Just goes to show, it's not the process that's broken, it's the country. He wouldn't have to do this if this nation wasn't so chock full of superstitious dullards. Hiring and firing on the basis of faith, by the way, is probably unconstitutional and I'd thoroughly enjoy the slew of class action suits that come of it.

Wow. This is incredibly disappointing. I had thought the faith-based initiatives was finally going to end. This is twice in one week Barack has disappointed me, after all these months. This, and his FISA reversal. He's got the nomination and a sizeable lead, why the hell would he feel the need to suck up to the sky-daddy followers now?

If you've read 'The Audacity of Hope', this ought not be a surprise. For what it's worth, based on what he says in the book, it seems like this may be motivated more by conviction than pandering.

--d

The flag pin also seems to be ever present these days. Guess what..I don't care. He is smart, he knows where he needs to make inroads in order to clinch the Presidency. This is one end that justifies the means, IMO.

Maybe he should have said he is going to make the faith based initiatives work. Wasn't that whole effort one of the Bush Administration's biggest lies and failures, orchestrated solely to dupe the evangelical base?
In any case, Thor will be immensely pleased to hear that I will be able to secure government monies to spread his hammery message to the masses. Ancient Norse mythology is a state recognized religion, right? Which ones are on the list, again?

I see no sign of him moving to establish a sect, even remotely. Not everyone might agree but I don't see why the concerns of religious groups can't be accommodated in the same as others--provided that it doesn't retard the interests of the whole. This is all along god liberal principles ('liberal' in the old-fashioned sense).

His platform was always, always the construction of this kind of big tent. I find it in some ways reassuring. Unlike others I think the construction of a broad coalition is the best platform for substantial change. I don't see it as watered down or confused either.

The huge concern I have at the moment is Iran. We can't afford to screw up here--we just can't wait until January to start getting that right. The crazies could pull down the temple on the way out if we are not careful.

I have a strong feeling, Travis, that hiring and firing on the basis of religious belief is entirely constitutional. That is, provided the hiring and firing concerns a private business, rather than a government agency.

We've seen many examples of this sort of thing, and they've seldom, if ever, been successfully challenged. And you know what? I don't have any problem with it. It's called freedom of association, and it's not evil. If they aren't taking my tax dollars, and they aren't affecting my freedom of choice, it't not a problem for me. I would never want to work for such folks, but then, I don't have to.

My religion is not any of my employer's business, unless I'm a priest or some manner of shaman. This libertarian "let businesses do whatever" nonsense is a large part of the cancer that is killing this country.

I just saw this on Atrios and copied it from the link to TPM. What Obama said was:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, 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. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

It seems that the original item was misreported to some extent. I'm sure that was an aberration, though, and that the press will never again misinterpret facts or provide incomplete reports.

Uhm I thought it was very illegal to hire/fire based on such things as religious affiliation. Or political affiliation. Or national origin. And a whole host of other things (except being gay. We can still be discriminated against, legally).
It's a dangerous area. Most religious organizations would be happier if government just leaves them to do there work on their own. Only the crazies want govn't help because they want the percieved power and blessing of the state behind them.

What happens if George Bush suddenly decides to cut off churches that ordain gay or female priests? Or churches that allow interracial marriage?
Government support of religious orgs is a dangerous form of patronage that is potentially destructive for everyone involved.

As an atheist and staunch Obama supporter, I hate when he tries to appease those on the other side of my religious beliefs. I have to believe, as someone said upthread, that he knows what he's doing. He is pragmatic.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: