Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

by New York Times

Thanks to Andrew Lynch for the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02campaigncnd.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

ZANESVILLE, Ohio — With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama arrived here on Tuesday to present a plan to expand on President Bush's program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.

"The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone," Mr. Obama is expected to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks. "We need all hands on deck."

On the second day of a weeklong tour intended to highlight his values, Mr. Obama traveled to the battleground state of Ohio on Tuesday to present his proposal to get religious charities more involved in government programs. He is scheduled to give an afternoon speech here outside of the Eastside Community Ministry, a program providing food, clothes and youth ministry.

"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."

He thus embraced the heart of a program, established early in the Bush administration, that critics say blurs the constitutional separation of church and state. Mr. Obama made clear, however, that he would work to ensure that charitable groups receiving government funds be carefully monitored to prevent them from using the money to proselytize and to prevent any religion-based discrimination against potential recipients or employees.

Mr. Obama is also proposing $500 million per year to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps for students. He proposes elevating the program to the "moral center" of his administration, calling it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

He called for rules to make certain the new council wouldn't violate the separation of church and state. Groups receiving money, aides said, would have to demonstrate the effectiveness of their programs.

As a former community organizer in Chicago where some of his neighborhood work was funded by a Catholic charity Mr. Obama has some familiarity with the issue.

Mr. Obama's initiative Tuesday represented more an evolution than a shift in his position, but came at a time he has been re-centering his stances on several issues, angering some liberal supporters in the process.

The plan was met with praise from officials who crafted the Bush administration's proposal, including John DiIulio, who in 2001 served as the director of Mr. Bush's office on faith based initiatives.

"Senator Barack Obama has offered a principled, prudent, and problem-solving vision for the future of community-serving partnerships involving religious nonprofit organizations," Mr. DiIulio said in a statement. "He has focused admirably on those groups that supply vital social services to people and communities in need. His plan reminds me of much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999."

Mr. Obama and his advisers are seeking support among relatively moderate evangelicals and are trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, urged along by a new generation of leadership and intensified concern about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.

Mr. Obama's presumptive Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain, was flying Tuesday to Colombia on a trip meant to highlight his strong advocacy of free trade, notably of a U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement that Mr. Obama has criticized and which is stalled in Congress. The Arizona senator was to travel later to Mexico, where immigration is bound to be a core topic.

Mr. McCain, too, has supported faith-based initiatives. A spokesman has said that, if elected, the senator wanted faith-based groups to "have at least the same standing as they have now."

While evangelical voters, a sizable minority, generally vote strongly Republican, Mr. McCain has had a shaky relationship with the group. He met Sunday with one of the country's best-known evangelicals, Bill Graham, and his son, Franklin, for what was described as an "excellent conversation" but secured no endorsement.

Mr. McCain, who was raised an Episcopalian but switched to the Baptist church of his wife, Cindy, has never had the same levels of support among evangelicals as Mr. Bush enjoyed, not least because he once labeled the evangelical leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance," a characterization he has since backed away from.

Mr. McCain does not talk much in public about religion, and Christian conservatives have been slow to embrace him. He turned some off by quickly denouncing two supporters, the Rev. John Hagee and the Rev. Rod Parsley, after controversial statements they made came to light.

A release by the Obama campaign on Tuesday said that most Americans favor allowing faith-based groups to seek government funding for social services. It did not note that its source for that statement, a 2005 poll by the Pew Forum, also found that many Americans "find the practical implications of this idea troubling. In particular, the public expresses strong concerns about both the influence of government on particular religious organizations and the impact of religious groups on the people they are trying to help."

Mr. Obama is building his appeal in part on calls to heal political rifts and address human suffering. He is also drawing on his own characteristics and story, including his embrace of Christianity as an adult, a facility with biblical language and imagery and comfort in talking about how his religious beliefs animate his approach to public life.

Joshua DuBois, director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign, said that the campaign expected resistance from a large part of the evangelical community, but that millions of faith voters were persuadable.

"We're not going to convince everybody," said Mr. DuBois, 25, a former associate pastor of a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church in Massachusetts. "The most committed pro-lifers probably won't vote for him. But others will be open to him because they see he's a man of integrity, a person of faith who listens to and understands people of all religious backgrounds."

But the subject of religion has become entangled in the false rumor that he is a Muslim. And it has been complicated by the effects of his association with his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose brand of black liberation theology brought religion, race and patriotism into the campaign in ways not helpful to Mr. Obama. He also faces significant hurdles in appealing to religious voters because of his tolerance for abortion and same-sex marriage.

It also appears that Mr. Obama's religious outreach efforts will be met by an increasingly intense reaction from the religious right.

James C. Dobson, one of the most prominent evangelical leaders on the right, accused Mr. Obama last week of employing a deviant reading of Scripture and a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" to justify his theology and world view.

Jeff Zeleny reported from Zanesville, Ohio, and Brian Knowlton from Washington.

Comments 1 - 50 of 94 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #203069 by Don_Quix on July 2, 2008 at 10:53 am

 avatarPandering in a political campaign? I am outraged!

Other Comments by Don_Quix

2. 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?
I think he doesn't want religion being preached along with these practices, and conflicts spurting out of religious beliefs.
But, c'mon, how is he going to avoid that, especially religious messages being whispered around, as they pass the bread and the blankets?
He'd be indirectly supporting a religion, which I bet he doesn't mind.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

3. Comment #203074 by Tezcatlipoca on July 2, 2008 at 10:56 am

 avatarI'm certainly unconvinced. What kind of learning is this summer program going to provide? Goddidit?

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

4. Comment #203085 by FightingFalcon on July 2, 2008 at 11:08 am

 avatarWhen McCain panders to the evangelical crowd, it's because he's genuinely seeking a religious take-over of America.

When Obama panders to the evangelical crowd, it's simply because he's looking for votes and doesn't *really* mean it.

I love this place...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

5. Comment #203091 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:10 am

 avatarFF,

I didn't read that in anyone's response here...

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

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.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #203095 by al-rawandi on July 2, 2008 at 11:16 am

 avatarGregg,






Connection with reality is not a pre-requisite.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

8. Comment #203098 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:19 am

 avatarAl,

Apparently paranoia is.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

9. Comment #203101 by Tezcatlipoca on July 2, 2008 at 11:21 am

 avatarI'm too full of gumbo from lunch to get very riled up. I'm currently quasi-riled...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

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?

Americans are terrified if the 'wall-of-separation' breaks down. 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)
Why am I wrong ?(practically speaking)

Other Comments by Paine

11. Comment #203108 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:26 am

 avatar10. Comment #203102 by Paine

Laurence Krauss agrees with you :)

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

12. Comment #203112 by LochRaven on July 2, 2008 at 11:28 am

 avatarIf a great enough percentage of the voting public believed in the tooth fairy, Obama (or any other candidate) would have himself fitted for a pair of wings and a six foot tooth brush. Nothing to see here, folks....move along....

Other Comments by LochRaven

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.

Other Comments by louzer

14. Comment #203120 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:37 am

 avatar13. Comment #203115 by louzer

I agree and will defend their right to do so...as long as they don't expect everyone to agree or try and force their opinion on others. I'm unsure of what you mean by "appeals to all people" in the context of this thread.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

15. Comment #203121 by Sciros on July 2, 2008 at 11:38 am

 avatarPaine, you're wrong because the culture in the UK (and other European countries) is not at all like it is in the US. There is no "national" religion, so if the wall of separation were to break that would PRACTICALLY mean that certain *vocal faith-based minorities* were able to exert that much influence over the government, and will be able to do so well into the future.

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 (yay awkwardly sounding sentence).

Other Comments by Sciros

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."

Geeez - for someone who's supposed to be post-racial, he's lost any inhibition about showing his true colours.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

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."

Wow. Just... wow.

Other Comments by MatthewJBarnard

18. Comment #203126 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 11:42 am

 avatar15. Comment #203121 by Sciros

True, the US would have to adopt an official church before it could be properly ignored. That would never happen in the US with an armed populace. If the separation ended Americans would divide into political parties based on religion.

Could you imagine the horror of a Baptist Political Party!

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

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.

Other Comments by BurningSky

20. Comment #203135 by FightingFalcon on July 2, 2008 at 11:54 am

 avatar

I didn't read that in anyone's response here...


I'm referring to the other article about McCain's TV interview on the Founding Fathers, where posters jumped all over him as a Christian evangelical. It was blatant pandering for votes...

This is the same thing but in this case, I'll be willing to bet that everyone recognizes it as pandering for votes as well.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

21. Comment #203142 by quill on July 2, 2008 at 12:08 pm

 avatarOMG.

Fuck him. First he closes the door on the Palestinian peace process, then he abandons public campaign financing, and now this. He is already turning into a major disappointment.

Making Bush's faith-based initiatives permanent is totally uncalled for. Expanding them is unthinkable. That's the end of church-state separation in this country.

Other Comments by quill

22. Comment #203145 by Edamus on July 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm

 avatar; ;

Noooo! I wonder what Sam Harris thinks of this since he supports him...

Other Comments by Edamus

23. Comment #203151 by Vaal on July 2, 2008 at 12:16 pm

 avatarPZ comments on it..

Next, there was some fast damage control: that early report was wrong, and here's what Obama really said.
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.

That sounds a bit better. I suppose in a way he has to pander to the religious vote, or won't be elected.

Other Comments by Vaal

24. Comment #203152 by quill on July 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm

 avatar
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.


Does anyone seriously think this is going to be, or even could be, enforced?

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.


Same question?

And why on earth should we ignore the fact that the purpose of these measures is simply to strengthen the role of religion in our society and to make our society more dependent upon it?

Other Comments by quill

25. Comment #203154 by arogop on July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm

 avatar19. Comment #203131 by BurningSky

Obama's heart is looking at the political ramifications only. He could just as easily have announced support for non religious groups that do the same work.

I have no problem with "outsourcing" as it can be less costly. I do have a problem with groups doing this to buy more new members.

Other Comments by arogop

26. Comment #203155 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on July 2, 2008 at 12:19 pm

 avatar
And I cant really say that's a step down. (50% atheists over there)


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."

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

27. Comment #203161 by Colwyn Abernathy on July 2, 2008 at 12:24 pm

 avatar
Scientist: "A highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists."

Wow. Just... wow.


Ahem...CARL FUCKING SAGAN...

okayimdone...

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

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.

What do I do now? I can't vote for McCain (Witness his deporable voting record...when he did vote...rarely) and Obama is showing religious feebleness. McCain is just a clone of Bush and that means we will continue to have a poor economy, corporate ripp-off , and WAR, WAR, WAR!!! In short, as a citizen of this country and for millions like me, we shoot nothing but blanks no matter what we do when we protest or make attempts for decent and necessary change. Two billion bucks a week for war and profit is ruining programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Just look at Social Security. That fund has been raided so much by I.O. U.'s that it will surely be defunct in a few decades; or sooner.

The 'Treaty of Tripoli' has been held meaningless by the administrations of this country for decades. But give me 'That Old time Religion' and all its dire consequences marches on. And so does human time. In that regard, America doesn't have much time or much hope left to stall the impending fall of what was once a Global power with great international influence. What a shame. All of these major problems would have been easily worked out if not for religion, corporate monstership, and war. I hardly believe that secular nations worldwide would be even close to the evil we witness on a daily basis now. Yikes!!!! The world is flat and is only a few thousand years old. So say the warmongering religious soothsayers of America. Please, Time Out.

Have A Happy

Other Comments by textom

29. Comment #203167 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm

 avatarWhen I first saw this, I thought "Oh, no! So now Obama really becomes just the lesser of two evils"

When I got to the part about non-discriminatory hiring and not using federal funds to proselytize, I thought "OK, this is a good way to gut the faith-based program Bush set up - remove the faith"

Then there's the bit about proving the programs effectiveness - can you say "abstinence-only"?

Reading between the lines, this looks like a very savvy political move to reassure the religious right that he will "respect religion" (and thereby get their votes) but in reality, he's going to strengthen the Wall.

Then again, maybe this is wishful thinking on my part

Other Comments by Thelonious

30. Comment #203174 by Paine on July 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Sciros

You bring up the UK as a model of no wall of separation. I can bring up Iran.


You cant seriously believe that American culture is closer to Iran than to Britain! 400 years of history says the opposite.

Other Comments by Paine

31. Comment #203176 by arogop on July 2, 2008 at 12:43 pm

 avatar29. Comment #203167 by Thelonious


Then again, maybe this is wishful thinking on my part


Yup.

28. Comment #203164 by textom


we shoot nothing but blanks no matter what we do


Not always a bad thing. he he he

Other Comments by arogop

32. Comment #203179 by Border Collie on July 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm

More tax dollars down the drain ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

33. Comment #203183 by hoops mccann on July 2, 2008 at 12:47 pm

 avatarHow depressing. He really should know better. This is a direct government subsidy to religious institutions (as if they don't already have enough money), who will pocket most of it. The poor will never see the money and the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab, as usual. Also, largese from churches rarely comes without strings attached, even if it's only forcing people to sit through a dreary sermon. Faithheads really have some balls. You would think that not having to pay taxes would be enough privilige. Despite all this, I'm going to vote for the bastard anyway. This is no time for a protest vote.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

34. Comment #203192 by prettygoodformonkeys on July 2, 2008 at 12:58 pm

 avatar1. He doesn't need to pander. The religious right is already supporting him, but he needs to make a faith statement in his policies because it's America.

2. From an administrative point of view this may seem to make sense because these groups have tax-free status, and utilising them means maximising that as a service. 'Less government employees' is popular at election time.

However, I don't agree with the tax-free status, and I see faith as a weakness to be overcome, so it doesn't work for me.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

35. Comment #203196 by Thelonious on July 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

 avatarDoes anyone know how what he's proposing differs from the way things worked pre-Bush?

I belive religious organizations could get federal money for secular programs.

To what extent is he just rolling back?

Other Comments by Thelonious

36. Comment #203197 by tahustvedt on July 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

 avatarWhy can't they invest money in a humanist-based initiative to fight poverty and perform community aid work?

I know the answer, I'm just venting.

Other Comments by tahustvedt

37. Comment #203201 by Barry Pearson on July 2, 2008 at 1:07 pm

 avatar
#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)

#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."
Eurobarometer survey 2005:

I believe there is a God: 38%
I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force: 40%
I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force: 20%
Don't know: 2%

See:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/assets/EB_2005.gif

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

38. Comment #203202 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

 avatarPaine,

That's not what I got from Sciros at all.

You said:
Well, what would happen if it did break down?.....we'd be more like the UK, I suppose.


He said:
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


To 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. Sounds like he advocates Americans to protect the wall because the result could be disaster.

I could be wrong.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

39. Comment #203210 by DamnDirtyApe on July 2, 2008 at 1:14 pm

 avatarI sodding hate politics.

I did expect this from McCain, but Falcon is right, we really should have expected it from both of them.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

40. Comment #203222 by lister19 on July 2, 2008 at 1:25 pm

 avatarObama is making me really question whether I should vote for him or not. Sadly, the choices are limited and he may be the lesser of two evils. It's really just ridiculous.

Other Comments by lister19

41. Comment #203226 by Ansu on July 2, 2008 at 1:29 pm

 avatarBeing a president of all the people means being president of ALL the people, including the nuts.
That kind of deal, in politics, it means its ALWAYS the lesser of two evils.

So: Down with democracy, Socrates as philosopher king.

or...

Form a atheist/secular lobby and push your special interests ahead of the special interests of the religious lobby.
So, with elections and lobbies, every nation got the president it deserves. Unless they commit electoral fraud. But then again, if you LET them commit fraud...

Politics are fun.

Other Comments by Ansu

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.

The hordes of liberals who love Obama probably did not have this in mind when they supported him.

Other Comments by WilliamP

43. Comment #203228 by 8teist on July 2, 2008 at 1:32 pm

 avatarBoy , Am I glad I don`t have to vote.


Tweedledum vs tweedledummer




This planet is up shit street well and truly,I get up this morning and I think I`ve been transported back to 1st of april 1013.
Now muslims don`t like dogs, special churches for those who don`t like gays now this .

FFS ,should have stayed in bed ,whats next ,the pope going to tell us he does`nt like altar boys for supper

Other Comments by 8teist

44. Comment #203236 by aratina on July 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

 avatarQuite a few people find complacency with Obama's faith council too readily. From another NY Times article:
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.


Other Comments by aratina

45. Comment #203239 by stephenray on July 2, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Right.

So these religious groups can only use the federal dollars to do things that Obama approves of.

Gosh, I'm sure they won't have any money just - sitting around, you know, as a result of these big blats of cash from DC, saving them from large chunks of expenditure - and which they can then spend on PROSELYTISING AND DISCRIMINATING THEIR ASSES OFF.

Did Obama's IQ drop 25 points when he got the nomination?

Other Comments by stephenray

46. Comment #203249 by the great teapot on July 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm

It's political correctness gone mad I tell ya.
Would the last person to leave the country please turn the energy saving light bulbs off.

Straight bananas....
No more smokey bacon flavoured crisps, why I ought ta ....

And prison camps, holiday camps more like...

oh, sorry, wrong thread.

Other Comments by the great teapot

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.

"Obama - he will heal divisions by giving us the worst of both worlds!"

The religious insanity of the right combined with the cowardice and pusillaminousness of the left.

Whoopee. Now, for the record, there is an actual war going on. With Iran building nukes, Obama's election would be a catastrophe.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

48. Comment #203259 by Paine on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 pm

GreggTownsend
To 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.

I was saying that given the similarities between UK and US, it's more likely that US will follow the UK model rather than the Iran model.

Other Comments by Paine

49. Comment #203264 by Gregg Townsend on July 2, 2008 at 2:26 pm

 avatar48. Comment #203259 by Paine

You may be right.

It seems more likely to me, that because we don't have a 'state religion' (like the UK does), all the religions in the US would fight for supremacy (maybe even physically)and we could end up with a theocracy. Rumor has it there are a lot of heavily armed Baptists below the Mason Dixon line who would just love to be 'Christian Soldiers' ;)

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

50. Comment #203271 by Libertas on July 2, 2008 at 2:41 pm

 avatarhttp://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22894_1.html

If you want to know more about Obama's beliefs and his hope to be 'an instrument of God's will'...

"The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted."

Or about secularization, the Obama way...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/politics/01obama-text.html?ref=politics

"I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart â€" it will be a critical part of my administration.
(…)
We know that faith and values can be a source of strength in our own lives. That's what it's been to me. And that's what it is to so many Americans. But it can also be something more. It can be the foundation of a new project of American renewal. And that's the kind of effort I intend to lead as President of the United States."

Brr… sad and scary!

Apparently Obama doesn't understand the basic principle that there's no freedom OF religion, without freedom WITHOUT religion...

A missed opportunity...

Other Comments by Libertas
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: