Obama's Faith-Based Initiative

[Vermouth]

I guess this fits in with the idea that Obama is morphing into Bush.

...It was the height of the Gingrich revolution in 1994. A few perceptive (and lonely) Republicans, including Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana, were convinced that an exclusively anti-government approach would be both morally incomplete and politically self-destructive—that a party with nothing hopeful to say about addiction, disadvantaged youths or homelessness would not remain a governing party for long. As a young staffer, I worked with Coats’s legislative team on a package of legislation called the Project for American Renewal, designed to promote the work of community and faith-based charities.

The Republican leadership listened to our ideas politely, as one listens to a slightly batty uncle—then proceeded to shut down the government in 1995. The Clinton administration did more than listen. By 1999, Vice President Al Gore was calling for a “new partnership” between government and “faith-based organizations.” But it was Texas Gov. George W. Bush who ran with the idea as a centerpiece of compassionate conservatism.

So Barack Obama’s recent announcement of “a new project of American renewal” that will “empower faith-based organizations” rang a peal of mental bells for me. The power of a political idea is largely measured by its influence on the other party. By this measure, the faith-based initiative is now a permanent feature of American life.

Obama’s proposal immediately won the right supporters, including John DiIulio, one of the most principled compassionate conservatives of the early Bush administration. It also earned the right critics. When Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State says, “I am disappointed,” Obama is on the right track. My own reaction: Obama has done himself and his country a service and reminded many of us why we found him a compelling political figure in the first place...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/03/AR2008070302449.html

[OswaldTheOsprey]

It is a good idea whether from Bush or Obama. The Social Gospel follows the true teachings of Christ.

OswaldTheOsprey

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

it's a good idea because these orgs are already there and embedded within the communities delivering human services.

[Intellectual]

it's a good idea because these orgs are already there and embedded within the communities delivering human services.

I think private charity is almost always better than government welfare.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

it's a good idea because these orgs are already there and embedded within the communities delivering human services.

I think private charity is almost always better than government welfare.

The best idea, IMHO, is for the private organizations to be assisted by the government when needed.

OswaldTheOsprey

[BigLebowski]

it's a good idea because these orgs are already there and embedded within the communities delivering human services.

I think private charity is almost always better than government welfare.

The best idea, IMHO, is for the private organizations to be assisted by the government when needed.

OswaldTheOsprey

I agree, the problem with relying solely on private organizations is that is doesn't necessarily get funnelled to the most distressed areas.   

Example:  If you give to your church, your church will benefit your community.   Which in theory sounds great.  But if you already live in a nice community, should that money go to repaving the church parking lot again, or would that same money be better spent on building a playground for the inner city youths?   

[BIGTEX]

Lebowski:

When are you going to pay BIGTEX the money you owe him?

[OswaldTheOsprey]

it's a good idea because these orgs are already there and embedded within the communities delivering human services.

I think private charity is almost always better than government welfare.

The best idea, IMHO, is for the private organizations to be assisted by the government when needed.

OswaldTheOsprey

I agree, the problem with relying solely on private organizations is that is doesn't necessarily get funnelled to the most distressed areas.   

Example:  If you give to your church, your church will benefit your community.   Which in theory sounds great.  But if you already live in a nice community, should that money go to repaving the church parking lot again, or would that same money be better spent on building a playground for the inner city youths?   

Good points. Some churches are better at the social gospel than others (I'll be nice and name no names). I have no problem with the government helping religious programs aimed at the poor. Of course all churches would be so involved if they truly heeded Christ's teachings.

OswaldTheOsprey

[E. G. Miller]

If I had any say, the federal government would not give a nickel to any church, ever. The safety net should be maintained, not thrown away to a bunch of brainwashers.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

If I had any say, the federal government would not give a nickel to any church, ever. The safety net should be maintained, not thrown away to a bunch of brainwashers.

Aid is aid if one is hungry and homeless.

OswaldTheOsprey

[Peter1469]

Of course, why not just reinvent the wheel….