I’ve said before that one of the things I appreciate about Barack Obama is his commitment, as a liberal Democrat and a Christian, to making the case to his fellow Democrats for allowing and heeding religious voices and arguments in the public square; it was thus no surprise, but nevertheless a good moment, to see him make the case for continuing and expanding the current administration’s support for religious social-service organizations. What I didn’t expect was to see the Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson, the General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America (my home denomination), weigh in with the comment that in doing so, Sen. Obama is only rebalancing the issue and reclaiming a prior Democratic position:
In September 2000 I was at a breakfast for religious leaders at the White House when President Clinton said that regardless of who was elected that fall (Bush vs. Gore), faith-based initiatives would be one of the new challenges to be worked on by any president. And the best speech on the subject was given by Al Gore during that campaign. So this never was seen as a “Republican” idea until Bush was elected, and then many more Democrats began to distance themselves from the initiative. . . .The pundits have it wrong. This isn’t a right-wing or a left-wing idea; it isn’t a Republican or a Democratic idea. It’s simply a good idea.
I have a great deal of respect for Wes, and I certainly agree that this shouldn’t be “a right-wing or a left-wing idea”; equally, I hope his optimism that this can be an issue on which the parties can make common cause proves out. However, I think he’s forgetting something: there are a lot of Democrats who don’t agree with him, who think this is a “right-wing idea,” want no part of it, and want no part of Sen. Obama speaking out for it. I agree that the marginalization of the Christian Left, to the point where folks like Jim Wallis are basically rubber stamps for the secular Left, is a bad thing; I’m not, however, optimistic that it can be reversed as easily as all that. I applaud Sen. Obama’s commitment to continuing and expanding the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives—but if he’s elected, I’ll be very much surprised if that’s a commitment on which his party permits him to follow through.HT: Presbyweb
Doncha wish we all acted like Christ and therefore didn’t need political parties to be arguing over ownership of such things? Sheesh.
Haven’t been paying much attention this year, it is just too painful. I always wince when someone invariably makes the claim that Christ supports their party, thir programs, their stands on issues… funny, I didn’t realise it was His job to endorse us, but rather ours to endorse Him 😉
At this point I can’t imagine anything that would cause me to vote for Obama, but I am highly depressed over the whole situation. Maybe the problem is that I don’t believe in people anymore, or maybe that isn’t a problem at all! 🙂
Hope you and Sara had a great 4th.
That’s actually one of the things I like about McCain, that he doesn’t claim to get his politics direct from God; unfortunately, that’s part of what makes some conservative Christians distrust him . . .
It will definitely all be easier in the kingdom, when God is the benevolent dictator. For now, though, I don’t believe in people either–never did, really. There are individuals I trust, but even that’s limited; it has to be, because you have to make room for the fact that even the best of us are still human.
In any case, yeah, we had a good 4th; it was exhausting, because our church had tents set up at the town’s celebration, so I was working most of the afternoon, but then there was the MasterWorks concert and a good fireworks display, and (as it happened) ice cream after that. It was a good day, and the kids slept late this morning, which was the best part. 🙂
I know myself too well to believe in others.
While I’m a pretty eager defender of the necessary secularism of the US government (that is, not enforcing any religion whatsoever on anyone), I am also a pragmatist. Put the money where it works to help people. None of it should go for proselytizing, but if a Church comes up with a good way to help the poor, the money goes there. If a government program is effective in helping those in poverty, then money goes there. Etc.
That’s where I stand, too. I’ve seen enough of the relative success of both to believe that including Christian organizations (and those of other religions as well) in the process is a better way to go than just letting the government run the programs.
Where [hopefully] Obama and Bush would differ in their their execution of the program is in the area of oversight. Obama specifically stated that if public funds are received, they must go to public services (not church lawsuit payoffs), there can be no hiring discrimination (churches would have to hire qualified atheists), and there could be no prostyletizing.
As it is under Bush, there is effectively zero oversight to make sure the monies are used for public services and are without religious qualification. The way Obama frames the program; I, as an atheist, could actually support it since pretty much anything is more efficient than a government beurocracy.
Of course words are different than deeds. Time will tell if a President Obama can make it work as it needs to.
1) Can you name a case in which funds from OFBI have been used to pay off lawsuits against churches?
2) As it stands now, the “no proselytizing” line is already quite clear. The fact of the matter is, as someone who has actually been on the other end of this, there’s a lot more oversight than you assume.
3) Organizations should not have to hire people who aren’t committed to their mission in every significant respect. Churches should be forced to hire atheists when Ivy League natural-science departments are forced to hire scientists who argue for ID.
Response 1) I was using the lawsuit example as a generalization meaning monies going other places than to public services. I should have been clear on that and I apologize for not making it so. My position is that public monies cannot go to ANYTHING but the public services that the FBO is providing and directly related expenses.
Response 2) You are correct that “no proselytizing” is clearly stated, but there is no oversight or enforcement. From Wikipedia is found the following:
The separation of church and state may be increasingly difficult to protect, since few federal agencies are monitoring faith-based organizations for compliance with the safeguards, according to a June 2006 report from the Government Accountability Office. Four of the major federal agencies refuse to include references to the safeguards in their monitoring tools, and have stated that FBOs should not be singled out for greater oversight on the basis of their religious affiliations (GAO 2006:29,55[2]). Esther Kaplan claimed that former director Jim Towey admitted in 2004 that “no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group.”[3] In June, 2006, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt ruled that a faith based-program at a Newton, Iowa prison called InnerChange, operated by Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries, unconstitutionally used tax money for a religious program that gave special privileges to inmates who accepted its evangelical Christian teachings and terms. “For all practical purposes,” Judge Pratt said, “the state has literally established an Evangelical Christian congregation within the walls of one its penal institutions, giving the leaders of that congregation, i.e., InnerChange employees, authority to control the spiritual, emotional, and physical lives of hundreds of Iowa inmates.”[4] [See Americans United v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36970, June 2, 2006]
Some Americans have denounced the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives as a violation of the separation of church and state. Citing President Bush being a devout Independent Methodist, some opponents have labeled it a de facto Department of Faith. Others have noted that millions in government grants have gone to ministries operated by political supporters of the Bush administration, or have been given to minority pastors who recently committed their support. [See The Washington Post, October 3, 2002, re Pat Robertson; The New York Times, May 3, 2005, re Rev. Luis Cortez;David D. Kirkpatrick, The New York Times, March 30, 2006, re Bishop Sedgwick Daniels; Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2005, re Rev. Herb Lusk, Bishop Harold Ray and Rev. Sun Myung Moon; PBS.org Bill Moyer’s Now transcript, September 26, 2004 re Faith Partners]
There was recently another lawsuit against the Office of FBOs by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. This was a very narrow suit that only addressed whether the public, as a whole, had ‘standing’ to file suits about violations by FBOs. Oddly, the US Supreme Court ruled that only individuals that are directly wronged by FBO violations could sue. In essence, the Supreme Court said that, even if there were gross violations by FBOs, the public could not sue…only the individuals directly wrong by specific actions. I find this perplexing, but it is what it is.
Response 3) This should be really, really simple. An organization that receives my tax dollars, cannot exclude me from their hiring. If the truth of that is lost on you; I don’t know what more I can say.
As far as your example of science departments hiring ID proponents…
There is an unchallenged court ruling that states ID is not science…because it isn’t. In fact the court opinion called it “breathtaking inanity” to try to pass it off as science. If you want to promote ID, then you will have to do that in philosophy or theology classes. Would you like to put proponents of the “stork theory” of conception in our science classes too?
Further clarification on ID proponents in the science classroom:
If ID proponents are denied positions in science departments, it is because THEY ARE REALLY BAD SCIENTISTS.
1) Thanks for the clarification.
2) I don’t deny that cronyism has to some extent warped the program; it’s still a government program, and thus still inevitably corrupt. Pratt’s decision, however, is bad law based on bad statements of fact. Taking that thing apart wouldn’t be hard, except it would take far too long for this space; I’ll try to see if I can track down a good analysis for you.
3) If you aren’t committed to the goals and vision of that organization, yes, they should be able to refuse to hire you. Absolutely. Planned Parenthood receives substantial government funding; that doesn’t mean I should be able to sue them for discrimination for refusing to hire me, because I don’t agree with what they exist to do.
Oh, and the only “breathtaking inanity” in the Dover decision is the Dover decision. The reason it hasn’t been challenged by ID proponents is that the curriculum thrown out actually has very little to do with what ID is about–numerous folks involved with that movement expressed their opposition to that curriculum before it was introduced.
4) If ID proponents are denied positions in science departments, it is because THEY ARE REALLY BAD SCIENTISTS.
And on what grounds are they labeled “bad scientists”? Their refusal to accept prevailing dogma. The argument is tautologous.
Re: FBO hiring practices:
You say “If you aren’t committed to the goals and vision of that organization, yes, they should be able to refuse to hire you.”
Isn’t the goal to feed and shelter the needy? I am way on board with that. It would seem that you are saying that the goal for those public funds is really for some other purpose. Hmmmmm…I wonder what that would be (wink, wink)
You also say “Planned Parenthood receives substantial government funding; that doesn’t mean I should be able to sue them for discrimination for refusing to hire me, because I don’t agree with what they exist to do.
Actually, if Planned Parenthood receives public funds and refuses to hire you, you can sue them. You are not being discriminated against, you just don’t want to work there. Of course if you hire on for the sole purpose of causing trouble, they have every right to fire you…just like any business.
Re: Bad Science…
In the context of this thread, I cannot teach you what science is. Should you be motivated; read up on the scientific method at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Intelligent Design can be boiled down to “I don’t understand how this came to be; therefore an intelligent designer [God] must have done it”. When you understand what science is, you will know that ID does not fit the bill.
For what it is worth; I would recommend watching the Nova episode “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design On Trial”. They interview people from both sides and use extensive reenactments lifted directly from the court transcripts. I might have saved a copy from my DVR. If I have it, I can send you a copy on DVD.
Rob, I deleted my posts because they simply will not do any good. Sorry for wasting your space with it. Love you bro.
Tyler (above) caught me in a mis-speak. Here is what I said to her:
[Y]ou caught me in making over-broad statements (not that uncommon, but I admit it when I do it). I should not have said that all ID proponents are bad scientists. In matters of materials engineering, or computer science and myriad other fields, an individual can do good science irrespective of their stance on ID.
More properly, I should have said that those who claim and promote ID as science clearly don’t know what science is. It would be THOSE that I assert would be the “bad scientists”.
Crucial failures that can be identified right up front are 1)that ID offers nothing testable (a key aspect of the scientific method) and 2) it is invalid to assert that not knowing ‘A’ means ‘B’. Because my car is NOT blue, does not make it green. Because one might not understand how how the diversity/complexity of life came to be, does not mean an intelligence was involved.
My only assertion is that ID is not science. Those that say it is, do not clearly understand what science is.
I didn’t say I couldn’t sue PP–I said I shouldn’t be able to, because for me to demand that they hire me when I don’t believe in what they’re doing would be unreasonable.
And no, re: ID, it actually boils down to this: is it reasonable to define science in purely materialistic terms or not? The scientific establishment insists it is; ID is an interrogation of that assertion.
Oh C’mon Rob…puuleeese!!
The definition of the scientific method is about 1000 years old…I think it pretty well buttoned down. It is not a definition of “materialism” it is a definition that requires testing and evidence and repeatability and peer review.
You will have to bring things back to some sort of reality for me to continue this discussion.