Donatio Bushi
Should be interesting to watch how the Obama administration handles the delicate ego’s of the many evangelical faith-based organizations that the previous administration relied on for to solidify their base during election years (oh, and for the social work stuff as well):
Obama says faith shouldn’t be used to divide | CITIZEN-TIMES.com | Asheville Citizen-Times: “Obama is also telling the gathering that the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that he is announcing Thursday won’t favor any religious group, or favor religious groups over secular groups.
He says it will help organizations that want to ‘work on behalf of our communities,’ without ‘blurring the line’”
It’s good to hear a President speaking ecumenical language and not imparting governmental favor or sanctioning upon one denomination, faith or creed but recognizing the place of government to be a neutral party that allows itself to hear, rather than speak, the prophetic languages of faith communities.
After all, (to channel one of my old prof’s from Wofford College), it has been all downhill after Constantine.
What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.
Agreed. I certainly don't mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.
But let's see how he deals with those who are insisting that if religious groups receive federal funds they have to hire anyone, even if they do not share their religious or moral convictions. See NPR's piece from yesterday. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
this (as we all should be).
However, I'm still more supportive of Obama's stance on this compared to
Bush's (and I'm not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don't ask, don't tell” relationship with
legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
playbook of conservatives… don't take the money if you don't want the
obligations.
For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
federal monies if they aren't allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
for the shortcomings if there is value.
Of course this isn't a black and white issue and there are more shades of
gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
discriminations.
What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.
I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.
Agreed. I certainly don’t mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.
But let’s see how he deals with those who are insisting that if religious groups receive federal funds they have to hire anyone, even if they do not share their religious or moral convictions. See NPR’s piece from yesterday. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100229826
Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
this (as we all should be).
However, I’m still more supportive of Obama’s stance on this compared to
Bush’s (and I’m not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don’t ask, don’t tell” relationship with
legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
playbook of conservatives… don’t take the money if you don’t want the
obligations.
For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
federal monies if they aren’t allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
for the shortcomings if there is value.
Of course this isn’t a black and white issue and there are more shades of
gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
discriminations.
I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.
What will likely happen now is, as you have alluded too, many evangelicals with their “delicate egos” will see this as an outright attack against the truth of the gospel. It is sad. I see this like you do, as another step in the right direction (that direction being the true separation of church and state), but many will not.
Agreed. I certainly don't mind (and strongly encourage) people of all religious stripes to get involved in the civil process and make their voices heard. My problem comes when the government starts listening to one of those groups more than others in the attempt to win votes and gain authority through authorization.
But let's see how he deals with those who are insisting that if religious groups receive federal funds they have to hire anyone, even if they do not share their religious or moral convictions. See NPR's piece from yesterday. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
Thanks for the link… definitely worth a listen for anyone interested in
this (as we all should be).
However, I'm still more supportive of Obama's stance on this compared to
Bush's (and I'm not always a rabid Democrat on these issues). Rather than
resorting to lawsuits or a tenuous “don't ask, don't tell” relationship with
legalities, I think the best solution would be to take a page out of the
playbook of conservatives… don't take the money if you don't want the
obligations.
For example, the gentleman from World Vision (http://www.worldvision.com)
who spoke made the point that the group will have to walk away from the
federal monies if they aren't allowed to hire/fire as they need or see fit.
I would hope the supporters of that organization would be able to make up
for the shortcomings if there is value.
Of course this isn't a black and white issue and there are more shades of
gray on this issue than there are denominations of Baptists in NC. However,
we do live with a constitution and code of laws governing how and where
federal money goes. I would hope these organizations can find the support
they need from their respective communities of faith to keep things going
rather than pursuing legal action to argue for exemptions on
discriminations.
I certainly agree with the position of WV (my wife used to work for WV-UK) and the general sentiment of maintain your organizations principles and commitments by walking away from the federal dollars. My concern is that those groups are usually doing very good and important work that the Fed cannot do or cannot do well and so those who receive their help will be the ones to be hurt because we (the US) have such a silly and facile all-or-nothing/black-and-white view of religion and politics.