Obama's Faith-Based Plan
In 2000 I was part of a small group of religious leaders invited to Austin, Texas, to discuss a new White House faith-based initiative with George W. Bush before he came to Washington, D.C., as president. I was an early supporter of the initiative because I believed that partnerships between the faith community and government in alleviating poverty were both necessary and appropriate within the framework of the Constitution. For two years I was in regular conversation with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, under the leadership of John DiIulio and, later, Jim Towey, and Sojourners and Call to Renewal collaborated with the new office on a number of dialogues and initiatives. But my relationship with the White House ended after my public criticism of President Bush's path to war in Iraq. Yet I continued to support the idea and promise of the faith-based initiative.
But I was disappointed with the corresponding lack of policy commitment to reduce poverty by the Bush administration, and the eventual politicizing of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives along partisan lines. Instead of a partnership, this initiative became a substitute for necessary public policies attacking the causes and consequences of poverty within the United States. Despite this failure, my commitment to public-private partnership involving the faith community has never diminished.
I have hoped that both presidential candidates would re-commit the nation to this necessary and positive vision of partnership between the public sector and the faith community on the goals of poverty reduction. Today, Barack Obama outlined his plan to engage faith-based and community organizations from the White House in order to create "the foundation of a new project of American renewal." Obama affirmed the idea of a faith-based initiative on the solid foundations of both real partnership and the necessary commitment of government to sound public policy to reduce poverty. Prior to today, the danger was that Democrats might revert to old secular biases and end the faith-based program altogether, preferring only public sector approaches as the remedy to poverty instead of also forging vital partnerships with civil society that include the faith community. It was good to see that the failures of the Bush faith-based initiative have not deterred Obama from proposing a robust vision of his own.
The key to today's proposal is that it is based on public and faith-based partnership, and will not become another replacement for sound public policy. To truly be successful, this initiative must utilize the unique resources and identity of the faith community, while at the same time recognizing the indispensible role that government and public policy must play in tackling the root causes of poverty. Obama's proposals also contain necessary protections for religious liberty, pluralism, and constitutional safeguards.
This initiative has the potential to unite people across partisan lines. I truly hope that a recommitment to engaging the valuable role of faith-based organizations doesn't get mired in the endless political debates of the past while God's concerns for the weak and vulnerable get ignored.
Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
First let us get out of the way that george bush is a Christian, or even a vague semblance of same. True Christians walk the walk, bush cannot even talk the talk. I do not know Barack Obama so can't speak for him but I think the general plan is to add to the systems that faith-based charities already have in place. For the most part, churches know exactly where in their community the need is greatest. If that need is NOT additional funding and donations for the food bank but for the 24-hour-a-day care needed by two people who have been badly injured in an accident, why should there not be a helping hand able to be given by a government agency? Go back to when JFK was running for Pres., the repus and the fearful went around wringing their hands, moaning that the entire nation would be genuflecting three times a day if a CATHOLIC was elected. Didn't happen. We need EVERY possible pair of hands, dollar, brain, set of ideas, in order to get out of the mess the republicans have gotten us into. If that means working with others who have more or less the same goals, whether they work out of a church or out of their basement, we Americans need to stop setting up our own stumbling blocks.
Faith based organizations have been at the forefront of the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the "war on poverty," and other such progressive causes since Jesus. They run food banks, hold food and clothing donation drives, and lead demonstrations. They create homeless shelters, and sponsor families that are experiencing "hard times." They bring food to people who's homes have burned down. They volunteer to visit our grandparents in the nursing home when we are "too busy" to go. They have done this FOREVER, receiving no taxpayers money to do so.
I have read Mr. Wallis' book "God's Politics," and found it very enlightening. But I am concerned about my tax dollars going to support discrimination on the basis of religion or worse, trying to convert people to a religion other than their own. I am afraid it would be unavoidable and the discrimination would be hard to prove. Many people would even feel obligated to attend a certain church if they were receiving their services. There are plenty of secular organizations that could use the money without having this controversy.
I support the right of churches to offer faith based services, but I don't think they should be paid for with tax dollars. There should be a complete separation of church and state.
Faith-based politics was unconstitutional when Bush sneaked it thru & it is unconstitutional now.
After booting his pastor, Wright, out of his life, Obama must feel the need for a religious
gimmick to lure the religious right into his realm. Voila!. He is now touting faith-based politics!. Do you want to help those in need? Fine!. Contribute to your house of worship, as I do.Then, when the time comes, pay your taxes . You shall be a worthy person & a worthy citizen & never the twain shall meet!.
Americans are so strange, why not just call it: COMMUNITY BASED INITIATIVES, that's what we do in Canada. All inclusive, everyone's happy and hopefully a few people actually receive some help.
It's another reason we're known in some circles of Canada as the "Excited States of America", lol.
Faith is Fraud.
Every "faith-based initiative" ever touted by US Presidents or Presidential candidates has been a scam to feed government money to the crooks in the religious swindle industry. It's very disappointing to have a Democrat in a year of deep financial depression talking about continuing or even expanding the giveaway of our tax dollars to line the pockets of wealthy, unscrupulous religionist hucksters.
Social programs are a proper use of federal revenue, which can produce some positive results with a lot less waste than occurs in religionist institutions and similar money-making schemes. If poverty is an issue, then put money & resources into the hands of the poor, NOT the weathy schemers who take the bulk of the money to build their personal empires or "ministries" to oppose reproductive rights, environmental protection issues, LGBT rights, stem-cell research, science in schools, and anything else which might put dangerous knowledge or civil liberties into the hands of ordinary citizens.
Faith-based anything is a total rip-off; Americans should demand that politicians quit frittering away our limited resources on hand-outs to right-wing extremists and snake-oil peddlers.
Government has continuously failed to do the right think in fighting poverty as long as I've been alive. Yet countries that have less resources than us do a lot better.
Faith base organizations have been doing a good job even though they have been running on limited funds, donations and volunteers for many of years. Some good programs have all but disappeared because the lack of funding.
This program allows a faith based organization that does social service work to be able to compete with those government programs that do the same thing. They are also govern by strict church vs. state guidelines and periodically check to make sure they adhere to those standards.
NO it is not a rip off. I rip off is when our money goes into funding million dollar researches such as seeing if cigarette smoking causes lung disease or giving more tax breaks and subsidies to oil companies.
And another thing Democrats and Christians have the same values like saving the world, helping the poor and providing health care. Are you one of those that want to chase away the christian votes to the republicans? You people did it in 2000 and 2004. And we, just like you, deserve a president that will out for our needs.
Why do people continuously think that all christians want to do is proseletizing? Its like saying all liberals want to kill babies because they can and its the law.
Sure we probably don't need this initiative to fight poverty. But our government is doing such a bad job of that and were still losing money.
On the other hand, religious organizations that really need funds do it a lot better and are more in touch with the community.
There are strict guidelines in getting these funds. The have officers out in the field constantly visiting sites that receive funds to check for fraud. This is not a handout by any chance. This is not a pander by O-bama. Its a means to fight against poverty because whatever were doing now is not working and we need as many people we can get to fight this. Why not allow government to team up religious groups to fight this? Why not we all work together rather stick with the same ole' status quo which hasn't worked for years now? This is a good approach I believe. And it still respects the separation of church and state. If you don't hide the cross than you won't get funded. Pure and simple
It seems to me that not to long ago the 'progressives' were loudly decrying the Bush/Rove faith-based plans as being contrary to the Constitutions tenets. Most, if not all Constitutional scholars agree with that view. So Obama supporters you are either twirly-eyed religious nuts who have deserted one ship in order to board another, or you are ignoramouses without the reasoniong ability to see your own fallacies.
As for Obama, welllllll this religious streak may be partially blamed on inherited traits if the following graphic(family safe) is to be believed,
http://far
didereaux you don't need to be an insulting arse just because your a Republican who hates Obama supporters ! I think we all know where the religious right and the rest of you right wing nuts got us ,,HELLO BUSH ,Hello Iraq ,Goodbye Economy !
I am a Obama supporter and I don't agree with his views on religion and government .I don't think religions should be tax exempt for one and I certainly believe in separation of church and state as written in our constitution ! I also disagree with Obama's vote on FISA which I hope he changes ! I still wouldn't vote for a Republican who would rather spend trillions of our dollars on a war for oil ,condones torture, spying on US citizens and tax the poor and middle class while they give tax breaks for the very rich !
Nope the Republican party is not my party because I am not a millionaire who are the only class of people who their party benefits !
I despise Obama and I am a life-long Democrat..
I despise Republicans even more.
Ergo.... I have a choice to vote green or not to vote at all.
I have to believe people are smarter than they appear to be on this site. Anyone who sees what Sen. Obama is doing by reaching out to the faith-based community, as being sinister or somehow suspicious, is either paranoid or disingenuous. He is not asking anyone to become anything they do not wish to be, he is simply saying americans from every walk of life, can and should work together to make life better for those around them. The faith organizations have traditionally been the place where people do go to get help with food and clothing and even sometimes housing. If we all, those of faith and those who do not believe in God, will simply stop being afraid or hostile to one another, Sen. Obama is saying that will bring forth good works that will benefit all. What may I ask, is wrong with that?
you are naive if you believe this to be true!! Keeping wishing - it makes these politicans look more truthful. Obama is turning out to be just like every other politican - full of shit.
It's a constitutional problem, favoring religious groups with a large pot of federal money violates the establishment clause. He's not "saying" anything anyone with a lobotomy can't understand but favoring groups because they are religious with federal money is unconstitutional.
While Obama says that any taxpayer money cannot be used to discriminate against employees on "faith-based" projects that can be soooo easily gamed and who the hell is going to watchdog it? If the federal government wants to help poor people it can do something to create jobs with a living wage, it can get us of carbon based fuel and fund green energy, it can fund an Marshall Plan type infrastructure repair/replace project. It can raise the poverty level so more people can get assistance. It can get the hell out of Iraq.
If religious groups want federal grants for philanthropy they can get in line with all of the secular non-profits out there doing the same work and abide by the discrimination laws of this nation. Either that or they can lose their tax exempt status.
This Faith Based Program was just a money laundering operation for the GOP under Bush, what makes you think it won't be for the Dems under Obama?
I absolutely agree with you here. Some people in here are either republicans or here to just stir trouble. Frankly, this faith based initiative is a good idea. Its not as costly or as dumb as the Iraqi war and has strict guidelines between church and state.
And I believe that O'bama is trying to reach out the the christian voters. Wow isn't that something new. But there are those within the democratic party that just can't phantom christians as joining the their party or being a part of their movement. Thats too bad if they want to feel that way.
You Obama apologists are a pitiful lot, trying to rescue your own naive feel good swing over to an untried, unknown candidate, who is now writing a script which is a 180 (on many issues) from what you thought you had: death penalty, NAFTA, FISA, religion in politics, etc. He can't pander enough fast enough and you all just say, oh well - he has to do that to get elected. The man is photo op with a gift for oratory. The reason we try to elect more seasoned people is to know what to expect. Now the question is: where is the next flip?
I'm sorry that this potential partnership wasn't what it appeared to be. Like private school vouchers, this "partnership" with faith institutions wasn't intended to increase the pie, it was intended to be a tool to allow the current officials in place to defund and dismantle longstanding government social programs and it has been very effective. What we need right now is NOT a continuance of this myth they have perpetuated that concern for the poor has to involve religion, what we need is a return to SERIOUS dollars and efforts to reducing the number of Americans below the already ridiculously low poverty line. While faith institutions can support this cause in their own way, it is NOT constitutional to give tax dollars to religious institutions under any guise whether genuine or not. I am disappointed to see so many people believe that religious devotion is a prerequisite for concern of one's fellow man or simply the continuance of our society. One story of a three year old walking to preschool by himself with no shoes should be enough to convince ANYONE without the need for God.
Well guess what some of these government sponsored programs have failed, either are out of touch with the rest of the community, or continue to exist because there it continues to receive funding year after year while results are minimal.
While on the other hand, some religious sponsored programs that do the same thing with no funding or operate through donations and volunteers do as well or even better than their government sponsored agencies.
The separation of church and state will exist and will have to adhere to the same laws and principles of those that run secular programs.
Yes that kid doesn't need God. But its those that do believe in God are more willing to by that young boys shoes than some government official who could care less.
I would agree that local religious organizations are doing great work in their community and many are under funded. However, tens of millions of dollars available through foundations never get used because people don't apply, can't write a proposal or can't write a good proposal. There are conferences and organizations that provide works shops on how to write proposals so why exactly do we need the White House to do this? We are not electing the first Pastor and Chief. What we need is good policy to address many of reasons why religious organizations are engaged in the work they do. In fac the reality is that much of the work being done is only to sustain people in their current situation, ie. soup kitchens, shelters, schools, etc. If we fixed the public schools and many other conditions that perpetuate the problems we wouldn't need to turn the White House into some none-denom
i'm sure a case can be made on the constitutionality of a "faith-based" initiative linking thumpers with government. unfortunately, the vast majority of the most vocal advocates of christhisownself are unambiguously identified with the far right --- eg hagee et al. no amount of spin will convince me that this represents nothing but pandering on the part of a man i thought might take a higher road and lead so that we might follow. i'm amazingly disappointed and i'd suggest that the advisors who seem to have appeared on obama's team since miss hillary departed be released, or at least reassigned to the mcsame campaign. me? i'm no longer interested in what he has to say.
good job!
What happen to God is not a Republican or a Democrat? I'm surprised to see Jim backing every story that comes out. Is this what we now call speaking truth to power? Preachers are talking like politicians and politicians are talking like preachers but no one is talking about policy, oh sorry, I forgot, there is FISA.
TrueSoccerMom writes:
"And by the way, this is not a "move to the middle" for him or pandering it's a view that he has always had (read Audacity of Hope)." She underscores the need to move the language away from "left", "right" and "center". This monikers are double-bladed words used to the benefit of whoever is using them, for their own purposes. Perhaps, we need to see Obama has a unique individual vision. Those who try to process his approach through the filters of the past are missing the point: this is about change, because the old way has failed us.
Conservatives will decry Obama as "liberal" while certain liberals will bemoan his pandering to the right by moving to the center. Both of these elements need to realize that they have not been seeing the candidate for who he is and what he has been saying all along. It is a reflection of what they project onto him based on their own political outlook.
As I understand, to receive Federal money as a charitable entity, those charities with religious affiliation must not engage in activities that could be construed as proselytizing. If this puts all charities on the same playing field insofar as receipt of Fed funds is concerned, I wonder if Mr. Wallis would support dropping the word 'faith-based' from the title of the Office.
What we need is an office of "Reality" based initiatives, not "Faith" based initiatives. It should be shut down.
Taxpayer money should never go to organizations whose purpose it is to convert people to believe in their imaginary supreme being. All of their do-gooding is a means to an end, proseletyzing. You can't separate out and only federally support the non proseletyzing portion. It's a shell game, the money they get only free's up their own money to gather more sheep. We've done just fine without before GWB and the faithe based based program. Besides, it's only another avenue for him to support his followers.
The faith based progam should be shut down. It's irrelevant how effective or ineffective the programs are. The ends don't justify the means. These groups avtivities are based on a belief in an imaginary being, as such their fairy tales should not be validated. It is high time the US distances itself from primitive unsubstantiated belief systems. We would do well to ground our policies in the real world, and not delusion. it continues to erode tha seperation of church and state
I'm on the same page philosophically, but I don't see the need to be intractable about this. As long as there is no proselytizing during the delivery of goods and services funded by Fed money, I think it is counterproductive to argue that religious charities can't play with Fed money simply because they are religious affiliations. And, when we are intractable on 'purist' grounds, we discourage religious moderates and steel the resolve of fundamentalists. I don't think we want to discourage the moderates, because they respect our constitution and do not seek to deprive non-believers of constitutional rights.
I have to say that RJC's point about it being a shell-game is completely accurate. The dollars are not segregated according to how they were procured and the fundamental mission of all faith institutions continues to be indoctrination into a belief system. This is a direct conflict of interest with the secular mission of our constitution. The concept of a secular government is the ONLY way to guarantee acceptance of ALL religions and is more important to protect from erosion than most religious followers realize.
Very well said.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
