Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 11

• 0%

  AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago

  Whoa! - we need some clarification here.

  FTA:.......in a move sure to cause controversy - [Obama would] support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

  I've re-read the article - isn't that what is says?

  Well, though disappointed with Obama's support for faith-based programs remaining in the government, Rev.Barry W. Lynn with Americans United For the Separation of Church and State 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.

  See: http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009...

  Those statements are at complete odds - either he supports

  hiring and firing based on faith, or he doesn't.

  We need yet another source - as I could not find a network

  that covered the speech. What's the poop? Anybody know??

  Reply

  4 Replies

  • 0%

    jordan113 months, 1 week ago

    I emailed his web site asking for clarification. I also asked where he stood on the investigations of current 'faith based programs' that are looking a little deceitful. Hopefully someone who man's the site will forward more information.

    Reply
  • 0%

    hyperbola3 months, 1 week ago

    Here is another article that has a little more detail.

    Obama plan would expand faith-based program

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/01/america/...

    This seems another of GOP-style "outsourcing" programs that are rampant with corruption and I would expect this one to end up the same way. Churches would, of course, be stupid to accept such programs since they guarantee that they will become controlled by the government in the medium term.

    Conservatives and Their Carnival of Fraud

    Politics â;; Did Adam Smith-tied evangelists of "limited government" have any idea they were greasing the skids for 22-year-old arms dealers? How could a kid barely able to buy beer secure a nearly $300 million defense contract? When they finally put their theory into practice, conservatives contrived one of the most wasteful systems ever seen.

    http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/30/...

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago

      hyperbola ~

      Thanks for the Int. Herald Tribune.

      Reply
  • 0%

    walden33 months, 1 week ago

    Yeah, this happens all of the time. I wanted to apply for a job at a Christian college. I had to sign some statement that I believed Jesus was the son of God, homosexuality is a sin, the bible is the literal word of God and that I wouldn't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. Needless to say I didn't pursue a job there.

    Reply
• 0%

  walden33 months, 1 week ago

  I don't like it. In the past government money given to faith based programs has been diverted into religious instruction and the purchase of religious books.

  More pandering by Obama in my opinion and more proof that the divide between the presumptive Democratic nominee and Republican orthodoxy isn't great enough.

  Reply
• 0%

  AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago

  This article really took the wind out of my sails - as if

  they haven't been drooping enough with some of MY own

  candidates statements lately.

  I had just gone a couple of rounds with a state Rep.'s

  office about a state grant he presented (PHOTO OP :)) -

  to a local parochial school - $150,000 - for a project with

  a fancy name (designed to confuse or obfuscate??) - "Tech

  blah blah Continuum". I called the school for clarification - "Oh - the one for the classroom computers and smart boards?" Ah, yeah.

  Then I called the Rep.'s office to ask just when it became acceptable for my tax dollars to buy parochial school

  equipment. I had also asked the school for their tuition

  rates and found that there is one rate for those of the faith - and another rate $800 higher for other students.

  And BTW - this is a grade school.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    AnteUp3 months, 1 week ago

    cont:

    I pay my PUBLIC school taxes when they come around in August - and yet for a child of mine to attend this parochial school I could pay $800 above the "insider" tuition even though I help buy their computers.

    I have been very unhappy with the faith and government

    lines being blurred -but this has crossed the line!

    I will say that I appreciated the call-back from a friendly staffer who was very willing to answer my questions. In the

    end, the reasoning was that the parochial school drafted

    their grant request stating that the equipment would be

    available to the public at some times. It was only later

    that it dawned on me that we have a community library (whose

    state funding has been decimated) with computers available

    to the public during ALL hours of operation. I bet they

    would have liked a piece of THAT action -$150,000.

    Heck - as nice as our public schools are here, I bet they

    could have found a use for it too.

    I do not approve of this -how did this happen? Duh?

    Reply
• 0%

  cowboygrandpa3 months, 1 week ago

  Don't you see this is how they dilute Christianity. They just say well it's all faith based. We are helping to insure the religious freedoms.

  No they are not. They are funding religion not Christianity. They are funding their beliefs of what passes as religion to them.

  They are taking money from taxpayers and placing it in their religious belief sector.

  Makes me think of the downfall of the church from when all Romans had to profess a belief in Christianity even when they were pagans.

  You don't force beliefs on people. That is why they are called beliefs.

  Reply
• 0%

  Charlson3 months, 1 week ago

  This is not a deal breaker but I vehemently disagree with any government funds going to faith-based organizations that require participation in an organized religion.

  Reply
• 0%

  Bkumm3 months, 1 week ago

  Not super comfortable with this. I really hope Senator Obama clarifies how he intends to continue this policy.

  Reply