Obama's New Faith-Based Council

ACORN did nothing criminal or even immoral in its registration drive -- conservatives hung that phony charge on it because most of the people it was registering were lower-class, who tend to side with Democrats. End of story.

That said, I wouldn't mind faith-based organizations registering people to vote, regardless of party affiliation. Interestingly enough, that's one thing you never hear so-called compassionate conservatives encouraging -- wonder why? It seems to me that real change comes from the bottom up and with giving the people a sense of their own destiny. If the "faith-based" programs do that, wonderful. But if all they do is manage poverty, they will end up worse off than if they were on welfare.

Please break this down for me.

What is an office of partnerships? What does government do that is not a partnership?

What is a faith-based partnership? All persons place an ultimate trust in something--representing their faith. All persons have it. What makes a partnership faith-based as opposed to not faith-based?

What is a neighborhood partnership? What is a partnership that is not a neighborhood partnership? If there is something critical going on in my neighborhood--why would we want or need a Federal partnership?? Why not an office of community partnerships, or corporate partnerships, or town partnerships, or city partnerships, or state partnerships, or apartment complex partnerships?

Either the words mean something and hence should be explained. Or they are code words--which should be explained. Or they are meaningless--in which case they should be disbanded. Or they are intended to obfuscate.

Your posting, obviously timed to coincide with the administration announcement, attempts to place an exclamation mark behind the administration communication. Right now, it looks to me like "Obfuscation!" is the message.

Please, for your sake, for the nations's sake, for Obama's sake, for the sake of Jesus-----establish clarity in your communication and involvement

I don't know why you'd even question this. Can't you just drink the Kool-aid and trust in Obama and Wallis to lead our nation in reduction of "bad things"?

Okay, being sarcastic. I really love the way you phrased these questions. I wish Wallis would rejoinder to them. You are right on point!

I believe that Joshua DuBois brings great qualifications to the job, and I sincerely hope that he will not meet the same kind of opposition that John DiIulio (who resigned after just seven months) and his deputy, David Kuo. Both of these men became frustrated at the way the Bush Administration had turned the office into a political operation.

What the bill says is that if a facility's use is primarily religious,
stimulus funds can't be used modernize, renovate, or repair it - not
that groups will be barred from hosting a Bible study in the student
union if the university receives said funding.

As far as federal legislation goes, this seems pretty clear ... and I can understand why a Religious Right groups might oppose it, but the least they can do is oppose it for what it actually says instead of concocting some nonsensical myth in order to get it stripped from the bill.

I hope that this sets the record straight. I don't want my tax dollars going to construct buildings for Rastafarians, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, or any other religious group.

Letjusticerolldown,

I caught a soundbite on the news with Wallis explaining some of his views on this . He was refering to religious organizations supportiog adoptions and such being helped by Federal Funding . I am in favor of such things , including supporting religious organizations that reach out to the homeless and such . Among drug abusers religious organizations have a better track record on recovery percentage wise , but the numbers of people getting treatment through religious organizations are quite low , one reason is funding problems.

Their is power in the Gospel , when no one is looking , when no one is their to help the individual having problems n life , if you introduce them to a loving and merifull God they have a resourse that is always there to support them , even when the counselors are home in bed .

The problem from many on the secular left is similiar to what many from religious pro life views against supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood with health issues ,because helping them with health issues also means they have more money then to utiize free abortions or lower cost abortions . Helping religious organizations with meals, school books , etc , allows them to continue to promote the Gospel because the expense of the "neutral areas" . are taken care of .
In this state any tax dollars with a religious organization is a no no among the liberal elected .

The philospy goes both ways I believe in not wanting tax dollars mingled in abortion providers or religious organizations that help . Just coming from Wallis I agree it becomes suspect in regards to really doing anything about abortion rates . Perhaps he needs to allow his staff to have a few people where pro life issues are really as important as poverty or how he defines social justice issues .

I don't see that happening. After all, Bush had as one of his advisers Marvin Olasky, who is an ideologue to the core and wanted state sanction for conservative evangelical Christianity. "Compassionate conservatism," his brainchild, actually was concocted to get people "saved" and discipled so we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore, and as such any "faith-based" bill would have excluded mosques and secular agencies. There's no chance that Obama will go that route.

"It seems to me that real change comes from the bottom up and with giving the people a sense of their own destiny. If the "faith-based" programs do that, wonderful. But if all they do is manage poverty, they will end up worse off than if they were on welfare."

That sounds like sound, conservative advice to me. Unlike the liberal view which is always to throw more money at the problem, without dealing with the underlying issues. Alas, perhaps liberals and conservatives could one day sit down together at the table of brotherhood and hash out their differences. Of course, that would require doing away with pride inherent in both sides.

Abortion is a social justice issue that is of grave concern to millions of Christians in America, but that probably won't be addressed by this "council". I suppose that by eliminating millions of babies born to poor people is one way of eliminating poverty. First babies, then the elderly, then the handicapped, then ... .

speaklighter2.
You won't get a response. Because at its core Sojo is pro-life only when they define the terms. Pro-choice, of course, is the preferred term when it comes to abortion. And we only want to reduce abortions, whatever that means.

Sorry, prospective adoptive families.

Sister Marie the problem was that the stimilus had the NEA all over it in regards to who got the money. Many inner city schools for instance need roofs and are in older buildings that could have also used the federal dollars to update their buildings . That was absent from the funding . totally agree with you that Federal dollars should not be going to fund Churches or places of worship . Sometimes the religious right makes mountains out of molehills , and perhaps even the reason for criticism can be suspected for motives . But the truth of the matter no dollars was given to private secular or religious schools for the same reasons public schools got it .
Sometimes citizens make good points on issues like these , and people counter with the religious right perjoritive to diminish that point also.

The Seattle schools in m y area just closed many inner city schools where minorities were the majority attending , this right after a charter bill was opposed for pure idealogical reasoning . Minority organizations supported them because they believe they have been left out of the funding process. I do believe the stimulus bill is supporting Charter schools which is good .
but not sure why some of the money here is in the stimulus package , seemed it should have been in a separate bill .

I would like some clarification from Mr. Wallis. I am happy to hear that reduction of abortions is a central policy of the Obama administration. I was also heartened to hear of the President's statement at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 5th, that God would not condone the taking of an innocent human life.

However I am unclear how the President's words comport with his actions. On January 23rd, he signed an executive order allowing federal funds to go toward international family planning groups, "family planning" being an Orwellian euphemism for abortion. The President also told a group of Planned Parenthood supporters that the first thing he wanted to do as president was to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, also known as FOCA, which clearly does not aim to reduce abortions.

Mr. Wallis, could you clarify for Sojo readers the seeming inconsistency of the President's actions with his words? Otherwise, I am left thinking the President says one thing and does another.

I look forward to reading your response, either here, or in you Sojomail newsletter.

I guess "faith-based" initiatives are only appalling to the Left when a Republican is in office. When a Dem advocates expanding an already bad idea, it is saluted as being a recommitment, a positive vision, etc. Spare me.

This is another example of faith-based organizations turning to the government for funding to fulfill their mission. " DuBois represents a new generation of faith leaders who believe their faith can and should change the world. " Unfortunately, DuBois needs the weight of the US government to carry out this belief, when he represents a slender portion of the religious picture of the world. God forbid a creche appear on a town square, but let's ensure abortion remains a legal and government-funded activity through the cloaking of a greater faith purpose.

If not corrupt, then definitely mismanaged and negligent. As for not being partisan, I guess if you mean it in the same way that the AFL-CIO, the Heritage Foundation, National Right to Life, and NARAL are "non-partisan" you're accurate.

But they're definitely not faith-based so hopefully they wouldn't have access to this money.

ACORN did nothing criminal or even immoral in its registration drive -- conservatives hung that phony charge on it because most of the people it was registering were lower-class, who tend to side with Democrats. End of story.

That said, I wouldn't mind faith-based organizations registering people to vote, regardless of party affiliation. Interestingly enough, that's one thing you never hear so-called compassionate conservatives encouraging -- wonder why? It seems to me that real change comes from the bottom up and with giving the people a sense of their own destiny. If the "faith-based" programs do that, wonderful. But if all they do is manage poverty, they will end up worse off than if they were on welfare.

I believe there are tremendous problems with Obama's backtrack on his campaign commitment to end the discriminatory hiring of the office as well as its assault on the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. I have laid out my concerns in my blog: Click Here

I like this post.
Othello Tablet

I don't know why you'd even question this. Can't you just drink the Kool-aid and trust in Obama and Wallis to lead our nation in reduction of "bad things"?

Okay, being sarcastic. I really love the way you phrased these questions. I wish Wallis would rejoinder to them. You are right on point!

Obama has said the faith-based initiative will reach out to organizations the provide help "no matter their religious or political beliefs." Another opportunity to divert more funds to ACORN?

Congratulations Jim. Now that you have this new level of access to the Obama administration, maybe you could ask the boss about this:

Stimulus bans universities and colleges from using funds to renovate buildings where students engage in "religious worship"

Washington, D.C.

I realize the intentions are noble, but I would prefer that faith-based organizations not become dependent on the federal government for financial support.

Letjusticerolldown,

I caught a soundbite on the news with Wallis explaining some of his views on this . He was refering to religious organizations supportiog adoptions and such being helped by Federal Funding . I am in favor of such things , including supporting religious organizations that reach out to the homeless and such . Among drug abusers religious organizations have a better track record on recovery percentage wise , but the numbers of people getting treatment through religious organizations are quite low , one reason is funding problems.

Their is power in the Gospel , when no one is looking , when no one is their to help the individual having problems n life , if you introduce them to a loving and merifull God they have a resourse that is always there to support them , even when the counselors are home in bed .

The problem from many on the secular left is similiar to what many from religious pro life views against supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood with health issues ,because helping them with health issues also means they have more money then to utiize free abortions or lower cost abortions . Helping religious organizations with meals, school books , etc , allows them to continue to promote the Gospel because the expense of the "neutral areas" . are taken care of .
In this state any tax dollars with a religious organization is a no no among the liberal elected .

The philospy goes both ways I believe in not wanting tax dollars mingled in abortion providers or religious organizations that help . Just coming from Wallis I agree it becomes suspect in regards to really doing anything about abortion rates . Perhaps he needs to allow his staff to have a few people where pro life issues are really as important as poverty or how he defines social justice issues .

I don't see that happening. After all, Bush had as one of his advisers Marvin Olasky, who is an ideologue to the core and wanted state sanction for conservative evangelical Christianity. "Compassionate conservatism," his brainchild, actually was concocted to get people "saved" and discipled so we wouldn't have to worry about them anymore, and as such any "faith-based" bill would have excluded mosques and secular agencies. There's no chance that Obama will go that route.