and DADT are repealed. Oh yeah they are so good at keeping quiet. 

Heck pass ENDA, repeal DOMA and DADT and then give them their 'INITIATIVES'. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:51:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll believe it

when some of those are actually passed.  I'll start taking it seriously when there's a push to pass them.

Of course, I'll also be watching for a "faith-based initiatives"-funded right-wing shitstorm when any of the above are passed.

---

by: M @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:03:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Understand, I am not trying to be contrarian here

but I was helped out a lot by one of the faith-based organizations listed and I later became an employee of that same organization. I also happened to be one-half of a gay couple with that organzation (the other half turned out to be a no-good SOB), and it was very well known.

I am simply attempting to represent a POV that no one else may have.  

I understand and share everyone's concerns and I don't like Obama's anti-gay track record when he has flirted with religious groups during his campaign (he threw the one decent group, UCC, under the bus).

This concept is NOT bad, I am leery as to whether Obama can pull this off given his recent track record with religion  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:17:18 PM CST

The Exception Proves the rule

Of course not all religious groups are bad -- just as not all LGBT groups are good.

But that's not the point. The point is, why are our tax dollars going to support religious groups? Why can't they do good on their own nickel?

And, although it would be better if no taxpayer money went to any religious groups, if it must go, then there should be no discrimination. Muslim groups should be as entitled as Baptist groups, and atheist groups should be as entitled as religious-fanatic groups.

But why should I, a lesbian and an atheist, have to see my tax dollars go to the benefit of religious groups that can refuse to hire me for the most menial of jobs? Yes, some of my tax dollars may feed a homeless person or provide housing for a poor family (but probably not a poor same-sex family) -- but that doesn't erase the fact that taxpayer money should not as a matter of principle go to religious groups.

---

by: S1 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:37:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, I don't want my tax dolars going

to religious groups that would discriminate against me either. That's why I want to know exactly who is getting this money to perform social services. Pam said that she knew of only one organization on that list. I worked for one of them and detailed some aspects (positive and negative)of my experience.

And I share you concern about outreach to other religious groups. For example, other than the Reform Judaism, I know of none on that list that are really LGBT affirming. I'll check that out for sure.

My bottom line is, what will Obama do to end discrimination against LGBTs who are either employed these groups or would reach out to one of these groups for help? So far, he is silent again...

Thankfully, LGBTs have many many more charitable organizations of their own than they did 15 years ago.

 

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:05:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It would be nice if at some point in this discussion

the Constitution were to be mentioned.  Given that there are some religious charities that do good, the fact remains that funding some of them at the expense of others is a clear violation of the first amendment.  As the ACLU spokesperson quoted above points out, Obama is creating a religious commission that will de facto have power to disburse taxpayer funds.  This is so clearly unconstitutional I can't believe there isn't more of an outcry being raised.  

I'm sure all of the regulars here know and respect you, Kevin.  You always present your viewpoint with intelligence and integrity.  And we know your intentions are strictly honorable.  But in this case you're trying to defend the indefensible.  We either have separation of church and state in this country, or we don't.  Reagan started to erode that separation, Bush did even more, and now Obama is flinging it down and dancing on it.

If Obama keeps going on his present course--this religious horror, war in Pakistan, rendition, domestic spying, the Patriot Act and a lot more--we may soon find ourselves longing for the good old days of the Bush Administration.  Oh well...America was a nice idea for a country.  Too bad it never caught on.

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 @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:33:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it's the "other religions"

angle that screams unconstitutional to me.

That and, now, he really needs to make some sort of major statement on GLBTs in all of this. He just wants to sweep those queestions (and us) up under the rug as if we were yesterdays dirt, I agree with David, that muc. As if GLBTs are not being hit by the economic downturn.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 16:55:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm leaning over to Kevinchi's POV

I think we all should figure out who some of these groups are and exactly what kind of funding they'll recieve.  I know one of those groups, Sojourners, represents the liberal, gay-positive wing of Christian Evangelicals.  Considering that conservative Christians, Muslims, and Jews do not believe in nor wish to take part in interfaith organizations, the ones represented here may be mild.

But that's not really my concern.  I think this might set up a dangerous precendent of mixing church and state even more than it already is (and you can better believe there is no true seperation of church and state in this country).  At its worse, it sounds to me like the road to hell paved with good intentions.

Politically, it could be Obama's way of reaching out to religious moderates who he'll need when he's put in the spotlight over LGBT/Pro-Choice issues that will invariably come up big time...as they have been and are now.

I think with any group, religious or otherwise, that accepts government funding there must be a stipulation that the money is only given if that organization has an all-inclusive non-discrimination policy that they must abide by and offer to their employees.  With that in place, I don't necessarily think giving grants or whathaveyou to religious-based charity groups is such a bad thing.

I volunteer with a church-based food pantry that depends on donations from private individuals to feed roughly 500-700 people a week.  I think a small grant to this group would greatly help them do their work and relieve some of the pressure of looking for private funding.  It's nice that the church is a gay-affirming, Episcopal church with a gay priest, but even if it wasn't they are doing good work.

---

by: kevin @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 17:07:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whether they are doing good work or not is not relevant

I fail to see how the group you volunteer for, or any other similar group, would do less good work if re-formed as a secular non-profit.

Thinking back on the Catholic Charities of Boston case for a bit, if memory serves, they actually did place a couple of kids with same-sex couples before the parent church hierarchy found out about that and put a stop to it.  If the exact same people were organized as a secular non-profit, to which many Catholic people just happened to contribute time and money, they’d have been much more free to say, “sorry, but we’re going to continue to follow the law.”

---

by: pgraydon @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 17:59:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A thought experiment

Suppose an agent of the government went to one of these faith-based charities and said, “I am authorized to disburse a substantial sum to a community charity that does what your organization does, but I can only disburse funds to a secular organization.  If you but re-organized as a secular non-profit, the money would be yours to continue your work with.”  Suppose also that the amount in question was large enough to more than compensate for any administrative costs associated with the change.

I contend that one of two things would happen.  Either:

1. the charity would recognize that it could do more good with increased funding and agree to re-form as a secular non-profit; or
2. the charity would refuse on the grounds that doing its work under the mantle of the associated religion is more important than the work itself.

I further contend that, in the latter case, the government has absolutely no business funding the organization.

---

by: pgraydon @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 18:19:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now looking up that list

there are 2 secular non-profit organizations at the table. Your idea may have already come up.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 18:31:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Think Rick Warren might be one of those on the panel

announced at a later date?

---

by: exfundie @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 15:51:37 PM CST

ALL IT TAKES IS G-D EXECUTIVE ORDER!!!

All Obama has to do is issue an executive order rescinding Bush's executive order which allows faith-based-bigots to discriminate based on religion and sexual-orientation.

How long could this take? Change one sentence in the speech he gave this morning?

This is why I have been referring to Obama as the GayBasher-In-Chief.

I suggest that the MCC or some other "gay-friendly" religious institution apply for funds. When they get them, hire only gays and issue a press release to that effect. Let's see how long it takes Obama to claim that you can't discriminate against heterosexuals.

I'm itching for a fight.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 18:56:02 PM CST

Not a bad idea!

UCC, anyone? The Unitarians?

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 18:59:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Harder than you think

An executive order can't be undone by another executive order unless it's within sixty days of the first order being signed.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 19:40:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Especially if you're a right wing fascist bastard

who tricked well-meaning Americans into voting for him.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:22:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarify something for me

Are you referring to Obama or Bush?

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:50:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answer to your question

Are you referring to Obama or Bush?

In this context, I was referring to Obama.

The same could be said of Bush except that Bush isn't a bastard.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 00:11:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's uncalled

for.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 00:58:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry, but..

I'll show Obama some respect when he starts living up to his campaign promises.

I also call Obama the Gay-Basher in Chief.

Obama brought this upon himself.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:24:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gosh, 2 1/2-3 whole weeks on the job

oldbrit. Even I am giving him 100 days.  

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 09:44:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yup, 2 1/2 or 3 whole weeks

And, every time we turn around, it's another outrage.

You know what they are, so I won't list them.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:35:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

On his worst day

Obama will be far better than Bush was on his best.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 10:31:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You quote FDR

"I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."~Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

And yet, you defend Obama. Part of "making him do it" is to make sure he knows you don't like what he's doing.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:06:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Within reasonable limits

Making general attacks instead of focusing on his actions doesn't tell anyone what you're unhappy about, and it won't go toward making him do anything.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:09:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In the context of this website

... It is perfectly clear what the problem is.

When I communicate with elected officials, etc. I use different language.

Liz

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 13:11:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good

Now when Obama does something I don't like, I will of course complain about it, but I'll try to stay calm. I would much rather push our legislators to introduce and pass these bills so we can get them to Obama's desk to sign. That, I think, is what FDR meant.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:26:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Simple way to handle it

An executive order can't be undone by another executive order unless it's within sixty days of the first order being signed.

Fine

Ask congress to pass a bill barring taxpayer funded organizations from employment discrimination and put the faith-based initiative program on hold until the legislation is passed.

If congress won't pass the bill to rescind Bush's executive order, there's no faith-based initiative program.

Obama won't do that, though, because that would be too much like fulfilling a campaign promise.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 00:18:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't remember

hearing that campaign promise.

I am the lizard queen!

---

by: RainbowPhoenix @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 12:11:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're correct - Obama didn't promise an end to taxpayer funded discrimination base on sexual orientation

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work." -- Barack Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07...

You're correct.

He said you shouldn't discriminate against people based on religion. He didn't mention sexual orientation.

That's my mistake. Thank you.

Apparently, Obama thinks it is OK to accept taxpayer funds and then discriminate based on sexual orientation.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 13:22:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But Obama was the co-sponsor

of a bill in the Illinois Senate banning employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. And he took a political hit for his advocacy too.

Particularly from my point of view as a resident of Illinois, I do not like what I see. Obama may never be a fierce advocate that he once was (then out comes the uppity Negro accusation from the blk community) but he will not be a barrier to progress. It will take more than Obama in the bully pulpit to get things done.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 14:28:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ancient history

Obama's support of equal rights is ancient history.

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. -- John F. Kennedy (inspired by Dante's Inferno)

---

by: oldbrit @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 00:37:19 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, I am looking up some of these names

Eboo Patel of the Interfaith Council is Muslim.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 20:52:45 PM CST

But Joel Hunter of the

Northland Church supported the same-sex marriage ban in Florida...sounds like this damn Team of Rivals concept...  

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 21:11:39 PM CST

Feb 7th Black AIDS Day by Gloria Reubans

I had never heard of this AIDS day but found it on HuffPo and thought I'd pass it on. (sorry off topic)

"A good place to start in restoring integrity to our domestic prevention efforts is in ending ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. SIECUS' research shows that blacks are likely disproportionately affected by these programs: the region with the highest rates of HIV/AIDS among Blacks is in the South which not coincidentally also receives nearly half of all federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds. In fact, of the top ten states with the highest rates of HIV/AIDS among blacks, all but one are located in the South. And what do these programs do to help stem this disease? They purposefully deny people the information they need to protect themselves from acquiring HIV when the ideals of abstinence and marriage fail. And they fail. Often. But, these programs are prohibited from discussing the effectiveness of condoms in preventing infection or discussing them in a positive light in any way, even for young people who may be sexually active. At the same time, we know that a comprehensive approach to sex education works and reduces the sexual risk behaviors that lead to HIV infection and the federal government must begin to invest in this approach."
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:04:54 PM CST

thanks petey

I know the stats of Black HIV/AIDS rates but I didn't know that is was so centrally located in south.

And that IS approriate to this topic, by the way.

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:40:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

that's "appropriate"

---

by: kevinchi @ Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 23:46:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't trust Joshua DuBois any farther than I could chuck him

Anyone with the means to keep an eye on him inside faith groups....do it.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 02:18:26 AM CST

Thanks for the update, Pam

because there are 2 legitimate concerns here:

a) Religious discrimination against LGBTs in hiring, firing, and dispensation of services.

b)church/state issues

b worries me more than a.

But still, Obama is being maddeningly professorial about this. He could have said that there is a Muslim and a gay man on this board. It's like he wants us to do our research or something.

---

by: kevinchi @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 11:23:26 AM CST