A rabbi, a reverand, a gay rights activist - all part of Obama's faith-based advisory group

[sabra]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/obama-names-more-members-to-his-faithbased-advisory-group.html

Obama names more members to his faith-based advisory group

Appropriately enough for a week that includes Passover and Easter, the Obama administration has filled out the ranks of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

That’s the group of religious and secular leaders charged with advising President Obama on a broad range of domestic and foreign policy issues. Obama announced some council members in February. On Monday he named the last nine members to the 25-person panel. That's one of the new members above, Bishop Charles Blake, the Los Angeles-based presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ.

It’s a diverse group. A sampling:

Jim Wallis, chief executive of the advocacy group Sojourners.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism.

Rev. Frank Page, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Fred Davie, a gay rights activist and senior adviser of Public/Private Ventures.


During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to continue President Bush’s faith-based office but with a significant twist: He said that groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

[JayMusgrove]

1. Great news.. Great diversity! Love that President!!! n /t

[dionysus]

2. i'm not big on faith based anything but it's hard to complain about that...

[jenmito]

3. A gay rights activist? NO WAY!

Obama's a homophobe! Why would he allow a gay rightsd activist in to maybe influence his way of thinking? He's JUST LIKE BUSH! :sarcasm:

[ClarkUSA]

4. Gee, that doesn't look like "Religion Incorporated" to me. Guess trolls need to find another whine.

[katandmoon]

9. As long as Obama is ALSO issuing invitations to religious bigots -- and he is --

Any invitation to a gay activist is canceled out.

[ClarkUSA]

11. What a bigoted and narrow-minded statement to make! They're all Americans and they all deserve....

... a chair at the table. President Obama isn't going to act like Bush and exclude those that don't agree with him.

[dsc]

20. Why not Bob Jones then? Or any other racist pastor out there?

Are they not Americans? Do they not deserve a seat at the table?

[ClarkUSA]

24. That'd be up to President Obama. But even Nelson Mandela made friends with his captors.

[dsc]

28. sure

I could see the threads now. The fact is homophobia is perfectly fine but racism is beyond the pale. Obama would never dare name the likes of Bob Jones but homophobes, they are all good.

[katandmoon]

34. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of not giving a platform to bigots!

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to have a single problem with providing bigots with a platform with the presidential seal on it.

But I sure as fuck do have a problem with it. I have a problem with a single tax dollar supporting a government program with the word FAITH in it, especially a program that allows for hiring discrimination.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Your wanting to exclude those you don't agree with is the same attitude BushCo had for 8 years.

Sorry, this past election was all about consciously breaking from that kind of narrow-minded attitude. Well, I have no problems
with trying to reach consensus with people I don't agree with and neither do most Americans who voted and approve of President
Obama's performance which includes 95% of Democrats and 57% of independents.

[Cha]

25. Poor you.. drowning in your fucking

sour juices.

[katandmoon]

35. And you are drowning in grape flavor aid

[Cha]

41. Hate on

hater.

[Runcible Spoon]

51. !

:spray:

OMFG! Epic comeback!

[tandot]

5. Muslims seem to be represented, too:

The Advisory Council is part of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and is composed of religious and secular leaders and scholars from different backgrounds. Each member of the Council is appointed to a one-year term.


*Dalia Mogahed, Executive Director, Gallup Center for Muslim Studies Washington, DC

more at link:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/obama-names-more-members-to-his-faithbased-advisory-group.html

[vaberella]

32. If only I could rec you...

Thanks for the post tandot...this was missed in the OP's post, glad to see it is opening up to a wide range of people.

[laststeamtrain]

6. A rabbi, a reverand, a gay rights activist...all walked into a bar...

...uh...I got nothing.

I thought I did, but I don't.

[PBS Poll-435]

8. LOLOL

I swear I was thinking the very same thing.

[laststeamtrain]

10. It's the rhythm of the words rather than the meaning.

Triggered a mental knee-jerk response.

Oh well, the jokes are where you find 'em.

:hi:

[Aloha Spirit]

14. Each of them orders a martini.

The bartender makes a martini for the reverend.
Then he makes one for the rabbi.
But he tells the gay rights activist, "Here, I'm going to make you a Manhattan instead."
The gay rights activist is non-plussed. She asks the bartender why he won't make her a martini.
He replies, "Don't worry, it's pretty much the same thing, just a different name."

[JayMusgrove]

15. Well, at least you tried! LOL n/t

[Aloha Spirit]

19. haha thanks

had to try

[katandmoon]

7. What Obama said during the campaign is not necessarily what he does now

As far as I am aware from following this issue, Obama has not rescinded BushCo's permission for these groups receiving OUR money to discriminate in hiring.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Links, sources. quotes to prove what you're saying?

[Bluenorthwest]

18. The link in the OP will do

the sentance following what is posted is: "But as our colleagues Peter Wallsten and Duke Helfand reported in February, Obama left the controversial Bush policy in place. In other words, religious groups could discriminate -- Christians hiring just Christians, for example, or Muslims hiring just Muslims -- and still be in the running to obtain grants..."

So the discrimination thing is very vauge, and not what he said on the trail. If they feel compelled to do this thing, I think a few of the appointments are good choices, a few really stink, so that is balance I guess. As people, I even know and like some of the religious folk involved. But the Bush policy does indeed remain intact. They say it will be practiced with a difference, but only time can tell. I think the President believes in this program, and I think he's trying to be fair with it. I do not agree with the program at all. All discrimination is just bad in my book. That may be simplistic, but that's is the case.

[ClarkUSA]

22. I'm not seeing that as discrimination so much as common sense hiring.

Here is a big difference between the Obama administration and BushCo: people who do feel discriminated do have recourse:

Obama announced that White House officials might seek guidance from the Justice Department if questions arise about the legality of potential grant recipients. In essence, the executive order, which did not specifically mention discrimination, gives the White House the option to review a specific grant for legal reasons but does not overturn Bush’s broader policy.

[katandmoon]

36. That just makes me feel so much better -- NOT,

Obama is trying to have it both ways. He is OK with not upsetting the religious applecart by allowing discrimination in their hiring as long as nobody squawks about it. If somebody does squawk, then they may or may not get anywhere with it depending on how the White House feels about it that particular day.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Once again, your anti-Obama rhetoric lacks any sense of clear reality. Hate away, dear.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. How important is it that the janitor share your faith?

Common sense discrimination is a revolting concept.

If discrimination by faith is 'common sense' then why is it illegal in the US for a business to simply declare 'we only hire Christians'? Would it not be common sense?

Sickening concepts. I repeat. I oppose discrimination.

[ClarkUSA]

42. If anyone feels discriminated, they can bring it up with the Justice Dep't. which is good.

I certainly wouldn't bother, but then again, as an skeptic/agnostic, I understand why some religious groups may not want to hire me.

[Solon]

56. You do understand that such religious groups shouldn't get a dime of MY or any taxpayer's money.

Right? Or is the concept of subsidizing discrimination too complicated for you?

[ClarkUSA]

68. I don't see a problem as long as there's no one complaining of discrimination to the Justice Dep't.

Since there has yet to be any complaints filed, then I don't mind my tax dollars going towards programs that:

~ help the poor survive this terrible economy through job placement, subsidized housing, and food pantries;
~ aid those who suffer from domestic abuse and sexual abuse get free counselling from professionals;
~ underwrite costs at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, etc.

[Solon]

71. Where's the oversight, just relying on complaints, that, might I add...

is only a recent development is not adequate.

We aren't even dealing with a hypothetical, Bill Moyer's program, back in 2003, highlighted a program to help young mothers out of poverty through a faith based program, and it included pressuring the families to join the church that the charity was affiliated with. How are we to prevent that from happening again.

This isn't unique, nor is it nearly as rare as it should be, the fact of the matter is that, without some direct government oversight, many of these programs will be abused. Faith based organizations are exempt from things such as accreditation, which means you second point goes out the window when the faith based charity in question doesn't employ actual psychologists or therapists. Not to mention how are we to prevent churches who don't view abuse as a serious problem from running false charities and receive government funding?

Same goes for prostelyzation in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc. which is already a problem with some of these programs.

Its not like its just atheists and the like who are complaining either:

http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/resource_kit/faith_based_initiative.asp

[ClarkUSA]

76. Why don't you take your concerns to whitehouse.gov?

I believe that intelligent feedback such as yours is always welcome: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Team O will likely give your concerns attention if they have not already because of others who have raised the same questions
already. My personal opinion is that I doubt Team O will allow abuses of the program to occur as they must be fully aware of
the concerns you raise.

[Solon]

83. Already did, but the Whitehouse already is backpeddling on the very oversight this program...

needs if it is to continue to exist.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Do you have credible links, sources, quotes to prove that? I haven't read anything like that.

[Solon]

88. Really, one of Obama's first executive order kept Bush's discriminatory policies...

for faith based hiring practices intact, particularly when it comes to GLBT people.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10291

[ClarkUSA]

92. The page is not loading well. Do you have any other sources, quotes, links?

Plus, I was referring to your complaint re: oversight here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8331021&mesg_id=8333434

[dsc]

95. It is opening well for me and here is the relevant text

Obama issued an executive order today appointing Joshua DuBois as executive director of the White House faith-based office and setting up an advisory council on faith-based and other issues.

President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative allowed religious groups that accept tax funding to engage in discriminatory hiring and celebrated faith-based groups that proselytize. Today’s Obama action leaves the Bush executive orders in place including one that specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs.

“I am very disappointed that President Obama’s faith-based program is being rolled out without barring evangelism and religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It should be obvious that taxpayer-funded religious bias offends our civil rights laws, our Constitution and our shared sense of values.”

Questions of religious bias have dogged the faith-based initiative since former President Bush unveiled the program in 2001. Bush insisted that religious groups should have the right to accept public funding and still hire and fire on religious grounds and issued an executive order codifying this “right.”

Americans United joined a coalition of religious and civil liberties groups opposing proselytism and religious discrimination in tax-funded programs. The groups have asked Obama to overturn the Bush executive orders.

[ClarkUSA]

99. AU is not an independent source. Are there no other links, sources, or quotes?

That fact, is, discrimination complaints can be filed with the Justice Department, which was not allowed under President
Clinton or BushCo, as far as I know.

[dsc]

103. On the subject of links I don't recall seeing a link for this justice department thing

Here is a link which reprinted Obama's press release.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/02/obama_signs_exe.html

The full press release is below:

Washington (February 5, 2009) – President Barack Obama today signed an executive order establishing the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will work on behalf of Americans committed to improving their communities, no matter their religious or political beliefs.

“Over the past few days and weeks, there has been much talk about what our government’s role should be during this period of economic emergency. That is as it should be – because there is much that government can and must do to help people in need,” said President Obama. “But no matter how much money we invest or how sensibly we design our policies, the change that Americans are looking for will not come from government alone. There is a force for good greater than government. It is an expression of faith, this yearning to give back, this hungering for a purpose larger than our own, that reveals itself not simply in places of worship, but in senior centers and shelters, schools and hospitals, and any place an American decides.”

The White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will be a resource for nonprofits and community organizations, both secular and faith based, looking for ways to make a bigger impact in their communities, learn their obligations under the law, cut through red tape, and make the most of what the federal government has to offer.

President Obama appointed Joshua DuBois, a former associate pastor and advisor to the President in his U.S. Senate office and campaign Director of Religious Affairs, to lead this office. “Joshua understands the issues at stake, knows the people involved, and will be able to bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities, from academia and politics – around our common goals,” said President Obama.

The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will focus on four key priorities, to be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and each of the eleven agency offices for faith-based and neighborhood partnerships:

The Office’s top priority will be making community groups an integral part of our economic recovery and poverty a burden fewer have to bear when recovery is complete.
It will be one voice among several in the administration that will look at how we support women and children, address teenage pregnancy, and reduce the need for abortion.
The Office will strive to support fathers who stand by their families, which involves working to get young men off the streets and into well-paying jobs, and encouraging responsible fatherhood.
Finally, beyond American shores this Office will work with the National Security Council to foster interfaith dialogue with leaders and scholars around the world.

As the priorities of this Office are carried out, it will be done in a way that upholds the Constitution – by ensuring that both existing programs and new proposals are consistent with American laws and values. The separation of church and state is a principle President Obama supports firmly – not only because it protects our democracy, but also because it protects the plurality of America’s religious and civic life. The Executive Order President Obama will sign today strengthens this by adding a new mechanism for the Executive Director of the Office to work through the White House Counsel to seek the advice of the Attorney General on difficult legal and constitutional issues.

The Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will include a new President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, composed of religious and secular leaders and scholars from different backgrounds. There will be 25 members of the Council, appointed to 1-year terms.

end of quote

Note that protecting gays isn't mentioned at all, nor is a review by the justice department for people who were discriminated against. Of course I guess they could be liars too.

[ClarkUSA]

106. Here's the link to the Washington Post report and the relevant quote re: complaints....

Obama's office leaves in place rules that allow faith-based groups receiving federal funding to hire only people of their own faith, but White House aides said the hiring rules would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis when there are complaints and that the Justice Department will provide legal assistance... Ira C. Lupu, a George Washington University law professor who has written on White House faith-based initiatives, said it was wise for Obama... "I think as a first move, handing it to lawyers is good..."

[Solon]

107. Like I said, so vague its pretty much unenforcable...

It looks as if there is no standardization on what constitutes discrimination in the first place, and I'm not sure what they mean by legal assistance, are they basically saying that in order to stop the discriminatory practices the party in question will have to sue first, and who would they sue, the Federal Government, or the Charity?

[loyalsister]

113. It's a double edged sword

Should an organization that qualifies for faith based funding to provide women's health and birth control materials be not be able to discriminate against someone with even the loosest ties to operation rescue?

[Occam Bandage]

13. "Obama appoints pro-medicine activist to quackery-based advisory group."

While that's better than not making such an appointment, I'd prefer such bogus advisory groups not exist.

[AtomicKitten]

16. George Harrison: "It's all part of the stew."

n/t

[vaberella]

17. I thought O was a homophobe....is the sky falling?!

:sarcasm:

Great job, love the article and no one can argue that faith based organizations are known for their outreach capabilities. Yes, admittedly it's questionable when there seems to be a sort of marriage of church and state, however...Churches have a lot of access to the community and seem far less intrusive than Government entities, also far less threatening. I'm okay with this.

[demmiblue]

21. Why would you choose to respond this way?

Seriously.

[vaberella]

27. Why can't I?

Is there a rule saying I can't?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Yep

They call it 'The Golden Rule' in Faith Based Communities, as well as in my home.

[mkultra]

46. he who has the gold makes the rules?

or do unto others as you would have done unto you?

[demmiblue]

40. Of course there is no rule saying you can't.

I was just wondering why you would choose to respond in that manner.

I mean, obviously, you are trying to push buttons... why? Is it that important for you to get that dig in?

[vaberella]

63. Yes...it is.

I'm tired of people jumping to random conclusions...and calling me names if I defend the President, especially from people who don't know half the facts and then have to eat crow when the full facts come out. At this point...I see no reason why I can't remind them of their stupidity from time to time. Plus you should read the this thread, I'm definitely not the only one who responded in such a way. I'm just the one who put it in my opening title.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duncan Grant]

49. You're going to think twice about supporting LGBT people because of what was posted here?

Please, don't bother to think twice about supporting civil equality. Just stay the fuck away from my people.

Unreal. Absolutely unreal.

[mkultra]

59. it should have never come to what it did

keep burning your boats Cortes.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duncan Grant]

109. We'll leave you in the dust.

When people show up at your door to ask you to support civil equality -- just tell them no. Tell them no because you thought what was posted at DU prevents you from supporting LGBT people.

:eyes:

[Solon]

110. People like that poster disgust me to no end, civil rights are civil rights...

you either support them or you don't, you do NOT, ever, have strings attached in your support for them, otherwise you are just being a hypocritical asshole.

[Duncan Grant]

111. Civil rights for gays is different; gay white men can pass.

And we all know that gay civil rights is all about entitled gay white men. :banghead:

Yesterday I stumbled across this:

The Segregationists’ Arguments

The case for the defenders of segregation rested on four arguments:

* The Constitution did not require white and African American children to attend the same schools.
* Social separation of blacks and whites was a regional custom; the states should be left free to regulate their own social affairs.
* Segregation was not harmful to black people.
* Whites were making a good faith effort to equalize the two educational systems. But because black children were still living with the effects of slavery, it would take some time before they were able to compete with white children in the same classroom.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/Brown/history/5-decision/segregation-argument.html

and this:

“When an individual is protesting society's refusal to acknowledge his dignity as a human being, his very act of protest confers dignity on him.”
--Bayard Rustin

Obviously, the gay rights movement is incomparable and without precident. Gay people shouldn't soil the civil rights movement; it's disrespectful and inappropriate -- if their oppression is real, it'll stand on it's own. :sarcasm:

Fun times at DU, isn't it? :hug:

[Runcible Spoon]

53. What a sad, selfish little thing to say.

We don't need anything from weak-ass "supporters" whose idea of advocacy for GLBT rights is cheering on Easter egg rolls on the White House lawn. :eyes:

[mkultra]

61. keep working. build that support.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mkultra]

60. confucious say

sour grapes make for bad wine.

[Duncan Grant]

54. If some rural Baptists believed black people bore the mark of Cain, would you still support this?

That church and state thing sure is a backslidin' slippery slope, isn't it?

Let's face it, you're not a person of principle when it comes to civil equality for gay people. Your subject line is about as transparent as one can get.

[Marrah_G]

23. Just a reminder:

Having a gay-rights activist does not cancel out having anti-gay activist.

Only having anti-straight activists would cancel out having anti-gay activists.

I am in favor of not having religious advisory groups in our government at all.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. There shouldn't *be* a faith-based adviory group at all...

[vaberella]

29. There shouldn't be...

However, I don't blame President Obama using every means under his belt to get his agenda across. Faith-based groups are very into community development and have at times extremely friendly relationship with their constituents. Using them to push his education reform is nothing else but fine when you think about it. Secondly, remember very careful the majority of the people in the nation are religious in some way shape or form. And those who might be against him personally for political reasons probably won't ago against this method socially when it promotes greater availability to youth development.

It's a way to mobilize the community and getting the influence of something that can be pervasive in the lives of the people to join on board. It's not a bad plan...it's just wonky the idea of Church and State...but not the greatest evil.

[dsc]

30. spoken as someone who wouldn't be discriminated against by these people

funny how that works. These groups are great for people like you not so much for people like me.

[vaberella]

31. Huh...people like me? Do you know me? Have we met? n/t

[dsc]

33. I am presuming that you wouldn't be fired or not hired by these groups due to being gay

given you apparent lack of care about that fact.

[vaberella]

37. You presume a lot. n/t

[Duncan Grant]

50. "...it's just wonky the idea of Church and State...but not the greatest evil."

Sweet Jesus, do they even teach history anymore? Thomas Jefferson is gonna love this.

[TheWraith]

48. Kicked and recommended. nt

[LittleBlue]

52. Get the rabbis and reverends out of the White House

What the hell is this, the Vatican?

I'm paying for this nonsensical foolishness to be given an official role in the government? They can use their own money for that.

[Solon]

55. What secular purpose is this group supposed to serve that the government can't...

already do?

[Lilith Velkor]

57. Buying votes from the religious.

The calculation is that religious people who do not respect separation of church and state outnumber those both religious and non- who do.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Oh, so that's why President Bill Clinton started faith-based initiatives in 1996...

... and why, in January 2005, Sen. Hillary Clinton urged the use of faith-based initiatives on the eve of the presidential inauguration of Bush's second term.

[Lilith Velkor]

70. WAAH! My candidate won the primary 10 months ago! WAAH! WAAH!

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

74. Thanks for explaining why the Clintons created/supported faith-based initiatives.

According to you, it seems "buying votes from the religious" didn't begin with BushCo, eh?

[Lilith Velkor]

77. Thanks for still being butthurt about the primaries.

I suppose it's better than contemplating how Clintonlike Barack Obama turned out to be.

I can tell the cognitive dissonance is really getting to you. That pleases me immensely.

Do go on. Tell me more about the Clintons. Let me bask in your suffering that brings me such joy.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Why are you bringing up the primaries? What's with the personal attacks?

Some folks are still bitter, I guess. :shrug:

[Lilith Velkor]

91. You and I both know that that's why you keep bringing up the Clintons offtopic

Play dumb all you want, but you ain't fooling anyone.

Or you could stay on topic and not show your ass...oh wait no you can't! :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

96. Because it was relevant to what you were saying? Funny how that works, eh?

[Lilith Velkor]

101. No, going BAWWW about the Clintons is not relevant to what President Obama does

Your inability to stop doing it is quite amusing, though.

[ClarkUSA]

104. What dialect of English are you speaking? What are you talking about? Let me try to recap....

First, you said faith-based initiatives were about "buying votes from the religious".

Then, I was reminded that Pres. Clinton started faith-based initiatives in 1996 and that Hillary publicly supported
faith-based initiatives in January 2005 before Bush II's second inauguration. You made me wonder whether you
actually believe that the reason the Clintons created/supported faith-based initiatives was they were "buying votes
from the religious". Guess so, huh?

I don't know if I agree with you, but it's certainly one way to look at it. Not sure why you're bringing President
Obama into all this because I certainly wasn't thinking of him at all. :shrug:

[Solon]

72. Bad ideas are bad ideas, regardless of where they come from. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

78. Exactly. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

82. When there's an outlet for filing discrimination complaints, I don't think it's a "bad" idea.

As far as I know, only the Obama administration has provided for that eventuality.

[dsc]

87. not for gays they haven't

discrimination against gays is legal under federal law and under existing executive orders in regards to faith based charities. Thus a faith based charity can discriminate against gays in states which ban such discrimination with no reduction in federal funding.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Links, sources, quotes, proof?

[dsc]

97. Here is the relevant text from the link you were already provided

Obama issued an executive order today appointing Joshua DuBois as executive director of the White House faith-based office and setting up an advisory council on faith-based and other issues.

President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative allowed religious groups that accept tax funding to engage in discriminatory hiring and celebrated faith-based groups that proselytize. Today’s Obama action leaves the Bush executive orders in place including one that specifically authorizes religion-based employment discrimination in publicly funded programs.

“I am very disappointed that President Obama’s faith-based program is being rolled out without barring evangelism and religious discrimination in taxpayer-funded programs,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It should be obvious that taxpayer-funded religious bias offends our civil rights laws, our Constitution and our shared sense of values.”

Questions of religious bias have dogged the faith-based initiative since former President Bush unveiled the program in 2001. Bush insisted that religious groups should have the right to accept public funding and still hire and fire on religious grounds and issued an executive order codifying this “right.”

Americans United joined a coalition of religious and civil liberties groups opposing proselytism and religious discrimination in tax-funded programs. The groups have asked Obama to overturn the Bush executive orders.

end of quote

It doesn't get any more clear than this. We have been trying to get ENDA passed for decades so I don't think I need to provide links to the fact we aren't covered by federal law. The simple fact is Obama has shown no willingness whatsoever to protect gays from this discrimination.

[ClarkUSA]

100. See reply #99.

[Solon]

90. And "outlet" isn't enforcement, Obama has not stated any plans for violators...

not to mention that the process has been kept rather vague. So what will happen to the violators of a (not yet existent)non-discrimination policy?

[ClarkUSA]

93. That's not true. Complaints can be filed with the Justice Department.

Any proven discrimination complaints will probably nullify federal grant status.

[Solon]

108. "probably" that's the key, you don't know, because no one knows how this program...

is going to be run under Obama.

[HamdenRice]

67. In NYC, we have Brooklyn Jewish Hosp., L.I. Jewish, Methodist Hospital,

Presbyterian Hospital (and these denominational hospitals run dozens of satellite clinics and health programs), Catholic Charities, Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church as the largest developer of senior citizen housing for the African American elderly in Queens, Alcoholics Anonymous (itself faith based and mostly run out of churches) -- the list goes on and on.

Faith based organizations don't just meet on Saturday and Sunday to pray. They carry out a huge proportion of the health and charity work of the country.

It is essentially impossible to carry out social services by excluding the faith based sector. It's a fact of our existence as the kind of society we are -- one that encourages civic participation through voluntary associations, non-profits and non-governmental organizations, acting as "social entrepreneurs."

[Solon]

73. Yes, and around here, we have Barnes/Jewish and a bunch of Catholic Hospitals...

Like Cardinal Glennon Children's hospital, which recently, the (former)Archbishop resigned from because the Hospital allowed a Pro-choice singer to have a charity concert in their name. He was not invited back in, by the way. Similar to the problems with Catholic Charities in Mass. over Gay Adoption. If you want to receive federal money, you should have to follow all the rules in non-discrimination that the government specifies, otherwise tough luck.

[HamdenRice]

79. Non-discrimination is separate from the issue of excluding faith based

social services altogether. You asked,

"What secular purpose is this group supposed to serve that the government can't...already do?"

And the answer is, basically, knowledge about most social services.

Here's a thought experiment:

Suppose the administration was interested in changing drug policy from a criminal approach to a treatment approach. Now suppose they wanted to answer the question, what works in treatment, what are the problems that addicted people face and so on, and decided to involve/consult all the providers of social and treatment services to addicts and alcoholics.

What do you think would happen if they excluded all faith based services? All the "Jewish," "Methodist," "Presbyterian" and other faith based hospitals; AA and NA (belief in higher power); Salvation Army; church based treatment and shelters; Prison Ministries and prison Islamic recovery programs; etc.

What actually would be left to consult with?

Outside the few big government safety net programs, most social services are contracted out to voluntary organizations and charities. Throughout American history, with the possible exception of political parties, sports leagues, and hobby clubs, Americans mainly get together in voluntary organizations through their religious organizations. When state and local governments request bids or grant applications from private voluntary organizations to carry out social services, faith based voluntary organizations are the ones who generally step up to the plate and have the infrastructure to carry out the job.

That's separate from discrimination in either employment or the provision of services. Yet faith based organizations have the right under the First Amendment to have particular views.

The two examples you cited are different.

The Catholic Church opposes abortion. You claim that "a Pro-choice singer to have a charity concert in their name." They are entitled to not have "their name" associated with something that their religious doctrine opposes. To use a less politically inflammatory example, a Jewish or Muslim charity would be entitled to dissociate itself from a spokesperson was also a spokesperson for the "National Pork Council" who appealed for funds in "the name" of the Jewish or Muslim charity.

The second example has to do with discrimination in services. Once they take federal money, they have to provide services to all comers, whether the recipients of services share their values or not. Otherwise they should (and indeed have to) withdraw from providing those services.

[Solon]

81. Actually, that's somewhat funny example you bring up...

I just read a story about a man who sued his state over being ordered by a court to enter a specific drug treatment program that was state sponsored. His problem was this, he's Catholic, the program was run by Pentecostals, and they told him they weren't going to credit him for the program(a term of his sentence) unless he converted to their religion, they also called Catholicism "witchcraft". The Judge sentenced him to jail for not completing the program.

Also, the controversy that I'm talking about was about the INTERNAL conflict between the charity/service arm of a church and the Church itself. In the case of Cardinal Glennon, they supported the singer, while the Archbishop resigned in protest of their actions. This is comparable to what happened with Catholic Charities in Mass. they adopted children out to same sex couples for years, then the Church came in and told them to stop doing that, and they actually resisted, and then the Church stepped in and tried to force it, then the state said if they did force it, the Charity will no longer receive taxpayer money, so the church, being obstinate, decided to get out of the adoption business entirely within the state.

[HamdenRice]

86. That's probably the most difficult area to draw the line

Most recovery programs have some sort of abstract religious ideas (a higher power). Some are more explicitly religious (Catholics are papist witches).

Because medical studies show "higher power" recovery programs work, it would hard to deny them public funds. But that seems to be imposing religious views on clients.

Perhaps clients need always to be offered a menu of faith based (their faith or unobjectionable ones) and secular programs.

[Solon]

89. None of those, outside of the secular ones, should be funded at all...

we don't need sectarian programs to be government funded. Talk about opening up a can of worms! That's something I strongly oppose.

[dsc]

85. You are dead wrong about the second example

that is precisley what is being discussed. Currently faith based charities are permitted to discriminate in both employment and provision of services even while getting tax money. It is also wrong to call AA faith based. There are athiest and agnostic AA members who have never been asked or told to convert. I am nine years sober and know what I speak of.

[dsc]

75. and they should have to follow the same laws as everyone else

if they get our money. Incidently I don't think those institutions are the problem for the most part it is the soup kitchens, rehab places, and other such places which refuse to follow simple non discrimination rules.

[Kat45]

64. Great! I'm glad Jim Wallis is part of the group.

Did you ever read his book, "God's Politics"? Good book.

[Hardrada]

65. all walk into a bar.

And the bartender asks......

[HamdenRice]

66. That's what I was wondering! What's the punch line??? nt

[burning rain]

98. I dislike having a faith-based council,......

but I'm glad that the president isn't allowing religious conservatives to dictate the makeup of the group. And not having such a council, may be a bit much to expect immediately post-Bush.

[Hekate]

102. Rev. Jim Wallis? I'm overjoyed that he's in on it. He's a social progressive & Evangelical...

... a real two-fer.

Hekate

[winyanstaz]

105. Once again the Native Americans and the Pagans are all left out

in the cold....hello? There are a lot more of us than you realize.

[dcindian]

112. Of course only certain religions are even allowed.

But hey if the others of us want representation in our government then we either get the fuck out or change.