




















Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups2. Comment #203072 by HourglassMemory on July 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
Is he just reaching for churches because they simply do charity? Or because they're actually based on Faith in God?3. Comment #203074 by Tezcatlipoca on July 2, 2008 at 10:56 am
4. Comment #203085 by FightingFalcon on July 2, 2008 at 11:08 am
5. Comment #203091 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:10 am
6. Comment #203094 by mordacious1 on July 2, 2008 at 11:12 am
I saw a minister on TV last night that was complaining about Obama's plan, because Obama wants the faith-based charities not to discriminate against hiring non-religious people to work for them. The minister's point was that the homeless, lonely, addicted, etc, need their "souls saved" and non-religious people can't do this. So basicly, our tax dollars are being spent on saving souls. Thomas Jefferson would pop his lid over this.7. Comment #203095 by al-rawandi on July 2, 2008 at 11:16 am
8. Comment #203098 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:19 am
9. Comment #203101 by Tezcatlipoca on July 2, 2008 at 11:21 am
10. Comment #203102 by Paine on July 2, 2008 at 11:22 am
Even though I live in the US, I've always been confused by this church-state business. It's good in theory, but what does it mean in practice?11. Comment #203108 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:26 am
12. Comment #203112 by LochRaven on July 2, 2008 at 11:28 am
13. Comment #203115 by louzer on July 2, 2008 at 11:32 am
I think people of faith has every right to justify their opinion in the public square in a way that appeals to all people.14. Comment #203120 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:37 am
15. Comment #203121 by Sciros on July 2, 2008 at 11:38 am
16. Comment #203122 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 2, 2008 at 11:39 am
"Aaaand - another one down, another one down, another one under the bus."17. Comment #203124 by MatthewJBarnard on July 2, 2008 at 11:41 am
Scientist: "A highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists."18. Comment #203126 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
19. Comment #203131 by BurningSky on July 2, 2008 at 11:49 am
I feel like Obama's heart is in the right place, but increasing money for religious run programs isn't the best solution. I suppose he figures that these organizations (those that help the poor, etc.) are already up and running, so it would make sense to aid them in their causes. The problem is that, with any religious program, you will get the good will and the evangelism. I'd say were much better off cutting the funding for faith-based initiatives and increasing the funding for obvious-based "poor people need help" initiatives. America will never be a complete welfare state, but we can do our best to help the poor without helping the ignorant peddle their message.20. Comment #203135 by FightingFalcon on July 2, 2008 at 11:54 am
I didn't read that in anyone's response here...
21. Comment #203142 by quill on July 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm
22. Comment #203145 by Edamus on July 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
23. Comment #203151 by Vaal on July 2, 2008 at 12:16 pm
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.
24. Comment #203152 by quill on July 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm
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.
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.
25. Comment #203154 by arogop on July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm
26. Comment #203155 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm
And I cant really say that's a step down. (50% atheists over there)
27. Comment #203161 by Colwyn Abernathy on July 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Scientist: "A highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists."
Wow. Just... wow.
28. Comment #203164 by textom on July 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I am totally frustrated with Barrack Obama. When I hear that there isn't hardly a thread of differnce between the Neo-Con Republican Party and the Secular Champion Democratic Party, I try to differ by being inquisitive and investigative. No such luck. Obama has sold out to the Creationists, big oil, etc., and I am sure he is in alignment with his team's wishes. It is damned pitiful here in the United States; neither Jefferson nor Adams, Deists of their time, could get elected dog catcher today what with all the mythological religious cranks, nuts and bolts and wicked, arrogant billionaire's who have proven in the past and now, their love for power, greed, and even Nazism (Remember the Paperclip Disclosures), and all disguised under the cover of religion. Hey, even Tesla was guarded in the USA by Nazi's. Or worse.29. Comment #203167 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
30. Comment #203174 by Paine on July 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm
ScirosYou bring up the UK as a model of no wall of separation. I can bring up Iran.
31. Comment #203176 by arogop on July 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Then again, maybe this is wishful thinking on my part
we shoot nothing but blanks no matter what we do
32. Comment #203179 by Border Collie on July 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm
More tax dollars down the drain ...33. Comment #203183 by hoops mccann on July 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm
34. Comment #203192 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 2, 2008 at 12:58 pm
35. Comment #203196 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm
36. Comment #203197 by tahustvedt on July 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm
37. Comment #203201 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm
#203102 by Paine: Well, what would happen if it did break down?.....we'd be more like the UK, I suppose. And I cant really say that's a step down. (50% atheists over there)Eurobarometer survey 2005:
#203155 by ThoughtsonCommonToad: I'm always very suspicious of that number, and well one of the wittiest things I heard in a long time came from a questioner at the FCOS event (I'm not sure about that) where Dawkins was a speaker. He said something along the lines of "My friend is an atheist. A cool headed, rational thinker, who bases her claims on hard evidence, like any self-respecting Sagittarius."
38. Comment #203202 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Well, what would happen if it did break down?.....we'd be more like the UK, I suppose.
You bring up the UK as a model of no wall of separation. I can bring up Iran. Cultural differences can create a world of difference
39. Comment #203210 by DamnDirtyApe on July 2, 2008 at 1:14 pm
40. Comment #203222 by lister19 on July 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm
41. Comment #203226 by Ansu on July 2, 2008 at 1:29 pm
42. Comment #203227 by WilliamP on July 2, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Giving money to a religious organization for secular purposes frees up resources for them to spend on religious purposes. If the church was going to run a secular program anyway, it now has more money in its coffers to spread the word since it doesn't have to fund both. The government will help churches in their religious purposes anyway, at least in some cases. So why bother? Just use secular organizations.43. Comment #203228 by 8teist on July 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm
44. Comment #203236 by aratina on July 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm
The program would "be central to our White House mission," [Obama] said, and would consider elevating the director of his Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to a cabinet-level post.
45. Comment #203239 by stephenray on July 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Right.46. Comment #203249 by the great teapot on July 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
It's political correctness gone mad I tell ya.47. Comment #203253 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Is it wrong for me to enjoy seeing the expressions as people twig to what the Obamessiah really is? Not that it wasn't patently obvious right from the start.48. Comment #203259 by Paine on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 pm
GreggTownsendTo me it sounded like he meant; the result from the fall of separation between church and state isn't necessarily a UK model--it's equally likely to result in an Iran model.
49. Comment #203264 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm
50. Comment #203271 by Libertas on July 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm
1. Comment #203069 by Don_Quix on July 2, 2008 at 10:53 am
Other Comments by Don_Quix