Eons: View message "About Obama's move to the center " in Barack Obama Supporters Group

Message 1582 of 3778

About Obama's move to the center

I was asked by somebody to share my feelings about Obama's seeming move to the center and issues that have been controversial within the Obama supporters' community. At that person's request, I am re-printing my thoughts here as well.

As one of my friends pointed out, Obama's stance on funding for religious organizations is nothing new. I have not read it, but apparently he discussed this in his book Audacity of Hope. Here is how I understand it. As we know, many churches provide an array of services, from hospice care to AIDS treatment to drug treatment centers, homeless shelters etc. Now Bush has pushed funding of church groups like this without any controls to ensure protection from proselytizing and discrimination in hiring or with their patients/customers.

Obama however insists that it must operate according to constitutional requirements. That is for example, a church run treatment center could not discriminate in hiring staff or with their patients where it would be forbidden under federal law or practice. Example, if a church group fired an employee because she or he were Atheist, their funding could be revoked and they could be liable to be sued.

Also money for the service cannot be funneled into promoting their religion, nor can they proselytize as a condition for receiving a service.

You know, I personally would prefer no money go to religious institutions because I like that separation clean and simple. The reality is that today the money is already flowing to those groups, and there are not the protections the constitution provides. I have a dear friend back in Houston that I have known for many years. He is what I laughingly refer to as an evangelical Atheist and it takes only mention of religion to get him fired up. He started out as a supporter of Clinton, but eventually came over to Obama. I spoke with him on these issues, and even he conceded in light of today's politics, this move made a lot of sense, and was our best shot at reclaiming the Constitution in this area.

Now regarding FISA, further study shows me that the law is pretty much in keeping with the earlier FISA court legislation except it gives the President a bit longer before getting a ruling from the court in emergency circumstances. Right now Bush is doing what he wants. I am opposed to granting immunity, but I don't think Obama will let this stand in the way if the Feingold amendment fails. I would rather not see them exempted, but the law as written now does not diminish the Constitution which is the important thing. Additional protections against wiretapping of Americans have been included, though listening in on Americans from calls made by foreign nationals is of some concern to me.

Final opinion? If McCain is elected president, we can kiss our Constitution and this nation goodbye. My issues with Barack Obama are small in comparison and the cost of not working my bottom off for Obama is great indeed. No candidate is going to represent everything I want ever, but Obama has the best shot of initiating real change like no one I have seen since the sixties. You know, McGovern refused to move back to the center, and he lost by the largest amount ever. If Obama does not move to the center, he will fail. That is the sad truth of it all.

Jessi

posted by Labrys3

Replies 1 - 10 of 11

1 2 Next »

I agree with what you have said here. He may not echo every opinion of mine, but at least I can believe what he says. I also continue to work for his campaign.
Did I mention that one of our campaign organizers was an OBGyn who interrupted her residency to work for Obama. She also decided to work in a public health clinic for at least 3 years after the election and completion of her program. His ability to inspire this is yet another reason to support him.

posted by sstill
3 months ago

We've seen what happens when a[n ever-growing] portion of the population feels un-(or under) represented.

In seeking to create a permanent Republican majority, Karl Rove created a far larger Democratic contingent than we've ever had before.

Let's not make the same mistakes.

Although my personal politics are far left, I recognize that the nation must be governed from the center. Hopefully, as time goes on, that center will move (slowly) to be more in keeping with those of us on the left. But (unless we want to give everyone whiplash . . . generating a backlash) it cannot be done all at once.

One step at a time.

posted by MsTick1
3 months ago

He has to move to the center...either end of the pole is not where most people are. Obama is a politician, as was JFK....I think he needs to kick mccan't ass by being where most of us are....

posted by MikeVI
3 months ago

Obama has to be to the left of the bushmen no matter where he ends.

He must do what he has promised and be for all Americans. If he does not he will fail and he cannot fail, we need to change back to an all American position as quickly as we can.

We cannot afford to go to the opposite political pole. I am a social liberal, but a governmental and financial conservative. We must get our economy back in control and the government out of every aspect of our lives in order to achieve the socially liberal goals.

He must move to the center, go Obama...

posted by allen42
3 months ago

As far as funding religious organizations, I would also prefer a clean and simple separation. The sad truth is, though, that the problems people face today are far too wide spread to be completely dealt with by government alone. The government does fine with broad solutions, or part solutions, like Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and, hopefully, some form of national health insurance program. But many people are more attuned to their local religious organization and even may feel more comfortable seeking help there than from impersonal government organizations.

posted by Ioruach
3 months ago

Obama dialogues the needs of America instead of shoving them under the rug. We need a president (Yes---like JFK and his brother) who will give our citizens HOPE I'm not a liberal or a strict conservative, and I registered as Independent so I could make my choices from either party. I'm an activist who sees human suffering in this country in the the form of hunger and poverty as a very real issue. Last week my church did it's monthly outreach. There is a medical van, social service reps from several gov't and private organizations, and boxes of food and bread. The number of people seen in the health van more than doubled from the month before. The number of people receiving food increased dramatically. Churches have always served those that fall thru the cracks. They are experienced, capable and understand the needs of their local communities. They also operate with integrity. I see more than "just a politican" when I look at Obama, I see a man that CARES about the least of us.

posted by PattiCat
3 months ago

I think churches are very well positioned to provide social services. Many have been doing that on their own, with donations from parishioners and other supporters. As long as they don’t make religious conversion a requirement for clients to receive services, I don’t see the violation between church and state.

As for FISA, I don’t see this law being abused by a president Obama, as they would surely be by a McCain.

I would much rather have both of these as Obama has proposed them, rather than McCain in the white house. These are small compromises by comparison to the alternative.

posted by ConsultantDude
3 months ago

Thanks Labrys. I will only add here that I have been on the receiving end of church funded help when I desperately needed it. I received counseling/psychotherapy from a social worker paid by Catholic Social services in a town in the mid-west eons ago. She supported me when there were no other such sources, to my knowledge. She specifically equipped me with two pieces of information which changed my life for the better ever since -- and they absolutely had nothing whatsoever to do with religion -- Cathalocism or any other "faith". I can see wisdom in not throwing such babies out with bath water.

posted by Lagunaparadise
3 months ago

Patticat and Laguna, I appreciate what both of you are saying. Heaven knows my own church is involved in a host of altruistic indeavors. I remind people that one of the best AA meetings I attended in Houston was one run by an Atheist with an approach devoted to those who were non believers. That meeting was hosted at St. Joseph's Hospital there.

My concern has always been that when we start mixing federal money with churches, it gives the government leverage to dictate what they do. Sometimes, such as employee rights, that is a good thing. But we have seen what happens when we have a leader like Bush, where his own beliefs are introduced into the mix. We have seen federally funded agencies for instance catch flack because they promoted something other than abstinence only. In Africa, much of the federal money is directed into abstinence only programs that do not work.

Since churches have their own belief systems, as long as the separation between the two is clear, then we have a freedom to do business according to that religion. But let me ask this. If I as a Unitarian were to go to the Feds to get funding for a program under this government, it is highly unlikely right now that we would get it. Imagine a Wiccan group trying it. Rather under this president, preference is given to evangelical and mainstream religions over others. Obama would do it differently and I appreciate that. But separation of church and state is not about Obama, but about the law of the land for times post Obama. Hence my concern of mixing government and religion at any level.

We all know the old line, the power to tax is the power to destroy. When the government is providing a significant portion of the funding, they are enabled to dictate using the power of the purse string. Conversely, if religion is used inappropriately it can be a political power base that could have unfortunate repercussions.

All this to say, given my druthers, I would prefer not to see any federal tax dollars going to religious institutions. That is not happening however, and at least Obama wishes to clean up the mess created by the Bush administration when it comes to federal funding of these groups. So it is a step forward, if not what i would prefer.

posted by Labrys3
3 months ago

Labry, good post as always. And may I point out that AA has world-wide success without any funding from anyone.
I've calmed down about the faith-based stuff. But I would prefer, as others, a clean break.
I guess what bothered me was that this came up AFTER the primary. He would still have my vote, but the timing bugs me.
I'm waiting on FISA. Obama wanted a 'bottoms up' kind of political dialogue. Well, he got it. Who knew it would be from his own supporters :-)
So it is a dilemma. He ran on a platform that there would not be anymore 'politics as usual' but... if he doesn't play at the usual politics, he could jeopardize his candidacy.
May we survive the summer.