home

Erroneous AP Report: Obama to Support "Hiring And Firing Based On Faith"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:40:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
NOTE - The title has been changed due to further information seemingly disproving the AP report.

This to me is a stunning development if true. But the Media is not very good at reporting so I will wait to hear Obama's own words. But the AP is reporting that:

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

. . . Obama . . . supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

If religious institutions have such policies then they should not be eligible for tax payer funds period. This is an outrageous, indefensible and contemptible position. It is support for religious discrimination. If it truly is Obama's position, I would have to question whether I could continue supporting him for President.

IMPORTANT UPDATE - David Mizner points to this statement from the Obama campaign:

The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It appears the AP report is wrong. Phew.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain: "Obama's Word Can Not Be Trusted" | No Justice for Maher Arar >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Erroneous AP Report: Obama to Support "Hiring And Firing Based On Faith" | 213 comments (213 topical)
    At last (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by nellre on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:44:15 AM EST
    I would have to question whether I could continue supporting him for President.

    Obama hid behind the Hillary bashing press. Now he's showing us who he really is. That I knew I didn't know who he was is one of the reasons I supported Hillary.

    Maybe Obama will "say anything" to win, (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:44:36 AM EST
    hmm?

    And he has (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:45:41 AM EST
    a secret plan to liberalize government once in office?

    [ Parent ]
    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:47:38 AM EST
    he doesn't?

    Wonder what the supers are thinking about this.

    [ Parent ]

    If he says that (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    I will not support him for President.

    I know that is McCain's position so I will not support him.

    I simply will not vote or support anyone for President this year.

    Replace the word "religion" with "race" or "gendet" or "sexual orientation" and ask yourself what you would feel?

    This is repugnant.

    I can not support a candidate who supports such a policy. I will not.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree that it would be a very bad position. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:50:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Welcome (5.00 / 8) (#26)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:57:32 AM EST
    to my world, and never in the world did I think -- after all for which the suffragists fought for me -- that I could forgo voting.

    For me, though, this is not a surprise.  Obama's religiosity was a concern for me last summer, though he toned it down for Iowa.  His church's policies suggest this, though statements were removed from its website by then, too.

    But the big tipoff to me was his support of school vouchers.  In my city where the voucher program started -- thanks to Obama's push as chair of the board of the Ayers' family foundation years ago, which funded its startup, a story yet to be written but that's how I piece it together -- the vouchers have devastated the public schools.

    More to the point of this step today, the school voucher program blurs the separation between church and state.  But that is no bother to Obama, the Constitutional law teacher.  So, frankly, I think we have to think about this step today as far from the limit.  It might be just the start.

    [ Parent ]

    Rev. Wright said - change is coming (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:12:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Athena on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    Change is also about losing the votes of Democrats who would have voted but will not stand for this kind of Bush-lite retro pandering to religious America.

    We already subsidize religion in this country.  Not one more dollar.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh - I agree (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:37:28 AM EST
    but Rev. Wright did warn "change is coming."


    [ Parent ]
    dictionary definition of Chauvanism (none / 0) (#146)
    by Salo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM EST
    and Bigotry.

    [ Parent ]
    No, AP got it wrong, it seems (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by david mizner on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:46:57 AM EST
    The campaign says:

    The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices--including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

    Hmm, stupid AP then (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:47:48 AM EST
    Unless he's changing his position from what's on the web site.

    [ Parent ]
    Even if he changes his mind (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    it is still alarming of what his first thoughts anf intentions were before catching hell this morning upon the release of the news.

    Whether he goes through with it or not who wants a guy in the WH that even thinks these things - particularly a Democrat?

    I've said it and I'll say it again - Obama will destroy the Democratic Party, particularly the Left Wing of the Party.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    So the article is wrong, and that's now evidence that Obama changed a position he never took?

    [ Parent ]
    Not so fast (none / 0) (#97)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    Here is a portion of the AP article I read:

    Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities

    So if Obama sent out a "fact sheet' along with the prepared text of his speech then AP was apparently reporting properly what Obama's intentions were. I imagine other people got this 'fact sheet" and prepared text and if what was reported was correct, and there is no reason to believe it wasn't based on subsequent comment from his campaign who does not deny what is reported then yeah, it would be a position he has taken and may still be taking, we will have to wait and see.

    But until you and I see a denial of what was in the fact sheet and the prepared comments then we must intelligently assume that what was reported is fact.

    [ Parent ]

    Umm (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    Obviously reading is a problem.  There is a period after fact sheet, and fact sheet modifies the sentence it is in.  The next sentence has nothing to do with the fact sheet.

    [ Parent ]
    No Problem Reading (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:35:13 AM EST
    It's safe to take it that everything written as fact was obtained through the fact sheet. The writer does not have to include the words 'fact sheet' in every sentence you know, particularly in the very next sentence. That would not only be ridiculous but it would be unprofessional writing.

    Additionally both sentences are in the same paragraph which would mean the sentences in that paragraph are related as to subject and are one cohesive thought being communicated. Sound like you are the one with a reading problem or don't know anything about paragraph structure.

    Lastly all else aside - who here wants a Democrat, Obama in this instance, not only continuing on with BUSH'S Faith Based Initiative, but actually expanding it? Is that what you want?

     

    [ Parent ]

    MSNBC just reported (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by vigkat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    That Obama will be giving a speech in about an hour. Subject:  his intention to expand President Bush's Faith Based Initiative.  So, it appears we will be hearing his plans from the man himself.  Should be interesting.

    [ Parent ]
    AP amended thier article (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    to say "some" hiring would be acceptable on a religious basis. Obama is saying that too is incorrect.

    I'd love to see the actual fact sheet and the text of prepared remarks to sort this all out. If Obama originally intended to say what was reported then he was clueless or disregarding of the law.

    I'm also curious to see just how much the blogosphere likes the idea of Obama expanding Bush's Faith Based Program.

    [ Parent ]

    some articles are titled - (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    Obama would EXPAND Bush's faith-based policy.


    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM EST
    just keeping them is bad enough. That he wants to EXPAND them is just another reason for me not to vote for him. As if I needed another reason - lol.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd like to have some specifics (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by joanneleon on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST
    and some examples of how this will work, because right now, I really don't understand what types of activities they're talking about, how they will cleanly separate the funds, if it will be audited, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't want to spend 4 years (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    debating what obama meant. dang, the man has a good command of english. let him be clear with us. demand it and don't give him a pass.

    [ Parent ]
    Can anybody find the fact sheet? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dianem on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    The media have to have a copy of the entire package, and it should be made available. There should be no further questions about this. If we only have part of the facts, then things are up for interpretation, and they needn't be.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh... (2.00 / 1) (#140)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    You and the AP author are splitting hairs here.  Churches already have the ability to hire and fire based on religion in the non-taxpayer funded parts of their operation.  That's just status quo.  Presumably (obviously I don't have the fact sheet) the wording was intended to show that this was still the case, and that hiring and firing would not be allowed in programs funded by the new program.

    But don't let that stop you if you want to believe otherwise.  This is clearly a great reason to rant against Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh!!! (none / 0) (#157)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    I just love it when people start a post with "Uh". LOL. It usually is an indicator that they have no idea what they are talking about.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

    As you can see it is against the law to do what you say churches can do. If you would have read the thread you would have know that.

    Of course when it comes to clergy being of a certain religion is a required qualification for the job. but short of that in hiring staff, etc - any company or organization with 15 or more employees cannot by law base hiring on religious affiliation.

    And nowhere does the above law exclude churches from the law.


    [ Parent ]

    Ha. Lots of churches have fewer (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    than 15 employees.  And then there's the accounting slash legal trick of breaking up a larger church into several separate corporate entities, each of fewer than 15 employees.  And then there's not getting caught -- legislation that does not mandate and fund accountability is the norm.

    I have worked for church employers.  See it from the inside before basing your faith in laws on the books -- laws without accountability, and then there's what lawyers and accountants can do to cook the church books for federal auditors . . . if federal auditing and enforcement even is funded, rarely.

    [ Parent ]

    I understand that (none / 0) (#187)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    That is why I emphasized 15 employees or less. And the 15 does not only apply to churches but any type of employer. So yes there is religious discrimination going on in this country regarding jobs and of course many other things.

    And if the churches play tricks to be discriminatory and the government knows about it them those churches should not get any federal funds IMO.

    Proselytizing is another area of abuse in the Faith Based Initiative that I don't like and is virtually not policeable and has been investigated by Bill Moyers I believe.

    [ Parent ]

    Many charter schools (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:36:42 AM EST
    and religious schools have less than 15 employees here in CA.  That is an unacceptable loophole for public monies.  So in actuality, religious discrimation is allowed now.  I do not want my tax dollars going to religious schools.  I want quality public education.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep. And within the same building (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    with, say,  56 employees, they run four schools of 14 employees each.  But all with the same "principal," the owner of the business -- a religious business that gets tax exemptions despite getting our tax dollars.  For the "principal" to have four Mercedes Benzes but spend nothing on books for students who don't have teachers with teacher certification, not that the teachers get paid when the "principal" has to buy another Benz or a big home in the burbs, etc., etc.  

    [ Parent ]
    Agree (none / 0) (#188)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:51:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And how is that not status quo? (none / 0) (#178)
    by anydemwilldo on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:39:54 AM EST
    Yes, exactly.  That is the law as it exists right now.

    So now you're slamming Obama here for a law written when he was two?  His proposal, so far as I can see, simply doesn't change the existing law in this case.  It adds some funding sources, and guarantees that they can't be used for discriminatory hiring.

    So ... can you please explain again where you are finding all this outrage?  Other, that is, than it comes from the hated Obama campaign?

    [ Parent ]

    Because we hoped a Democrat (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:47:07 AM EST
    would get rid of faith-based initiatives rather than expand them.

    [ Parent ]
    NO -- Title VII has an exemption (none / 0) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    for religious organizations.  They can discriminate based on religion in hiring.  Doesn't matter how many employees they have.  Please see comment #158 for text of exemption.


    [ Parent ]
    How about a link (none / 0) (#193)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    and posting the relevant paragraph so people here don't have to go searching.

    [ Parent ]
    And talex (5.00 / 0) (#203)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    captures it in a nutshell.

    "Whether he goes through with it or not who wants a guy in the WH that even thinks these things - particularly a Democrat?"

    Once again: The Roberts confirmation is the Rosetta Stone to Barack Obama.

    School vouchers, religious organizations receiving public funds, Social Security privatization, etc., etc., etc.

    This is what Obama means when he talks about change, rescuing the Conservative Movement. No sense voting for a "Democrat" that isn't a Democrat, it only damages the brand.  

    This cannot be tolerated.

    [ Parent ]

    Since when do you care (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    about the "left wing"?

    [ Parent ]
    Why do you say that? (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    I've been on the Left Wing of the Party longer than you have been on earth probably.

    You would find it hard to find anyone more Left Wing than I - except for of course hard core socialists and communists which I don't consider part of the Democratic Party or 'pragmatic lefties'.

    [ Parent ]

    all of us "care" about the left wing. (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    we care about any group getting power in this country.

    [ Parent ]
    AP has been in the bag for Obama from the get go (none / 0) (#213)
    by fly on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    if they said it they meant it..seems Obama is now changing course..

    Now that is a thought i can trust..not.......

    [ Parent ]

    Wait and see... (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:49:56 AM EST
    Frankly, I believe that the whole faith-based initiative thing was unconstitutional to begin with, and I was looking forward to a Democrat dismantling the program.

    Note that a lot of EFFECTIVE non-faith based programs have been cut so that money could be given to LESS EFFECTIVE faith-based programs.

    It's been a bad idea since day one, and it sickens me that Obama is giving it ANY support at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Not only are they not (4.80 / 5) (#36)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:02:17 AM EST
    Dismantling this problem, they've added additional funds to the abstence only program and want to expand school vouchers. Now I know where all those disgruntled Republican's went! It's getting to the point you can't tell us from them without a score card.

    [ Parent ]
    looking forward to WHICH Democrat (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tben on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:56:30 AM EST
    dismantling it.

    Because surely you realized that Hillary supported expanding faith-based initiatives...

    [ Parent ]

    This was back... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    ...when Bush first created it.  I was naively assuming that the liberals/progressives would get rid of it completely.  

    I object to any Democrat pushing this program.  Unless the idea is to give funding to ALL religious groups equally, in which case it might become so unpalatable to evangelicals that the pagans are getting tax dollars that the program finally gets axed.

    My take is that caring for the sick, the homeless, the mentally ill, children, the undereducated, etc, is all something that can be done without respect to religion, and that the government can support.

    If a religious group wants to take on those challenges ON TOP OF the secular programs, so be it, but do it with your own private funding.

    Otherwise we're spreading the tax dollars too thin on some religious programs of dubious benefit.  Never mind the fact that some of these religious programs sometimes won't be helpful to those in need from other faiths.

    It's a bad idea, and I'm not saying anything about the good intentions of religious folk working in those programs -- many of them are good, sincere people.  But again, they should do THEIR work with private donations.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    and the flip side for faith-based institutions (i.e. religious institutions) is that acceptance of federal money comes with strings attached.  At some point those strings become very confining and restricting, as they should be when taxpayer dollars essentially are being used as tithes.

    And the bottom line is always what federal program gets the shaft so the money can go to these programs.

    [ Parent ]

    The campaign is saying (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:51:26 AM EST
    the organization can hire and fire based on faith, just not ostensibly with the federal money. We have seen how that works already.  They just play shell games with the money.

    BTD's headline made me gasp out loud and I see nothing to change my mind in the campaign's statement.

    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by david mizner on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:54:12 AM EST
    The statement says that if the group gets federal money, it can't discriminate. Not the component of the group, but the group.

    [ Parent ]
    So maybe the AP's source (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
    was playing some code language for the religious?  I don't know.  I'll wiat and see how it plays out I guess, but I am not convinced.

    How is this a change to the current faith-based initiative?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    The two reports are mutually exclusive. Both can not be true.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes they can (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:06:25 AM EST
    if the laws were changed.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course they can both be true (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    Obama says one thing in a speech, then his campaign tries to undo the gaffe by contradicting him.

    In that scenario, both reports are true.

    For example, he told AIPAC that Jerusalem should remain undivided, and then his campaign issued a statement to the effect of "just kidding."

    I'm guessing that's what happened.

    [ Parent ]

    But it is typical Obama (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    Trying to be all things to all people. If you want to see him as an evangelical, providing federal funds for the mission, that is fine with him. If you want to see him defending the separation of church and state, that works too.

    Obamabots of all stripes will look at this and take away what they want to see. Somebody will be disappointed once he is in office.

    [ Parent ]

    Easily done by a lawyer -- (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    all they do is set up "foundations" that make it look on the books like the money is separate.  Then the "foundation" supplements funding here, funding there -- but it's funny money, it's just moved around in the accounting for the federal auditors.

    But in reality, the lines are blurred.  I've worked for church schools, I've seen it for decades.  The federal funds go directly to the student, they say, and the church never gets its hands on it . . . but that really only means it never gets its fingerprints on it.  The church school is entirely free, though, to hire and fire based on faith -- and to proselytize with our tax dollars.  Count on it.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#102)
    by dk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:02:17 AM EST
    Here's my question for BTD.  Let's say a church that discriminates in hiring sets up a separate non-profit entity that does "community" work.  A majority of the money that funds the non-profit entity comes directly from the church.  The non-profit entity does not discriminate in hiring.

    Then, Obama signs his bill to fund the non-profit entity.  Would you support that?

    [ Parent ]

    And accountants can fix (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    all sorts of things on the books for federal auditors -- percentages of positions, supplies, overhead, etc.  And supplies, in our voucher schools, include Mercedes Benzes -- yes, plural -- for the school "principal," someone with no educational background at all.  But then, hiring based on faith does not require certification.

    Of course, to pay for the principals' Benzes, the classrooms have no books except maybe Bibles.  So the students get no education, except in religion.  And there was no accountability for years -- and now that there is, a few schools finally may get caught after several years, and midyear, and then they're closed down . . . but the students suddenly flood into the public schools, which have to catch up kids who have not had books or learned much for years except reciting prayers.

    And I'm attempting to summarize here; the reports are full of details far worse in aggregate here in my city, where the faith-based, tax-paid, school voucher initiative began.  And the public schools are devastated, and overall scores are among the worst in the nation.  Perhaps the solace in this is that my city will look better when all of yours score worse, once Obama's plan hits yours, too.

    [ Parent ]

    In addition, (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    Money is fungible.  To the extent that federal money goes to the school, the religious institution is free to use the money it gets from its adherents for its religious activities.

    Which candidate will be the first to offer to subsidize the bibles in the hotel rooms?  Pandering to religious groups apparently is the accepted campaign strategy of the new millennium.

    [ Parent ]

    that statement does not specifically (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    address the different components.  Either side of this issue can interpret that statement either way.  And, I would submit that is the reason the statment doesn't address it directly.  The campaign WANTS you to be able to interpret it either way.

    [ Parent ]
    The update doesn't address the (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:24:03 AM EST
    component issue.  I haven't looked at this for a while, but as long as a group purports to follow the no-direct money to proseletizing and such, they can still discriminate in hiring in the component that isn't getting the money directly.

    I don't see how this is any different than the Bush program, and, as others have pointed out, they just play a big shell game with the money.

    The update statement (and the text in the link) is just restating what the law is, not indicating that Obama would do anything to ensure an end to the shell game itself.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#125)
    by santarita on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    his idea is to create a big federal bureaucracy to oversee that the funds aren't used improperly.  Something like the EEOC.  
    The devil is always in the details.

    [ Parent ]
    What if the group's parent company, (none / 0) (#109)
    by dk on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    i.e. the church, discriminates?  Is it ok then?

    Is Obama going to get away with government sponsored discrimination simply based upon the legal fiction of separate entities?  Shame on him.

    [ Parent ]

    I love the distinction (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:56:28 AM EST
    but we'll still be giving money to churches and "will not endanger the separation" gets smudged. Who's going to enforce the non-proselytizing clause? The religion police?

    Good politics maybe, but a policy that may make many uncomfortable.

    [ Parent ]

    That's just old website boilerplate. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by wurman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:31:50 AM EST
    What will the Obama campaign say today.

    [ Parent ]
    Question (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kempis on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices--including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    I assume "sex" is gender? Is there anything in Title VII that prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians? I ask because this was the discrimination that was objected to--and defended--most strenuously when Bush first proposed his "faith-based initiatives" in his first term.

    [ Parent ]

    No, Title VII (none / 0) (#118)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    does not protect discrimination against sexual orientation.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's hope that is true (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:49:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and how will this be prevented? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Josey on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:55:10 AM EST
    >>>First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves

    I'm not aware it's prevented now.


    [ Parent ]

    Dems jumped all over bush for doing (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:33:07 AM EST
    this....how many are going to go along with it now....it is WRONG and does not belong in politics imo...obama will flip flop again wherever necessary...bottomline is that we cannot trust obama anymore than we could trust bush...another in a long of sad days for democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank god (heh) (none / 0) (#33)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:00:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, official v. anonymous source (none / 0) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:02:30 AM EST
    Maybe the AP just got it wrong, but they are relying on a source that wanted to remain anonymous so they could more fully discuss the policy. Maybe this is a trial balloon to gauge the reaction.

    [ Parent ]
    That wasn't direct from Obama either (none / 0) (#42)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:04:34 AM EST
    And it really wasn't inconsistent with the AP story if federal anti-discrimination laws are changed to permit hiring and firing based on faith.

    [ Parent ]
    Does (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by tek on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:39:22 AM EST
    anything EVER come direct from Obama?  No, because then he could be challenged on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Here is the money quote: (none / 0) (#57)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:13:28 AM EST
    "And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices--including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

    So if Title VII is amended to permit the type of discrimination in the AP story, both stories are true.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:18:56 AM EST
    And with Obama and a Democratic Congress, it can easily be done.

    [ Parent ]
    I dont think... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:32:37 AM EST
    a democratic congress would allow that to happen.  This is an issue I believe theyd still fight for... but with things the way they are, dont quote me on that.

    [ Parent ]
    right.... (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    and I thought a dem congress wouldn't confirm Roberts and Alito for the supreme court either.   LOL

    [ Parent ]
    This is the same Democratic Congress (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:39:45 AM EST
    that is allowing telecom immunity to come to the floor for a vote, has passed it in the House with the support of Democratic Representatives and will in all probably pass in the Senate with the support of Democratic Senators.

    Excuse me if I do not share your faith based confidence in the Democratic Congress.

    [ Parent ]

    The Democratic Congress (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    will likely fight any faith-based changes if McCain is president.

    They likely WON'T fight them if Obama is president.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you hit the nail on the head (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    One of the major reasons why McCain might be preferable to Obama.

    Still not voting for McCain. Just less and less sure about Obama.

    He's making ANOTHER speech? Why do I get the feeling he throws these wrenches into his own campaign works so he can have more speeches on nat'l tv?

    [ Parent ]

    hmm, the democratic congress has (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    fought for nothing to help americans. why would they do anything for us now. don't you think this has been run by the so called party leaders? i do.

    [ Parent ]
    Dream on (n/t) (none / 0) (#120)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:27:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The article also says: (none / 0) (#99)
    by Nadai on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:58:45 AM EST
    Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques will only be allowed to go toward secular programs.

    Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but aren't churches, etc. permitted to discriminate based on faith in their hiring?  If they receive federal money directly, how is that not subsidizing faith-based hiring?

    [ Parent ]

    If true... (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by Mike H on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:47:22 AM EST
    ...this just cements that Obama is no progressive, and will pander to anyone, say anything, in order to get elected.

    FISA renewed.  Iraq drags on.  Iran IS a threat.  Maybe privatize social security.  No universal health care.  No repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.  Energy policy that focuses on nuclear energy and coal.  And now (maybe) we'll keep on giving tax dollars to religious groups that hire and fire based on faith.

    Exactly which candidate is the Republican, again???

    This is not pandering. (5.00 / 13) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:58:55 AM EST
    This IS Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed!!/ hope this is not too o/t. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by kelsweet on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:53:57 AM EST
    can i say that i am a little frightened? on sooooo many levels. I haven't been big on following politics in my life. I will tell you however that I LOVE LOVE LOVE my country and do not take it for granted. My grandpa, dad uncles cousins have all fought for this country from WW1 on, I do not take my freedom for granted, I've taught my children how lucky they are to be American citizens etc.

     This year when I heard the false rumors about the muslim thing I felt it my DUTY to investigate OB as he was unknown to me, and I haven't been comfortable with him from the get go, not from what I heard on TV, but what I have studied HARD on for months now. i don't trust BO, he frightens me, I don't feel that he has OUR country's best interest in mind.

    I am not as passionate as most of you here about certain issues, my being a "newbie" and all but I thought my opinion might give ya'll insight into this year's low info voter. I want to feel safe and that my freedom and the freedom of my children will be safeguarded by someone who I know would lay down his/her life for this great country, and I aint feelin the love. Faith/governing should be separate. p.e.r.i.o.d.

    [ Parent ]

    Sinclair Lewis said (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    "Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible." Given our discussion of "Unity vs. Solidarity" the other day, a patriotism speech yesterday, and this on faith today, I think a little  fear is justified. Not "digging a hole in the backyard and building a shelter for yourself and your family" kind of fear, but a "pause before voting" kind of fear.

    [ Parent ]
    Forget About Being Progessive (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    How about unconstitutional?

    Religious Discrimination

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

    Religious Discrimination

    Looks to be another bad day for Obama. The GOP ought to have a field say with this. Religious freedom in our country is a cornerstone of our concept of freedom. Obama want to toss that aside?

    If you hadn't crossed the line to not vote for Obama perhaps this will do it. Who wants to have to include your religious affiliation and church attended on your resume or job application? If you are not a Christian but instead a Muslim or Buddhist can you get a job with certain companies anymore? Or how about if you are a Baptist and not a Methodist? What if you attend a Black Church and not a White one.

    If Obama doesn't lose half the blog readers over this I will be very surprised. Heck if he doesn't lose half the country over this I'd be surprised.

    Violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 and he wants to be President. I don't think this is what America wants.

    Super Delegates, Hillary Clinton is still in waiting and ready to step up.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW for clarification (none / 0) (#66)
    by talex on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964...

    Does not just apply to companies that receive Federal Funds. It applies to all companies with 15 of more employees - public or private - if I read it correctly.

    Additionally at the bottom of the page of the link I provided was this:

    In Fiscal Year 2007, EEOC received 2,880 charges of religious discrimination. EEOC resolved 2,525 religious discrimination charges and recovered $6.4 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

    So yeah, if Obama sticks with this then he is advocating breaking the law.

    [ Parent ]

    Mike - even if it's not true, (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:27:43 AM EST
    the list in your middle paragraph ought to be enough to convince people that Obama is not the progressive some people think he is; I think by the time August gets here, people will be wondering if the campaign has morphed into a repeat of the Republican primary, with Obama having sold out to the right on so many issues just to get votes that he will no longer be recognizable as a Democrat - and that is going to convince a lot of Democrats - real Democrats - that there is no advantage in voting for him..

    As far as I'm concerned, he has not given me any reason to trust him.

    [ Parent ]

    ENOUGH ALREADY (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by northeast73 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:48:07 AM EST
    Why keep pretending that Obama is not a shmuck?

    This is yet another reason why I will not only not ride the Unity Pony, I'm thinking of taking a shot at it.

    Obama will say, and do A N Y T H I N G to win....and unlike my hero Hillary, Obama wants to win for OBAMA's benefit....not mine, not yours, not anyones but his...

    It was pretty clear from the begining of (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    Obama's journey on the national scene that we could expect him to have plans to institutionalize religion in our federal government.

    He was running on religion pretty much from the start.

    i don't think obama ever disowned (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    trinity just rev wright. that is black liberation theology. go read up on it. is this what we want in the white house. the thinking behind this approach is fine for the private individual or even a sentator if the state voters agree. i fear the results of something like that in wh without any firewall between religeon and the federal government.

    [ Parent ]
    The sign of a true leader is keeping your word (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Angel on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:56:05 AM EST
    and not breaking promises. Obama is not a leader.  He's a speech reader.  And he'll say and do anything, and I mean anything, to get elected.  Many of us said this a long time ago, and we repeated it often.  Just to think that we could have had Hillary.  Disgusting.  Makes me sick.  Welcome to reality, BTD.  

    This too will be rationalized--and fluffed by the (none / 0) (#151)
    by jawbone on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM EST
    MCM.

    I heard at least 4 or 5 references to Jeffrey Toobin telling the public that Obama had not changed on the death penalty when he seemed to now support the death penalty for child rape. It was something he wrote about in one of his books, per Toobin--and Toobin quoted him as writing that he was always for the DP for egregious crimes such as mass murder or child rape and murder.

    Now, to me that sounded like two categories. 1) Murderer who killed more than one person and 2) a child rapist who also killed his child victim (I guess Obama would not ask for the DP for a person who raped an adult and then killed him or her, but, who knows?).  Toobin seems to think there were three categories: the above two and solely raping a child.

    I was looking for the quote, but I can't find it--anyone have Obama's quote from on of his books?

    Anyway, Toobin's take seems to have spread far an wide in the MCM and is rapidly becoming Conventional Wisdom.

    Plus, since Obama is the Change candidate, any of his change is good??

    [ Parent ]

    Is This the Same AP... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by northeast73 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    ....that reported that Hillary said she "is staying in the race in case Obama gets whacked"?

    They're so good at, like, reporting stuff....

    hmmmmm (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 08:59:43 AM EST
    David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.
    It sounds like Kuo thinks he said what BTD first thought he said. . .

    I swear I did not copy you (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:06:37 AM EST
    great minds, and all that...

    [ Parent ]
    EVERY Church in this County is tax payer funded (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:04:59 AM EST
    Just look at property taxes alone and think about it the next time you drive by a five acre Catholic compound smack dab in the middle of prime real estate.

    Almost every church college is (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    because federal scholarship funds and the like simply, allegedly, are sent straight to the students -- but sent to the financial aid offices for them. The students never see the money; they just show up and sign over the checks immediately to the schools.

    [ Parent ]
    So, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by tek on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM EST
    we should give Obama a pass on directly handing out our money to religious organizations just because they're religious?  You Obama people really are over the edge.  Imagine if Hillary had made this announcement.

    No we don't want those slick Clintons in the WH, they'd do anything, say anything to get there.  And they're, Oh No, MODERATES, not like Obama who's a Republican in Disguise.  Ronald REagan--greatest change agent in the twentieth century "Bill Clinton's administration didn't bring any real Change."  Barack Obama

    [ Parent ]

    HIllary supports (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by tben on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    expanding faith-based initaitives also.

    "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles" - Hillary Clinton

    [ Parent ]

    No expansion has been advocated (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by tree on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 12:13:35 PM EST
    by Clinton, but she has stated she supports federal funding for faith-based social services. Here's an article summarizing Obama's, Clinton's and McCain's positions on the issue from March of this year. (As opposed to your very vague article on Clinton from 2005.)

    Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain, and Democratic Party hopefuls Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama "have each voiced support for federal funding of faith-based social services."

    Obama told Christianity Today that he wants to take a look at the program before deciding how to deal with it: "One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune," Obama said. "I want to see how monies have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment [to] sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have."

    Burns Strider, Clinton's director of faith-based outreach, "said that if she were elected, Clinton would continue funding faith-based organizations, but would seek to maintain an appropriate boundary between church and state," Christianity Today reported. "Clinton emphasizes a 'fair and level playing field' for faith-based and secular providers of social services, Strider said."

    Brett O'Donnell, a spokesperson for McCain, told Christianity Today that his "candidate wants faith-based groups to 'have at least the same standing as they have now.'"



    [ Parent ]
    yup and that is bad enough in my (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by hellothere on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    view. but to allow this type of blurring of lines and giving tax payer money to religeon is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

    [ Parent ]
    That is a different issue (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:06:42 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My point is that (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Exeter on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:26:28 AM EST
    we already indirectly fund churches (and their discrimatory practices) with tax money my allowing them to operate tax free and giving them government services such as police, fire, water, and sewer.

    It is absolutely absurd to directly fund churches or their programs and we definitely should not be EXPANDING such funding. Who cares if the funds will have Fed discrimination laws-- those are easy to get around and almost impossible to prove, unless the chuch does or says something overtly discrimatory.  

    Let's say the scientologists have a inner city school that is doing a bang-up job and starts getting fed grants. Do you really think that they won't be hiring anyone other than scientologists or people that are scientologist-friendly b/c they get grants? Do you think they will be hiring alot of scientologists critics?

    I get the distinction that its important that they must, at least in theory, abide by fed disctimination laws. But, for me, this whole discussion is horrifying and its distiction without a material difference.  

    [ Parent ]

    From someone who reviewed the Obama plan (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

    Lovely, just lovely. The idea of the "Sister Souljah moment" was that it was just one event - a moment - not a whole campaign.

    I'm not convinced the AP story is wrong. I want more details from the Obama campaign on this

    Checking out the viral reports on this . . . (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by wurman on Tue Jul 01, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM EST
    . . . Jennifer Loven, by-line, Assoc. Press, Chicago seems to be the source for about 99 percent of the published reports.

    However, John M. Broder, by-line, has a separate & different account in the NY Times here (link):

    Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics. It is the most intensive effort yet by a Democratic candidate to reach out to self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians and to try to pry them away from their historical attachment to the Republican Party.

    On Tuesday, Mr. Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech about faith in Zanesville, Ohio, in a battleground section of a battleground state, one where Mr. Bush relied heavily on evangelical voters to provide his narrow margin of victory in 2004.

    The Guardian UK (link) Daniel Nasaw, by-line, has an independently developed article on the subject (not derived from AP).

    The federal money could only be directed to "secular" programmes, the campaign said.

    "I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea," Obama will say, "so long as we follow a few basic principles."

    Obama will discuss the plan in a speech at a church in Zanesville, Ohio today.