“Faith-Based” Separation

2 07 2008

Barack Obama enjoys dressing up like a sheep. It might be innocent enough, but the problem is that he is a wolf. Yesterday, Obama tried again to make inroads with evangelical voters in a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, discussing faith-based initiatives. Christians need to be able to discern the truth about what Obama is saying and what his intentions are. Obama is proficient at hiding many of his intentions and dressing others to appear in line with evangelical beliefs. But truthfully, his worldview is largely inconsistent with that of the bible. 

Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that if elected president he would expand the delivery of social services through churches and other religious organizations; the announcement was a vow to achieve a goal he said President Bush had fallen short on during his two terms.

But Obama’s plan departed from the Bush administration’s stance on one fundamental issue: whether religious organizations that get federal funds for social services can take faith into account in their hiring. Bush has said yes. Obama said no.

“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,” Obama said. “Federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples and mosques can only be used on secular programs.”

Americans United for Destruction of Religion Separation of Church and State’s Barry Lynn had mixed emotions about Obama’s ideas.

“I am disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded.”

However, Lynn said he was pleased to hear Obama express support for church-state separation and say that he would bar government-funded proselytism and religious discrimination in hiring when tax dollars are involved.

Lynn said he is concerned that the Obama plan apparently would allow direct tax funding of houses of worship to run social service programs. That, said Lynn, raises serious issues of entanglement between religion and government.

If this isn’t an example of pandering for votes, nothing else will do. How can you have a faith-based initiative and not encourage faith for the recipients? Otherwise, it would be nothing more than welfare. Faith-based groups are far more efficient at this type of work than the government. They can make the dollars stretch much further, they are more familiar with their community and its needs, they can mobilize more volunteers, and most importantly, their results are superior. Not to mention a cursory reading of speeches and writings by the Founders indicates a clear preference for federal encouragement of the Christian religion while allowing the freedom to worship as one pleases.  

Obama made it clear that he wants to elevate his plan to the “moral center” of his administration. So, what does Obama mean by the “moral center?” Since Obama won’t tell us the truth on where he stands, we’re left to decipher the code. It sounds attractive, on the outside. His latest statements on the California marriage amendment over the weekend reveal a sinister clue. In a letter to a Sunday breakfast of the LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco, he thumbed his nose at traditional marriage:

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states.”

Following Obama’s logic, which he obviously has not done himself, faith-based organizations that support traditional marriage will be disqualified from federal funding under an Obama presidency. Obama may speak “religion-ese” but his rhetoric speaks much louder than his words, if you can tune your biblical ear to understand.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

2 07 2008
“Faith-based” Separation : Stop The ACLU

[…] Crossposted at Truth and Reason […]

3 07 2008
Mr. Incredible

“I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution [to protect marriage], and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of any other states.” — Obamarama

I still wanna know what the discriminatory language is in the law that says that “marriage” is between a “man and a woman.” “Man and woman” covers everybody, no? We leave anybody out? Is there a sex — a third sex — we don’t know about?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: