Obama: Government should fund faith-based programs
flockwoodBy JENNIFER LOVEN
Associated Press Writer
ZANESVILLE, Ohio (AP) — Barack Obama showed his religious audience he was comfortable talking their talk, calling his faith “a personal commitment to Christ.” And then he promised that if elected president he’d use tax dollars to help them do “the Lord’s work.”
His appeal Tuesday to the hearts and minds of religious voters was aimed at trying to persuade a group that makes up a quarter of the electorate and usually votes Republican to take a hard look at the Democratic presidential candidate.
After a tour of a Presbyterian Church-based social services facility, Obama said he would expand President Bush’s program to steer more federal social service dollars to religious charities. “We need an all-hands-on-deck approach,” he said at Eastside Community Ministry.
Making it personal, he said it was partly his own faith, which he first embraced as a community organizer in devastated Chicago neighborhoods, that persuaded him that social action is necessary. “While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work,” Obama said.
The announcement of his social services plan was part of a series of events leading into Friday’s Fourth of July holiday aimed at reassuring skeptical voters about his candidacy and shifting away from his image as part of the Democratic Party’s most liberal wing.
He paired his talk about faith in the battleground state of Ohio with a speech on patriotism Monday in Missouri, another battleground for the November election. Wednesday, he travels to Colorado Springs, Colo., a hub of conservative Christian organizations, for a speech on services.
All the while, he has been risking protests in his own party with his aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.
Obama contended he is merely stating long-held positions — surprising to some, he said, after a primary campaign in which he was “tagged as being on the left.”
In recent days, with the Democratic nomination in hand and the general election battle with Republican John McCain ahead, Obama has been sounding centrist themes with comments on guns, government surveillance and capital punishment. He’s even quoted Ronald Reagan.
With 80 percent of Americans saying they identify themselves with some religion, Obama’s campaign has struggled with the topic.
Comments critical of America by Obama’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, caused a firestorm during the primaries and brought Obama’s brand of faith under scrutiny because of Wright’s adherence to black liberation theology. Obama also has battled false but persistent rumors that he is a Muslim; they have been kept alive on the Internet despite his repeated talk about his longtime devotion to Christianity.
Conservative Christians make up about a quarter of the electorate, and they helped put Bush in office twice. Many still are likely to oppose the Democratic nominee because of his support for abortion rights, gay rights and other issues.
An AP-Yahoo News poll in June found that people who attend church at least once a week support Republican McCain over Obama, 49 percent to 37 percent. Those who attend church less often tend to favor Obama. White evangelical Christians who attend church weekly favor McCain by huge margins.
McCain is a mostly reliable conservative vote, but he isn’t as passionate or vocal about religious conservatives as some would like. He also famously upbraided some Christian evangelical leaders as “agents of intolerance” in his first presidential campaign. He has sought to make amends since then and is continuing his outreach efforts. He met with world-renowned evangelist Billy Graham last weekend.
Obama’s high-profile embrace of a key theme of Bush’s time in office — the “faith-based initiative” — is just the latest example of him trying to show his centrist side.
Last week, he quoted Reagan, saying “we have to trust but verify” after Bush lifted trade sanctions against North Korea and moved to remove the country from the U.S. terrorism list.
Obama also supported new electronic surveillance rules for the government’s eavesdropping program, saying “an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue,” after opposing a similar bill last year. After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s gun ban, he said he favors both an individual’s right to bear firearms as well as a government’s right to regulate them.
On Iraq, he has gone from hard-edged, vocal opposition to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a phased-out troop drawdown that could last 16 months. He also disagreed with the Supreme Court decision last week that struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people who rape children under 12.
Speaking with reporters, Obama disputed that he is altering views.
“I get tagged as being on the left and, when I simply describe what has been my position consistently, then suddenly people act surprised,” he said. “But there hasn’t been substantial shifts there.”
While Obama would expand Bush’s efforts to give religious charities more equal footing when getting federal funding, he also would tweak what he would call the President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships in ways that divert from Bush’s approach.
He would increase spending on social services, starting with a $500 million-a-year program to keep 1 million poor children up to speed on their studies over the summers. He would increase training for charities applying for funding and make it a grass-roots effort. He would elevate the program to be “a critical part of my administration,” a reference to criticism that Bush paid barely more than lip service to his effort.
Obama also chose a different emphasis for why religious charities are an important answer to solving poverty and other social problems: because they better know the people who are hurting, instead of Bush’s argument that religion itself is a transforming power the government must not be afraid to harness.
And while Bush supports allowing all religious groups to make any employment decisions based on faith, Obama proposes allowing religious institutions to hire and fire based on religion only in the non-taxpayer-funded portions of their activities — consistent with current federal, state and local laws. “That makes perfect sense,” he said.
Where there are state or local laws prohibiting hiring choices based on sexual orientation in the federally funded portion of the programs, he said he would support those being applied.
This position would make his proposal “dead on arrival” for many evangelicals and small churches, said Jim Towey, a former head of Bush’s faith-based office. That’s because telling a small organization to keep employees hired with federal funds separate from others “is unmanageable — and besides those folks want to hire people who share their vision and mission,” Towey said.
Even as Obama courts the right, his support for a signature Bush program could invite protest from others.
“This initiative has been a failure on all counts, and it ought to be shut down, not expanded,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
———
Associated Press writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this story from Washington.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
It surprises me that this story hasn’t received more discussion and comment, both pro and con.
Like so many other policies over the last few years, the Faith Based Initiative is a good idea in theory but not when managed by President Bush and team. One gets the sense that it was merely a way to reward friends on the Religious Right by channeling them taxpayer dollars. Perhaps this program would be both fair and productive under a different leadership.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I don’t agree with “faith based” programs no matter whose faith they’re based on. The right wing used its faith based programs to pay off the right wing religious leaders that supported it, and now the left wing wants to do the same thing. As a left winger myself, I naturally want to believe, as Jose suggests, that we’d do a better job than those pesky Republicans, and that it would all turn out like a good episode of The West Wing. But, deep in my heart, I know we wouldn’t; it would just turn out to be payoffs to the liberal religious leaders for their support. And, because anything liberal is generally held up for public ridicule in our society today, the first headline would be about some program somewhere that questioned the inerrent truth of scripture or some such, and then we’re off to the races, discussing theology, not public policy.
The first amendment exists for a very good reason: Religion and government don’t mix.
July 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
As much as I would like to disagree with Jose and Caleb [
], I just have to agree with them on their points, especially Caleb. The only thing I disagree about with Jose is that it wouldn’t have made a differene who was president, if it was run by government it would have been screwed up. I know that our church welfare program needs no help from the goverment and somehow we use it efficiently, fairly and effectively from local to international matters.
While Caleb and I probably disagree on the exact reasoning of this particular clause of the 1st amendment, on this at least we agree.
Having worked for the Health and Welfare Department of the great state of Idaho, I know that the bureaucratic foolishness there only messed things up. I worked with 300 plus families during my time there and I can count on one hand the families that ever “got off the system.”
July 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Well, fellas, are you rejecting this based on principle or on practice? Although I’m a big proponent of separation of church and state when it comes to sharing power, it’s not such a big issue in regards to cooperation towards shared goals. But there are a LOT of conditions, and that’s where the “practice” part comes in. If the funds are used only for service missions that are nondiscriminatory. If the funds are distributed fairly, without regard to favoritism of one religion or sect over another. If the funds are managed openly to prevent graft and such. Of course if it turns out that such a partnership is unworkable then sure, we shouldn’t pursue it. But sometimes government programs do a really good job. Maybe I’m just not as pessimistic as you boys.
Or maybe I just don’t have this reflex to reject government involvement out of hand. I hear a lot of folks bad mouth government programs, and sometimes they cite real facts and verifable examples of wasteful and ineffective efforts. But when they bash government, there’s often the unstated assumption that the private sector always operates more efficiently and fairly. That just ain’t so. Look around you–Enron and MCI/Worldcom and the mortgage industry collapse, to name just a few. The problem isn’t government, it’s corruption and mismanagement. It can happen anywhere, and it is preventable.
July 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
My God, I find myself agreeing with David and disagreeing with Jose. I suppose, Jose, that, having participated in my first round of election fraud when I was eight years old and having gone downhill since, the thing that I know and understand about politics first and foremost is that it’s all corrupt. All of it. Per se. Absolutely.
Of course, that doesn’t keep me from being a socialist, which I suppose makes me an eternal optimist that the system can work. But I think that its chances of working are seriously compromised when some of the people we get to help with social programs have a bigger agenda somewhere else, such as the propogation of their particular religious beliefs.
And, I do have a philosophical objection to it. I don’t know whether my view of the first amendment comports with that of David, or of Jose, but to me it means that church and state ought to be separated at all costs. If private groups want to do good works, great. If the government wants to do good works, great. But they shouldn’t do them together. And, by the same token, the government ought to keep its hands off religion.
July 8th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Good grief, Caleb, we haven’t always agreed. I’m sure you were wrong about something at one time!