Obama's Plot to Destroy the Religious Right
Obama's proposed Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, faith-based initiatives to funnel social welfare money through religiously-run institutions, is not a move to the right as some bloggers argue; in fact, it's a brilliant plot to seize political territory and marginalize the religious right.
The key sentences from the proposal are these:
"Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxpayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy."
What this means is that Obama gets to direct money almost exclusively to liberal and moderate religious groups, solidifying their support and expanding their influence at the expense of rightwing religious organizations that will refuse the money rather than hire people of the wrong religion and comply with other govenrment requirements.
The controversy over much of Bush's proposals is that he wanted to allow religiously-based charities to continue to discriminate in hiring even within the parts of their operations receiving public funds. If Catholic Charities has a child care operation, that hires in a religiously neutral way, it doesn't seem that they should be denied public funds compared to other non-profits just because they continue to hire Catholics for their more religiously-oriented operations (where it would seem odd for them to do otherwise).
Some folks might prefer completely secular administration of all public programs, but there are both pragmatic arguments that using religious organizations will actually reach some folks not reached by secular ones, and from a cynical political perspective, putting a lot of religious groups on the public dole will encourage them to become lobbyists for more money to help the poor--not a bad thing.
. As a stone-cold atheist, it seems ridiculously discriminatory against religious groups to say that, if they agree to run a program whose staff are hired regardless of affiliation and where benefits are distributed regardless of affiliation, that such a religious group should be barred from running a social program where a secular non-profit could receive those funds.
But worse than discrimination, why shouldn't we want to encourage people who are already organized through their church to convert that grassroots energy into institutions helping the poor and those in need? Church-based institutions are some of the most powerful forces for helping those in need in urban poor areas, something Obama discussed at length in his autobiography, so this initiative is hardly some "capitulation to the rightwing" but one of the most obvious outgrowths of his own personal experience. In Harlen/Upper Manhattan where I live, the Abyssian Baptist Church is a major force for economic redevelopment and strengthening their efforts seems a reasonable, pragmatic choice by any progressive administration.
And the reality is that directing more money to churches that actually do such direct services to the poor will strengthen those kinds of poverty-oriented churches at the expense of rightwing churches that think just prosecylyting is all that is needed. There are some rightwing churches that also do good work helping the poor--but actually not that many. More of them devote their excess money to building pretty buildings and social centers for their own members.
It's worth understanding that many rightwing religious leaders were not that enthusiastic about the Bush Faith-based initiatives for this reason.
Their concerns reflect long-held fears among conservative and evangelical Christians that by accepting government financing for endeavors from homeless shelters to job training programs, religious programs invite government meddling in their mission and message.The piece quoted cited this statistic- in a survey of more than 1,200 religious congregations in 1998 conducted by Mark Chaves, a sociology professor at the University of Arizona, found that only 28 percent of politically conservative congregations were willing to apply for government financing for charity work, compared with 51 percent of politically moderate or liberal congregations."Some of the religious groups that have offered tepid support, or none at all, for Mr. Bush's program are the same ones that for years argued that the government discriminates against religious programs by primarily financing secular ones. The Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board said that while "optimistic," it had urged its ministries to "proceed with caution," explaining, "There can be a tendency over time for the government to attempt to control that which it subsidizes."
Read that last sentence--pretty good documentation that it's moderate religious groups that would actually benefit the most, since they are much more willing to comply with the secular restraints built into the rules requiring non-discriminatory hiring and avoidance of preaching at recipients. And it's likely to set off civil war within some conservative churches where younger, less doctrinaire evangelicals committed to anti-poverty ideals will fight to accept the money versus the old guard-- adding even more to internal turmoil on the right.
So that's the brilliance of Obama's nefarious plot to destroy the rightwing. Of course, if anyone has read his autobiography, they would know that in fighting poverty in inner-city Chicago, almost all of Obama's work was mobilizing churches to get more involved in easing poverty, so he is actually promoting the whole idea because he thinks it's the right thing to do. But the likely destruction of the religious right is a nice benefit.
Comments (48)
So...would an organization such as the Creation Museum be able to obtain federal tax dollars to fund operations based on their agenda?
July 2, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, presumably, if they're a church (I'm not sure the "Creation Museum" per se is), and that mission is something like feeding people as part of a program that has agreed to abide by Federal anti-descrimination regulations and doesn't try to convert people. What do you really think the odds of that are?
July 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Grant funds may not be used for inherently religious activities such as worship, prayer, proselytizing, or devotional Bible study. The funds are to be used to further the objectives established by Congress such as creating the conditions for economic growth and prosperity.
A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship or instruction are separate–in time or location–from the government-funded services that it offers. However, you may use space in your church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship to provide Federally-funded services. In addition, there is no need to remove religious symbols from these rooms. You may also keep your organization's name even if it includes religious words, and you may include religious references in your organization's mission statements."
July 2, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Here's a link:
http://www.commerce.gov/OS/CFBCI/DEV01_005413
July 2, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have too much of a problem the way Ob says the criteria will be, but what happens when the next Bush takes over?
July 3, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
A question asked at a public hearing of the SF Ten Year Homelessness Planning Council by some small religious organization, we'll call it " Creation Museum " if you like
The answer is yes.
Apply for the grant you think you are qualified to administer and see what happens
July 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what planet some of you limo libs have been living on, but here on the streets, ever since the Great Society developed community action programs, religious organizations have been an indispensable part of delivering services to the poor...
And most of these organizations, religious or secular, are progressive.
We just don't ride in limos and our knees don't jerk quite so often
We are the safety net
July 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In my whole entire life as a liberal, I have yet to come across that person known as a limo liberal. And my parents are doctors. Most of the upper crust folks I know that are liberal are incredibly involved in helping the poor, giving to church social services (as in social work) and homeless shelters. But then again, I live in KY, which isn't exactly limo territory. Unless you're a stuck up rich republican's daughter or her friends out on a weekend boozer.
July 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've only known a few people in my life that actually rode around in limos. They were either corporate lawyers or bankers, and they were all die-hard republicans.
Do liberal senators count in this category?
July 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. There are limo people in KY -- maybe not liberals, but hang around the festivities on the first Saturday in every May if you really want to see the truly despicable limo people. As Jesus recommended to the rich young man, sell all you have and give it to the poor.
July 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the avatar that you use, and by the vitriol that you spew, I think you are what I call an Obamanoid, trying to establish the “ Church of Obama.”
You guys are making a great mistake if you think we are going to follow Obama blindly no matter what he does as as if he were some kind of deity.
If you keep pissing us off with your smug self-righteous, self-serving bullshit, you are going make your blessed leader lose in the general.
This is a fair warning: we are watching you guys.
July 4, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was worth a good chuckle. I truly wonder if those who are bent on being heard through commenting on blogs are already a bit filled with self importance?
I admit I am guilty.
But I also hope that my occasional human failings do not drive people away from voting for who they want to vote for. I may be an asshole, but the candidate I will vote for is not particularly reflective of that unfortunate trait.
But you keep a watch. Maybe have a running tally on a google spread sheet that we can all link to. One that details the blogger, the number of times they have been smug, self-righteous, etc, and provide links to those comments. Soon we will rid our selves of all the dick heads who we disagree with. I see utopia on the horizon already.
July 4, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with the faith-based office is that it is run out of the Whitehouse. Notice the mischief that this caused when the courts ruled that the dispersal of these funds was outside the purview of congress.
It is the bending (breaking?) of the constitution like this that makes such programs a problem. Doesn't the Whitehouse, and the entire executive branch get its funding via congress? Of course it does, so one subprogram within the overall allocation can't logically be treated differently.
If there are to be religious organizations getting funds then they can get them as part of any social programs that congress and/or the executive agencies administer. This selective pork by the Whitehouse sets a bad precedent and as we have seen can be easily used for political ends.
Can we also give up on the rightwing designed euphemism - faith-based? Are their any faith-based groups that are not religious? This is just another way language is used to cover up what is really intended.
If Obama wants to increase support for community-based social services then let him propose it as part of his overall plans. As it stands it looks like pandering to the religious right, smells like pandering and stinks like pandering.
July 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. The WH Office of Faith-based Initiatives is a tax-payer funded porkfest where Bu$hco can reward his AmTalibangelical supporters.
It wasn't about achieving any results - religious organizations have been involved and receiving government contracts for decades to provide public services - the objective for the traditional religious charities was to serve people, not rake in $$$ like Dobson, Robertson and the other Cargo Christians.
July 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep in mind - part of the anti-dem spin has been to try to isolate the religious from the democratic party.
Undoing that perception will lighten the load for progressive democrats.
July 4, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How 'bout we just develop an effective government-funded and government-operated social safety net and let private organizations (religious or not) do what they do on their own without government help?
I don't believe Obama's policy is intended to destroy right-wing religious organizations, but even if it were, I still would see no reason to support it. The government should be providing basic social services on its own, without having to partner with other organizations to do its business. Other organizations should then be free to supplement the core government programs with additional programs of their own--and they should have the freedom to do that however they best see fit (with or without religious proselytization).
Outsourcing the government's social programs to religious groups is about as appealing to me as outsourcing the government's military operations to KBR and Blackwater. It's the same basic concept.
July 2, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to say: "It's the same basic concept and it stinks."
July 2, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really-- church food pantries are the same thing as murderous mercenaries like Blackwater? It's this crazy level of antipathy to religious organizations which is what keeps liberalism from winning the loyalty of a lot of working class folks.
And the idea that government shouldn't partner with anyone is ridiculous, since "government" needs to tap all the venues the marginalized have human contact for most effectiveness. Sure, there may be too much privatization of public services, but that is a separate question from whether, when the government does provide funds to outside non-profits, should they encourage collaboration with religious non-profits as well as secular ones.
July 2, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
So explain why it has to remain a Whtiehouse run program?
The Supreme Court has ruled that textbooks and bus service to parochial schools can be paid out of general school taxes and they are in many localities. There is no special office for this, just the regular (secular) school board and administration.
So what makes this particular initiative in need of its own department within the Whitehouse? Not only do its funds avoid congressional oversight, but its staff is entirely political instead of being part of the career civil service structure.
Sorry, there needs to be more thought given about this arrangement and it has nothing to do with being anti-religious.
July 2, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to agree with you on this. As a practical matter, what are those people who need help supposed to do while we magically remediate US political culture to support the expansion of the social safety net? I think this is a worthwhile goal in itself, but this all or nothing business seems a little unrealistic and kind of callous.
July 2, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's this crazy level of antipathy to religious organizations which is what keeps liberalism from winning the loyalty of a lot of working class folks.
I think it was you who said But the likely destruction of the religious right is a nice benefit. I guess selective antipathy to certain religious organizations is okay with the working folks, then? Hint: if you want to ask some working folks what they think about the destruction of the religious right, I'd suggest you make sure you're north of the Mason Dixon line and within 50 miles of an ocean when you ask.
Personally, I have no antipathy to religious groups (I even attended Divinity School at one point). And I recognize that many religious groups do great things. But some do things that make many Americans uncomfortable and not all are willing to readily abandon their religious agenda when performing charity. Who is going to police all these organizations to make sure they are following the anti-proselytizing guidelines upon which funding will be contingent? And how efficient is it for our government to rely on a bunch of independent, disorganized, spottily distributed, and often unprofessionally managed organizations to provide welfare services? Wouldn't it be better for the government to invest those tax dollars in developing a uniform program that would work equally in all areas of the US? Why spend millions through religious organizations when we could shore up our public institutions? Isn't this what the right wing wants to do to the schools? Use vouchers to fund religious education in order to destroy the "liberal" teachers union that runs the public schools? Wouldn't it be better for the government to make the public schools better rather than funding religious education? I understand that United Church of Christ soup kitchens aren't mercenaries like Blackwater. But what about the charities run by people like James Hagee? Once the government gets involved, separating the good religions from the bad won't be easy. And furthermore, it's something the government should be involved in and the religious organizations shouldn't welcome.
July 2, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh for an editing function. My last sentence should read:
Once the government gets involved, separating the good religiious organizations from the bad won't be easy. And furthermore, it's something the government shouldn't be involved in and the religious organizations shouldn't welcome.
July 2, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a really bad idea. What it would do is give opponents a strong position in cutting off funds for unpopular programs. Look at what happened to the NEA after Karen Findlay pissed off the Republicans.
Here's something to consider: could it be that our budget deficit was created intentionally in order to provide the Bush administration a casus belli to go to war against unpopular social programs? "We don't want to cut medicare, but there's no other way. We simply can't afford it." Think about it. You need to see these things for what they are. From a strategic perspective, it makes very good sense to put a firewall between the source of the funding and the recipient. Otherwise, you get a situation like what's happened to NPR, where the Republicans have essentially taken it over. Do high gas prices hurt the country? Not if you're a Republican who thinks we should be drilling in ANWR.
You don't want to trust these people with any sort of administrative control over what's done with the money.
July 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The deficit was indeed intended to undercut non military government spending. It was called "Starving the Beast".
July 3, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The premise presupposes that the Religious Right won't first destroy Obama. Conservative religious groups will soon be airing ads about Obama's 2002 vote in the Illinois legislature that permits denial of medical care to babies who survive abortions. Let's observe the public reaction to that rather provocative stance before we bury the theocrats.
July 2, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The right can try to destroy Obama, but he's got a solid case. It can be easily argued that in their effort to control people and gain money and political power, some evangelical preachers have deliberately twisted the teachings of Jesus. Obama's citation of Leviticus, for instance, which so offended Dobson, is a fair reading of the passage. It either nullifies one of the prime arguments against homosexuality, or it condemns people who eat at Red Lobster to eternal damnation. The important point to keep in mind (and something Obama clearly knows) is that most people of faith are trying to do what's right, but many of them are too lazy to think for themselves. So they go to some ignorant cracker like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and let them do the interpretation. Obama makes sense. Those guys don't. Obama will win this argument--without question.
July 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have eaten at Red Lobster and I will be eternally damned for it. And I didn't even eat the shellfish. When it comes to food, "abomination" covers a lot of ground.
July 6, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, 1, off topic.
2. No link or evidence given, just some crap you wrote that offers an extreme hyperbole, kind of like those traveling college anti-abortion picture shows.
3. Needlessly inflammatory, or, I could say, troll-like.
I know no one's taken the bait, and maybe I'm naive for doing it. But I gotta call it.
July 3, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Nathan. Fed money to religion-based charities has always struck me as just plain bad, but now I get that with definite guide lines, it's a good idea.
If we had a confirmed atheist in the WH - think Hitchens - he/she might launch a mission directed to cutting off all fed funding to religion-based charities. Would we say he's promoting atheism?
Question, do Muslim-based charities receive fed funds? If not, would Obama's plan allow that? I hope so.
July 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that such programs have to be available to heterodox religions is another reason many of the religious right have been leery of the idea as well.
July 2, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain where the theory of "checks and balances" fit into this Whitehouse run program?
July 2, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should be a non-issue for the left. Obama comes from a background in which Church and community are important. He has every reason to support issues with which he agrees, even when they may be supported on the right. Many Christian fundamentalists were former labor/union democrats. The idea is bringing folks together when possible. Not keeping them stranded in political cubby holes.
July 2, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
To say nothing of the fact that his famed "grass roots" political organization got a tremedous head start from church organizations?
July 3, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want to add....there are some basic things that I feel are necessary for our government to provide directly to us because they are too fundamentally important for it not to. Interstate Highways, Public Education, Health Care, Defense, Food Safety, Disaster Response, Social Welfare, Fire and Police. Farming out these basic responsiblies to private entities undermines not only our protections in the constitution but the reason for the government to exist in the first place.
This theory of privatization taken to its extreme would have us democratically elect our representatives whose job would be to outsource the day-to-day operation of our country. Other than sounding ridiculous, after all it's only an example for academic purposes, what happens to the checks and balances between the three different branches of government? They disappear.
Outsourcing fundamental services and/or creating a service in the executive branch outside of the preview of Congress makes even a minimum appearance of propriety unattainable and impossible to maintain, not to mention the rich environment for corruption makes it guaranteed to occur.
So, the questions are, how much are we willing to compromise the Constitution’s separation of church and state to win an election and, do we have a freedom FROM religion or just a freedom OF religion?
July 2, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the example of outsourcing the War on Terra to Blackwater, KBR, etc. That's worked real well for us, hasn't it?
July 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
phelicity---1. Hitchens wouldn't do that as it would be out of character for him and, 2. constitutionally he couldn't if he would want to.
Hitchen's point in that it is silly for an enlightened and educated society to believe in what amounts to an unimperical fairy tale and then create policies and govern by their faith that what they believe is indisputable reality.
The only place religion and government will ever peacefully co-exist is in a theocracy. Otherwise, they will always clash over power and control unless the following is strictly observed.
Neither government nor religion have any place in the others business and the public makes sure it stays that way.
July 2, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Hitchens is a Brit...Other than that stumbling block to fame and fortune, my problem with Hitchens is his blatant dogmatism - besides his intolerance and his closed-mindedness, the very qualities which he abhors among the religious.
Religion has a way of effectively resisting those who advocate its demise - Soviet Union is a case in point. One doesn't have to join one, but it's futile to try and wipe it out or to deny it a seat at the table in the airy-fairy hope that it will just go away.
July 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
I had this very argument with my brother yesterday. We both are active Episcopalians, he in suburban Houston, me here in the heart of San Francisco where I am actively involved in homelessness policy and programs both through my Diocese and secularly through the City. When the City adopted it's Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, I served as a member of staff to the council chairwoman, Angela Alioto.
Nathan's spot on
July 2, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Obama is simply a brilliant politician who understands funding those in the community who reach out to build better communities by providing services to the needy.
It is wonderful to have a person who understands the role of faith in people's lives and the need for government to fund the programs so that there are fewer government agencies added to do the work the community outreach programming and churches can do.
Obama is just plain brilliant.
And no one can say he is pandering because this is precisely the type of work he himself did prior to becoming an attorney.
Obama has a far higher calling and purpose...America will be blessed to have him as President.
July 2, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
hhmm, using tax dollars to further a partisan agenda and strengthen one ideological side is okay if we do it?
I guess those who say Democrats are no better than Republicans just need to come here and get your words of wisdom to figure that out.
July 2, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, "Destroy the religious right"? Is it me or is that title taken from the Empire talking about the rebels (just replace R.R. with Rebels)?
July 3, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has volunteered in church-based programs and also government-run programs, I would much rather go to the church-based program if I ever needed help. The government programs tend to be cold and demanding, and the church-based ones are much more respectful and compassionate. The government program are about like going to the DMV employees and asking for food or shelter. As for Hagee's church, I doubt his church needs government funds...it's as big as a small city. But Hagee and his type do not represent the Christian faith, they just get more media attention than the churches that teach tolerance.
July 3, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of the political motives, a little help for organizations that are already trying to help the poor and homeless, as long as there's no religious test or content, would be a big help. An example: my town has an interfaith group (membership across the spectrum from Unitarians to Mormons) running a program called Family Promise, which gives low-income folks who've just moved to town a place to stay and help finding a job and a place to live.
It's done almost entirely with donations and volunteers (the clients overnight in back rooms of churches, here in a city where there are no -- NO -- alternatives for free space), but a few hundred bucks here and there would be a big help. Programs like FP are where the rubber hits the road, and churches are in a position to deliver because of the existing buildings and the volunteer pool.
Yes, it would be great if there were affordable housing and a living wage, and those things should be part of any progressive agenda, but we are about so far from that situation as any society can be, so there's plenty of triage to be done.
July 3, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we're walking a thin line here.
I agree it makes perfect common sense to help those that already have the structure, will, & drive in place to assist those in need.
The key here may be in monitoring & oversight.
Should the public be forced (through taxes) to support religious organizations in any way shape or form???
I think the ideal is admirable. I believe the intentions are most likely pure. The caveats put forward by Obama are definitely key.
As for destroying, or damaging the right, I think we may want to keep our mouths shut & see how it plays out. Strategies seem to work more effectively when not exposed to the opposition...
Peace.
July 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Should the public be forced...to support religious organizations..." is really at the heart of the 'problem.' By partially funding their social outreach programs, are we (also) supporting them. I don't think so but could certainly mount an argument that we are.
July 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is going to destroy the Religious Right by funding their outreach to the poor?
They get to appear warm and fuzzy on the government dime?
Sorry, on my taxpayer dime?
And whoever happens to be in the White House at the time gets to decide whether or not they are using the money to preach with?
Can they teach the Ten Commandments or do they cross a line when they say thou shalt not steal comes from God?
How long can grace at lunch go on before it is an invitation to believe?
This is entanglement pure and simple.
July 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the avatar that you use, and by the vitriol that you spew, I think you are what I call an Obamanoid, trying to establish the “ Church of Obama.”
You guys are making a great mistake if you think we are going to follow Obama blindly no matter what he does as if he were some kind of deity.
If you keep pissing us off with your smug self-righteous, self-serving bullshit, you are going make your blessed leader lose in the general.
This is a fair warning: we are watching you.
July 4, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which side of the bars are you on?
And on second thought - who exactly is "us"?
Do you all have identifying tattoos that light up when you come in proximity of each other or something? How can I join?
July 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink