Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.07.2008 8:05 am

Obama supports faith-based initiatives office — sincere or cynical?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives began during President Bush’s years in office as a way of supporting “compassion in action” by religious groups serving their communities.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama says he supports the efforts of that office and would allow it to continue. In fact, he says he would “expand it to direct more money to religious groups,” according to a story out today.

The announcement by the Democrats’ presumptive nominee was met by suggestions that he was merely trying to curry favor with religious voters, a segment of the electorate in which he has failed thus far to carve inroads. Four years ago, Democratic nominee John Kerry captured just 22 percent of the white evangelical vote.

Others welcomed Obama’s promise, which he reaffirmed during a speech in St. Louis on Saturday before delegates attending a national conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Those who applaud Obama’s vow see it as a step in the right direction, toward a lasting partnership between faith-based organizations and the government that would not violate the separation of church and state.

Which camp are you in? Do you believe the office is a good initiative worthy of continuing — and are you pleased to see that Obama is as interested in continuing it as the current president? Or is his support seen as a way to reach out to conservative, religious voters?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
39 comments

Comments are closed.

I have to trust that the Barack acts in genuine good faith and honesty–that he is aware of what is right and appropriate in his roles as president, as husband and as father. No hypocrisy or artificiality. Therefore, no confusion. This makes for a life of integrity because the inner and outer selves are a mirror image. At this point in time, this is a picture of the faith and confidence I have in Obama’s character.

— Ryan On The Euphonium
8:29 am July 7th, 2008

I think a question like this is a political litmus test – red will believe it’s cynicism, blue will believe it’s sincere. I will split the difference on this one – I think it was cynical when Bush introduced it. He used it to garner votes from Christians, then after creating the program, let it languish. Obama is willing to continue and even expand the program (easy to do, Bush left it tiny) for the same reason Bush started it – to get votes.

Just for fun, remember how the GOP got tons of votes from Christians by claiming to be Pro Life? Yet despite having Congress, the Senate and the Presidency for 6 Years – no effort was made to ban abortions. Yes, there were some small efforts made to placate the voter base – but they were unwilling to risk serious political capital to push a ban.

Ahhh, Vote pandering – an American tradition.

— Red, White and Blue
8:44 am July 7th, 2008

I think Sen. Obama is sincere even if he is pandering. But what is funny is how offensive this notion was to Democrats when it was President Bush. The good thing is that the Democrats and the ACLU won’t stand in President Obama’s way of funding faith-based organizations.

— Carol Size
8:51 am July 7th, 2008

I would hope he is sincere in what he says. I somehow have trouble believing what any politician says today. Obama seems to say whatever fits at the time and place that he is at. Some of the younger people see Obama as a chance for change. Us older people who have been around for many elections only see what we have seen and heard before. I have grown to accept the fact that the lobbyist control what gos on in Washington. He with the most money wins. We as the people of this country don’t have anything to say about it. Obama means well and so does McCain. What you here and what you get will be two different things. They are both out for votes and they will do what they can do to get them.

— first tom
9:25 am July 7th, 2008

What a bunch of bull. We should NOT be wasting tax dollars for religious groups. Sounds like a violation of separation of church and state anyway. When will people finally wake up and realize God does not exist and the bible is fiction?

— Charlie911
9:36 am July 7th, 2008

I was going to vote for Obama hands down… Now, I think I might sit this one out because of Obama’s courting the religious nuts. There’s not much different about him if he’s going to pander and do things just to get elected.

Religion and government should never mix and the Founding Fathers knew this. How can we, after 230+ years later, be more stupid than those wonderful men?

You cannot give money to religious entities and NOT have them preach their superstition to others…

— Jp
9:48 am July 7th, 2008

Yes he is genuine. The church that he belonged to did much community work and is the main reason why Obama was attracted to Trinity Church. Obama was a community leader and activist. Why would anyone even question he genuineness. The faith based services provide much help and support to the hurting community and hurting people within these communities, drugs, homelessness etc., why would anyone be against federal help for churches who offer such services due that these programs offered by churches benefit society as a whole.

Jp,

If being a faithful Christian and believer makes one a religious nut, count me in your numbers as a NUT!

— D. Walker
10:27 am July 7th, 2008

I am Catholic, and give regularly to Catholic Charities and other groups. They do a great job of helping people in need, regardless of religious affiliation, political creed, or ethnicity. They really do a wonderful job.

I am an American, and love the Constitution. That great document is very clear that the government shall not endorse in any way a religion or religious ideal. Is giving money to a broad spectrum of religious groups a way out of that? No, I can’t see how it is. Despite the tremendous job that religious-affiliated groups do, and the fact (in my mind anyway) that they do it more efficiently than the government does, tax dollars cannot be given to these groups. The divide is and should be clear.

In fact, if you want to be strict with the Constitution, the government shouldn’t be helping anyone out period because that is not the job of the government. FDR had to railroad in such concepts which have led to the bloated inefficient monster sitting in D.C. today.

Obama’s goal in this is votes. Everything he does is for votes. How do I know? He is running for office, that’s how. To think otherwise is incredibly naive…

— Tim
11:15 am July 7th, 2008

It crosses the line of separation of church and state. As a constitutional lawyer, Obama know this and is pandering to one group (the faithful) and promising increased government help to another (expanded government assistance). While it served Bush once, it serves Obama twice.

It will work for gaining votes.

I didn’t support it when Bush proposed it, and I will not support it now.

If I know that the government is going to increase my taxes to support my church, why should I save for my church?

If I know that the government is going to increase my taxes to pay for my retirement (social security) why should I save for my retirement?

If I know the government is going to increase my taxes to pay for my health care, why should I save for my health care?

If I know the government is going to increase my taxes to pay for my education, why should I save for my education?

If I know the government is going to increase my taxes to pay my salary when I am unemployed, why should I save for when I lose a job?

If I know the government is going to raise my taxes to pay for my mortgage when I default, why should I pay my mortgage.

If I know the government has it all taken care of, why should I get out of bed in the morning.

I believe Obama when he says life is too much for government to do alone.

— Scott K.
11:18 am July 7th, 2008

“The challenges we face today - from saving our planet to ending poverty - are simply too big for government to solve alone,” he said.

— Scott K.
11:29 am July 7th, 2008

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 » Show All