July 1, 2008
Barack Obama: A Crumb for the Queers, and Blood-Red Meat for the Fundies (Or: Is it already time for another “I told you so” post?)
Flash! Obama Still Doesn’t Think We’re As Equal As He Is!
Also: Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead!
I suppose a few Obama supporters might think it’s time to deliver an “I told you so” to me, given that their guy has come out against California’s Proposition 8, in a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club:
Dear Friends,Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club’s Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.
As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It’s time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.
Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today’s celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Mmm… nope, sorry. FAIL.
Obama does not support “full equality under the law” or “extending fully equal rights and benefits.” He opposes same-sex marriage, period.
This sentence alone…
And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.
…is absolutely meaningless light of Obama’s continued insistence that marriage is an institution reserved solely for one man and one woman, and that “the states” should be allowed to vote on the rights of a minority. (Just like your parents’ interracial marriage was left to the states, eh, Barack?)
How do you suppose Obama might vote if he were a Californian? (Probably “present,” but that’s beside the point.)
Sorry, not buying it. He’s pandering for votes — and while it’s refreshing to see him pandering to us for a change (take a picture of it; it won’t last long), his words are empty.
And notice he didn’t make this statement in a speech, at a press conference, or to a major media outlet. I know who the Alice B. Toklas folks are, and maybe you do too — but it’s highly doubtful anyone without a deep interest in LGBT history and politics knows, or will hear this message.
Hell, I wonder if Barry even knows who Alice B. Toklas was, or why a gay political organization named itself after her.
Of course, Obama keeps citing his Christianity as the reason he opposes marriage equality — and I’ve long denounced his continuous chipping away at the wall of separation between church and state. Which brings me to the real reason for another “I told you so” post:
Obama Wants to Expand Bush’s Faith-Based Program
Now, you know I’m no fan of Obama’s — the guy manages to piss me off nearly every day — but this actually made my jaw drop:
Here’s the full text of Obama’s remarks, “as prepared for delivery” in Zanesville, Ohio (with my reaction, of course!):
You know, faith based groups like East Side Community Ministry carry a particular meaning for me. Because in a way, they’re what led me into public service. It was a Catholic group called The Campaign for Human Development that helped fund the work I did many years ago in Chicago to help lift up neighborhoods that were devastated by the closure of a local steel plant.Now, I didn’t grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work.
You’ve said that before, Barry — and I’ll say this again: I don’t want a president who thinks he’s doing “the Lord’s work” — I want a president who going to do the people’s work.
The last president who thought he was fulfilling some sort of godly “calling” was… Oh, dear, that guy is still in the White House, isn’t he?
I know this kind of “Lord’s work” talk goes over just dandy with all those evangelicals you’re pandering to, Barry, but I wonder how well it would go over if you were Buddhist, or Hindu, or Muslim?
Probably about as well as it goes over with me right now.
There are millions of Americans who share a similar view of their faith, who feel they have an obligation to help others. And they’re making a difference in communities all across this country – through initiatives like Ready4Work, which is helping ensure that ex-offenders don’t return to a life of crime; or Catholic Charities, which is feeding the hungry and making sure we don’t have homeless veterans sleeping on the streets of Chicago; or the good work that’s being done by a coalition of religious groups to rebuild New Orleans.
Catholic Charities? Man, did you pick a bad example, Barry. I bet you weren’t thinking about Catholic Charities’ decision in 2006 to “end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with [Massachusetts] state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.”
So, what are you going to do about Catholic Charities, Barry? Give them a pass, because, technically, they’re not discriminating against anybody anymore? (Golly gee, that’s just like those California county clerks who decided to stop performing marriages altogether, rather than comply with state law to marry same-sex couples, innit?)
And if that doesn’t grab you, Barry (after all, we gay folk just too marginal to really care about), are you going to withhold funding to a “faith-based” organization that, oh, let’s say, refuses to provide its employees with health insurance coverage or disability insurance coverage that includes birth control among prescription drug benefits, in violation of state law, because “the use of contraception is extrinsically evil and a grave sin”? How about a “faith-based” organization that files suit against the state, demanding an exemption under the law?
That was Catholic Charities in 2001, Barry. (They lost the suit, by the way, in 2004. Ironically, it appears it was Catholic Charities’ own argument that CC is “a California public benefit corporation that provides social services to the poor, disabled, elderly, and otherwise vulnerable members of society, regardless of their religious beliefs” worked against them; the California Supreme Court said, essentially, “OK, so if you employ and serve people of all faiths, and you don’t try to convert them to Catholicism, then you’re not a religious organization, so you’re not exempt.”)
You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who’ve come together around a common faith, they’re usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they’re particularly well-placed to offer help. As I’ve said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.That’s why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today — from saving our planet to ending poverty — are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.
So, instead of fixing government-operated, secular social programs, you want to continue to pass responsibility off onto somebody else. And give somebody else money to do what the government should be doing. Even if that somebody else is — oh, let’s say, actively working against my equal rights.
Like the Salvation Army. Aside from their long, ugly history of anti-gay political action, how are you going to explain that the federal government is giving money to a “faith-based” organization which in turn hires high-powered lobbyists (for a reported $25,000 per month) like “Stephen M. Minikes, a member of the Bush election campaign’s ‘Pioneers’ — those who raised at least $100,000 apiece for the Republican candidate — and Mark Holman, former chief of staff to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge and a longtime personal friend of Bush political counselor Karl Rove”?
Or the Boy Scouts of America. Are you going to supplement what the BSA has lost from private donors over its rabidly anti-gay and anti-atheist policies? (By the way, Barry, as POTUS, you’ll automatically become the honorary president of BSA. Are you going to endorse the BSA’s long history of active homophobia and staunch opposition to freedom from religion?)
*snapping fingers* Oh, wait! I know how you’re going to justify federally-funded homophobia:
“In answer to a reporter’s question, Obama said federal anti-discrimination laws do not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. But Obama said he believes local laws in some states prohibiting discrimination against gays would apply to faith-based social programs funded with federal money in those states.”
Ducking for cover behind the absence of a fully inclusive federal antidiscrimination law?! And one that you purport to support? Good God, Barry! Shameless Hypocrite of the Year!
I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits.
Yes, you are.
And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up.
Right — they’re not.
What I’m saying is that we all have to work together — Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike — to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
And how are you going to do that by giving my tax dollars to “faith-based” organizations that discriminate against me? That’s not a very good way to convince me to work with them — forcing me to make an involuntary donation that will in turn be used against me — is it, Barry?
Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square.
Uh-huh. And we already know what you think, Barry:
“But what I am suggesting is this — secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
You can be “motivated by faith” all you like — but when you start “injecting” your religious beliefs into secular law that will impact me, then you are wrong.
And you really piss me off, Barry, the way you keep insisting that “personal morality” is solely the domain of the religious. The most moral people I’ve ever known have been atheists: They do what’s right because it’s right, and not out of fear that somebody else’s big, mean god is going to boil them in oil for eternity.
When a person is good because it’s right to be good, and for no other reason, that is true morality.
And (with a tip of the hat to Muhammad Ali), I ain’t got no quarrel with atheism — no atheist ever called me a diseased, “intrinsically evil” destroyer of society.
But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups.
They sure have. And that value is measured in dollars in exchange for votes.
President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these.
I hope they’ve both learned from their mistakes.
And President Bush came into office with a promise to “rally the armies of compassion,” establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
Ah, I was wondering when you’d get around to praising Bush.
So how’s that “compassionate conservatism” been workin’ out, Barry?
But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise. Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded.
That’s your complaint? That they’re underfunded? Not that these “faith-based” organizations are subsidized at all as they continue to exercise blatantly discriminatory practices? And you want to give them more of my money?
Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests.
And, as I asked above, what are you going to do about it? I don’t think you have a clue about what you’re saying, Barry, given that you cited Catholic Charities as a shining beacon of the sort of “services” you’re pushing.
As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed.
Which ones? The ones that don’t have the muscle to hire high-priced Washington lobbyists?
Well, I still believe it’s a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership — not a photo-op. That’s what it will be when I’m President. I’ll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart — it will be a critical part of my administration.
Oh, man. You didn’t say that. You didn’t. A “critical part” of your administration? Now you’re scaring me, Barry. Scaring me bad.
Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state…
Oh,
…but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea — so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.
Catholic Charities doesn’t proselytize, discriminate against the people they help, or refuse to hire non-Catholics. Yet they don’t deserve one thin dime of my tax dollars.
Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs.
That’s how these organizations skirt the rules now, Barry — by claiming to spend all their federal funding on secular programs.
Don’t try to convince me that none of them cooks the books.
And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.
The Salvation Army’s social programs “work.” And they don’t deserve a penny from me, either.
With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups — especially smaller congregations and those that aren’t well connected — don’t know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what’s stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works.
So you’re going to bring more anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-et cetera groups into your “big tent.” Oy.
And another thing: Where do you plan to get the money to fund all these “new” organizations you predict will be applying for federal funding? Are you going to raise taxes? Or just divert funds from somewhere else? Mark Chaves noted in 2003 that, “for example, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs cut the budget of a large, secular homeless shelter run by the United Veterans of America, while awarding grants to many religiously run shelters. Critics noted that applicants were asked to check a box if they were faith-based. According to a January 13 article in the Boston Globe, Veterans Affairs officials not only encouraged religious groups to apply, ‘but told them their religious roots would help.’”
Is that how you plan to feed the “faith-based”, Barry?
Well, that will change when I’m President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don’t. We’ll “train the trainers” by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities…
There you go again with Catholic Charities. Bad choice.
…and Lutheran Services…
You mean Lutheran Social Services? Hmmm…
“The March 2006 issue of Freethought Today reports on an audit of Wisconsin’s funding of Lutheran Social Services to help abused and neglected children:
“‘Egregiously, more than $16,000 in church-related expenditures Lutheran Social Services were paid by child welfare money. “Church-related” expenses included tickets to three Milwaukee Brewer baseball games, two of which were for clergy. The cost for the food, tickets, and suite totaled $1,210, according to auditors. […]’
“‘Lutheran Social Services spent more than $5,550 of child welfare money to purchase fleece jackets, shirts, watches, key lights and sweatshirts for employees. Public money also bought 200 coffee mugs with Lutheran Social Services logo for child welfare trainees.’
“This isn’t even everything — Lutheran Social Services also used public funds for things like legal bills unrelated to the mission of child welfare as well as grocery store gift cards. What did the government and the children get in exchange for all this?
“‘The audit found 30% of child abuse investigations took longer than the 60 days permitted by state law. Only 27% of court-ordered services for children in foster care and their families were in place shortly after children were removed from homes during the period of mid-February through late June 2005.’”
Hmmm.
…and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that’s willing to abide by our constitution — from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques — can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program.This Council will also help target our efforts to meet key challenges like education.
Well, this certainly dovetails nicely with another of your recent pro-Bush positions, Barry: your support of school vouchers. Again, you’re not fixing the government — you’re shifting responsibility to the private sector. How do you sleep at night, with all your plans to gut the public sector (and in this case further weaken the public school system)?
All across America, too many children simply can’t read or perform math at their grade-level, a problem that grows worse for low-income students during the summer months and afterschool hours. Nonprofits like Children’s Defense Fund are working to solve this problem. They hold summer and afterschool Freedom Schools in communities across this country, and many of their classes are held in churches.
That’s fine — and the CDF is a fine organization. The funny thing is, the CDF doesn’t take any government funding — so, like… what? You’re going to make them take it? Do they want it? Or are you just namedropping?
There’s a lot of evidence that these kinds of partnerships work. Take Youth Education for Tomorrow, an innovative program that’s being run by churches, faith-based schools, and others in Philadelphia. To help narrow the summer learning gap, the YET program hires qualified teachers who help students with reading using proven learning techniques. They hold classes four days a week after school and during the summer. And they monitor progress closely. The results have been outstanding. Children who attended a YET center for at least six months improved nearly 2 years in reading ability. And the average high school student gained a full grade in reading level after just three months.That’s the kind of real progress that can be made when we empower faith-based organizations.
You just named two “faith-based” organization that are doing some real good. (The Children’s Defense Fund isn’t a “faith-based” organization.)
And the organizations you just cited are anomalies. As Mark Chaves wrote in 2001: “The intensity of congregational involvement in social services varies greatly. Regarding food programs, for example, congregations may donate money to a community food bank, supply volunteers for a Meals on Wheels project, organize a food drive every Thanksgiving, or operate independent food pantries or soup kitchens. When it comes to housing, congregations may provide volunteers to do occasional home repair for the needy, assist first-time home buyers with funds, participate in neighborhood redevelopment efforts, or build affordable housing for senior citizens. When serving the homeless, congregations might donate money to a neighborhood shelter, provide volunteers to prepare dinner at a shelter, or actually provide shelter for homeless women and children in the congregation’s own building.
“Most congregations engage in some social service of this kind, but only a tiny minority actively and intensively engage in such activity. Only 6 percent of congregations have a staff person devoting at least quarter time to social service projects. The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 3 percent of the median congregation’s total budget. In the median congregation, only ten individuals do volunteer work connected with congregational social services. Some congregations intensively engage in social service activity and constitute important social service institutions in their communities, but those congregations are the exception rather than the rule.”
And that’s why as President, I’ll expand summer programs like this to serve one million students. This won’t just help our children learn, it will help keep them off the streets during the summer so they don’t turn to crime.And my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will also have a broader role — it will help set our national agenda. Because if we are going to do something about the injustice of millions of children living in extreme poverty, we need interfaith coalitions like the Let Justice Roll campaign standing up for the powerless. If we’re going to end genocide and stop the scourge of HIV/AIDS, we need people of faith on Capitol Hill talking about how these challenges don’t just represent a security crisis or a humanitarian crisis, but a moral crisis as well.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! “Moral crisis” in the same breath as “the scourge of HIV/AIDS”? I don’t like your silent dog whistle there, Barry.
We know that faith and values can be a source of strength in our own lives.
Maybe your life, Barry. And wouldja quit co-opting “values” as if “values” were exclusive to the religious? In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s what the Radical Right does.
That’s what it’s been to me.
That’s what I just said. So stop projecting your worldview onto mine.
And that’s what it is to so many Americans. But it can also be something more. It can be the foundation of a new project of American renewal. And that’s the kind of effort I intend to lead as President of the United States.
Oh… God.
All I can say is: Republicans saddened by George W. Bush’s dwindling days in office can cheer up; if all goes to plan, you’ll have a Mini-Bush back in the White House next January: Barack Obama.
Further reading:
Six Myths About Faith-Based Initiatives
Mark Chaves, The Christian Century, September 12-19, 2001
Debunking Charitable Choice
Mark Chaves, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer 2003
Moonies knee-deep in faith-based funds: Pushing celibacy, marriage counseling under Bush plan
Don Lattin, San Francisco Chronicle, October 3, 2004
Government-Funded Religious Discrimination in Head Start Programs
People For the American Way, September 19, 2005
Welcome to Faith-Based America
Stephen Pizzo, News for Real, October 22, 2005
Non-Christians need not apply
Robyn E. Blumner, St. Petersburg Times, August 13, 2006
Bush’s faith-based initiative gets embrace from Obama
Johanna Neuman, Los Angeles Times, July 1, 2008
Obama Support For Expansion Of ‘Faith-Based’ Program Is Disappointing, Says Americans United
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, July 1, 2008
Expanding federal faith-based initiatives is unwise
Religious Right Watch, July 1, 2008
Yet Another Connection…
Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy, No Quarter, July 1, 2008
Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups
Jeff Zeleny and Brian Knowlton, New York Times, July 2, 2008
Tweet This Post! 
Filed Under: Atheism/Agnosticism, Barack Obama, California, Catholicism, Christianity, Education/Schools, Election 2008, Employment/ENDA, George W. Bush, HIV/AIDS, Homophobia, Insurance, LGBT History, Marriage, Parenting, Proposition 8, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, Youth
