Unless it’s “I disapprove of it, but it’s not my place to interfere with other people’s lives.” Which would be such a refreshing change, wouldn’t it?
Bush created FBCI. My wife deals with it extensively for her job. I can assure you there’s nothing remotely theocratic about it and that it doesn’t come close to encroaching on SOCAS. This is not me defending Obama, I defended FBCI even under Bush.
Obama supports civil unions and does not support legislation outlawing gay marriage, so no theocracy there. Sorry.
Also, everybody knows he doesn’t really care about gay marriage. That’s just one of those things you have to say to get elected.
How are we supposed to know that, exactly?
Um by the fact that it barely rates a passing mention most of the time?
It does seem logical to suppose that if he really cared about it we’d hear about it.
He’s way too intelligent to really think it matters.
No, Obama actually created a new department - the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Here’s the Press Release.
This does go to the point I was trying to make earlier. You’re not worried about this from Obama, because you simply don’t believe he’s the kind of President who would really push his faith around. That causes you to turn a blind eye towards very religious statement and even formal ‘partnerships’ between the White House and various churches. This is behaviour you would not tolerate for a second if Bush or Palin were doing it.
That said, I do understand where you’re coming from. Obama believes in evolution, he gave a shout-out to athiests in a speech a while ago, he just reversed Bush’s ban on funding for embryonic stem cells, and in general he doesn’t behave like the ‘other’ fundies. He comes across as much less threatening from a theocratic standpoint than does Palin.
I am disheartened to know that, and that is why I said earlier that I hope he is a hypocrite to the extent of his public avowals of religious faith. I would far prefer him to be an atheist espousing fake religious faith than a zealot pretending to secularism.
However, even assuming he is honest about his faith, I find his expressions of it far less threatening to the separation of church and state than Bush ever was, or McCain was poised to be.
I should add that the new department works with both secular and religious charities.
Also, I understand where Obama’s coming from. As a community organizer, I’m sure he saw how much good churches did in their local communities. This is especially true for black churches in the inner cities. It’s not so much about the religion as it is about the fact that these churches are organized very well and have a big presence in the community, and leveraging their strengths makes a lot of sense. Better to have charity from from a church than from a faceless bureaucrat in a government office. Directing the assistance through the church raises the probability that it will go where it does the most good, and that the church brings a chance of helping people get back on the straight and narrow and off assistance that doesn’t exist when people are just standing in lines for handouts from the government.
I just want to make sure that it’s clear I’m not dissing Obama or his initiative in this case. I’m just pointing out that you might want to consider that there is a certain amount of bias involved when evaluating religious statements from very polarizing figures on the other side of the aisle.
Bush created FBIC. Obama decided to expand it.
Did you read my last post? Have you ever read a fucking thing I’ve ever said about FBCI? I’ve been defending it for years her on this board and I DEFENDED IT UNDER BUSH. Do you want me to search for the threads? Are you prepared to stand by your accusation that I “would never tolerate it under Bush?” I defended it multiple times for page after fucking page. Do you want me to link to the posts or will you take my word for it and retract that accusation now?
He does not espouse theocratic policies, and he understands the Constitution, that is correct. It’s not about what any of these people believe, it’s about what they want to legislate.
By the way, the one time in my life I’ve ever had the choice between voting for a Christian and an atheist in a major political election, I voted for the Christian.
What Dio said. Obama’s “new” Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is just a reworking of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Here’s the actual Executive Order: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/AmendmentstoExecutiveOrder13199andEstablishmentofthePresidentsAdvisoryCouncilforFaith-BasedandNeighborhoodPartnerships/
FBCI always did. It stands for Faith-Based and Community Intitiative.
It was the curches that hired him.
I don’t think you really understand how FBCI works. It doesn’t just funnel money through churches. All it does (or at least all it did under Bush) was allow churches to compete for grants along with secular organizations. The money doesn’t actually go to the churches, but to the specific programs that the government wants to fund. All FBCI does is allow the churches to make a case to be allowed to run the programs. For instance, if the government wants to fund a homeless shelter, then religious and non-religious groups alike can compete for the grant to run it. If a church wins the grant, the money then goes to the shelter, not to the church. The church has to run it without any religious conditions on either services or employment, and without any proselytization going on at the site. They aren’t just saying “Churches are great, here’s money.” They’re saying. "Hey, if you can make the best case for why you should be allowed to run this halfway house, have at it, but STFU about the God stuff. I didn’t have a problem with it under Bush, and I spent a lot of time on this board defending it from liberals.
My wife is a government grant writer. She’s been dealing with FBCI for years. Don’t come in here trying to tell me that it was created by Obama. It was created by Bush.
The thing is, he doesn’t support specific legislation banning gay marriage, so it doesn’t really matter.
I think it’s basically the same as how all pro-choice politicians always say “I personally think abortion is wrong, but I don’t think I have the right make that decision for somebody else.”
Sam:
Yeesh. Which “guys”, Sam? Which specific “liberals” made these claims? Are you at all capable of debating a single opponent, or is everyone who disagrees with you a representative of some sort of single, left-wing liberal ideology? Just because Hentor and I share a similar political perspective, does that make me responsible for everything he posts?
This is a good example of you utterly contemptuous and disrespectful you are towards your debating opponents. People take time out to respond to your posts with researched counter-arguments, facts, etc. You call it “yowling.” This from a man who apparently can’t add up a series of numbers and divide it to get the average. And strange how these little “mistakes” and “oversights” you make always seem to turn out in your favor, to support your point. Yet you sit there with a straight face and accuse us “liberals” of bias, of seeing issues distorted by out own filters.
Here’s a news flash fer ya, Sammy: everybody always sees the world through they’re own set of filters. Even you. That’s the whole reason why I seek out people with a different view – to help me get around my biases. Of course, the person on the other side of the debate should come armed with logical arguments and matters of fact – not Sam Stone style hooey. Cause that shit don’t fly.
Oy.
Looks like I touched a nerve.
Oh. Was it a draw? Or did it backfire in my face? You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Again.
So, your point is the bias and hypocrisy of the left. How come you never mentioned this before now?
luci:
Ain’t it a bit past your bedtime, old feller?
As to his point, by the way, it could be summed up with neanderthalic simplicity:
“Right good. Left bad. Ug.”
Regardless of the facts.
And you? Finished your suicidal brooding early today, have you?
“I whipped your ass so bad it’s legendary. But if you want to call it a draw I guess we can do that.”
Sam Stone, reality-challenged.
I wonder, did Bush make any progress on getting us a manned mission to Mars? I missed that happening - but I remember Sam betting all orgasmic over a couple lines in a speech.
-Joe