Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- 'Biggest Act of Civil Disobedience in Canadian History'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama to Expand Bush Faith Program
President Barack Obama, who has been reversing course on a host of Bush administration policies, Thursday will make a bid to expand and strengthen one of the programs most closely associated with his predecessor.
US President-elect Barack Obama(2ndL) and his wife Michelle(L) are greeted at St. John's Episcopal Church by Reverend Luis Leon before Obama takes the oath of office as 44th US presiden in Washington, DC. (AFP/Jim Watson) George W. Bush created the White House faith-based grant program, and Obama intends to keep the same structure. But Obama is going a significant step further, with the creation of a new board of advisers whose recommendations will be woven directly into his policy-making apparatus.
Under Bush, a White House-based program to encourage grants to faith-based social service programs began with high hopes and a barrage of publicity. But over time this Bush hallmark suffered amid complaints from many of its backers that it had become marginalized and used for partisan purposes by White House political aides.
Under Obama, the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will allow 25 faith and secular leaders to provide regular input on policy and to advise the White House faith office, which is tasked with distributing grants. Obama is slated to announce the council Thursday and meet privately with members at the White House.
"The conventional wisdom suggests that, since Bush used much rhetoric about his commitment to working closely with religious leaders and communities, that the new Democrat coming to the White House might seek to diminish the role of religion in his administration," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the president of the progressive Christian group Sojourners and a member of Obama's new council. "But I believe the opposite may turn out to be true. There will be a new paradigm of religious influence under the Obama administration."
The council will pull together an evangelical megachurch pastor, a Reform rabbi, a former Southern Baptist Convention president and the first female bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. The membership is intended to cross the political and religious spectrum, fulfilling Obama's promise to run an inclusive administration. But with the diversity could come conflict.
"Some folks on the right and left will have heartburn when they look at the full range of people on this council," said Shaun Casey, a faith adviser to the Obama campaign and an associate professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary.
An early struggle could erupt over how Obama deals with a Bush administration rule that allows religious groups that receive federal funding to hire only staff members who share their faith - a move that critics say puts the government's imprimatur on discrimination. For example, Wallis favors the Bush rule, while another soon-to-be council member, Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, vociferously opposes it.
"These are people who are not used to going along to just get along," Casey said.
For now, however, faith leaders say they have been heartened by the extent to which, during the transition, Obama aides sought their advice on a broader range of issues than even they expected - from domestic poverty to the Gaza conflict. After eight years in Washington's political wilderness, moderate and liberal religious advocates are seeing their stock rise as Obama stitches together a governing coalition aimed at tackling big problems, meeting so often with aides before the Inauguration that there were jokes about setting up bunks for them at the transition office.
Obama, a Christian who worked as a community organizer for Chicago churches, spent considerable time courting the religious community during the election, sending personal letters as early as June 2007 to leaders who were never contacted by other candidates in either party.
Faith leaders say they are already seeing results. Most notably, Obama lifted the ban on federal funding for overseas abortion services, but he did it quietly and privately, heeding advice from the religious community not to follow the example of his two predecessors by tackling the issue on the Jan. 22 anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Instead, he waited until the next day to sign the memorandum.
Members of the council include Wallis; the Rev. Frank Page, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Bishop Vashti McKenzie, the first female bishop in the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
The Rev. Joel Hunter is an evangelical megachurch pastor in Florida who also will join the board. He prayed privately with Obama over the phone on Election Day and participated in a Middle East meeting two weeks ago, at the height of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with Obama foreign policy adviser Dan Shapiro and other faith leaders.
Saperstein counted 24 meetings with Obama aides during the transition. Others reported sit-downs on foreign aid, climate change, immigration and debt relief.
"As they are formulating policy and getting organized, they are having brass tacks discussions with religious groups on what they want to achieve and how to move forward," said David Beckmann, president of the Christian-rooted Bread for the World, which was included in 10 meetings during the transition.
Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, pointedly told faith leaders during one meeting that they needed to make their congregations understand that solving poverty required more than helping the local food bank, according to one participant.
"It is who you vote for," said Beckmann, recounting Barnes' comments. "She was gracious and pointed in asking church leaders what they are going to do to help people in the pews understand that helping poor people will require change in politics and policy."
And the Middle East meeting in mid-January served as a vehicle for aides to test policy approaches, said attendee David P. Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics at McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University.
"If the Obama administration feels it necessary to put some pressure on Israel to do something different, what they gathered from that particular group was the desire for a more even-handed policy," Gushee said. "They are taking the pulse of religious leaders, so they have a sense of how people would respond if they move in different directions in policy, and how to mobilize public opinion if they need support. They want grass-roots support for tough decisions."
Despite its goal of diversity, some conservative Christian leaders said they don't expect invitations to join the council, given their significant differences with Obama over abortion, gay rights and embryonic stem cell research.
"I don't expect them to be getting routine input from us," said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, who received one call from an Obama aide.
Bush assiduously pursued the support of Christian conservatives, relying for most of his two terms on key advisers such as Karl Rove to keep leaders on speed dial. Bush used his Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to cast a wider net, reaching Hispanic and African-American churches with funding grants.
But liberal and moderate faith leaders say they felt left out during the Bush administration and are hopeful that their eight-year struggle for presidential face time may be over.
"They are very aware that in order to sustain broad-based support for cooperation in government, they are going to have to continue to be engaged in a way that leaders will take that message back to their constituencies," said Hunter, a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals. "It is very smart politically, and it is also what public service should be."

98 Comments so far
Show AllI realize that many CD readers have no use for religious of any kind. Having seen some of the actions taken by many who claim to be "of faith", I can understand why.
I must state that I was raised religious as a child. In the miltary I saw the hypocrisy of many so-called religious and fell out of practice. As I grew older, I became more attached to the land I was brought up in. As I saw the beauty of what was on this earth, I became more appreciative of the fact that all this balance had to come from somewhere. I became more spiritual and grew with that inner harmony. Yes, I have had many disappointments. Some have certainly done their damndest to ruin the harmony that could exist. I suppose that if I really believed that these destroyers of peace were to always prevail, I would have volunteered to leave this earth long ago.
Now their is a place at the table for those who have real faith. A positive step. Should those with no religious beliefs leave the table? Certainly not. We are not going to re-balance this planet until every living person is at the table.
In the article, Melody Barnes mentions that there is more to ending poverty than maintaining food cupboards. So few who go to church understand this. I have been saying for years that charity is a poor substitute for justice. Until many "church" people understand this, there will be many who do not trust them.
See my above comment.
---USAn---
One problem with Faith based stuff is that it leaves out people who have all kinds of deeply felt inner spirituality, a spirituality that often expresses itself in works. "Faith based" sticks with and favors the organizational model of religion.
Joe
"Under Obama, the President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will allow 25 faith and secular leaders to provide regular input on policy and to advise the White House faith office, which is tasked with distributing grants. Obama is slated to announce the council Thursday and meet privately with members at the White House."
Oh, Jesus H. Christ, get these religous nuts out of the government! Why do these people "provide regular input on policy" and have ANY say of who gets grants?
Well, the positive side of having religion groups "help" with government policy is that when those policies fail they can't say they played no part.
The negative side is that the religions of Abraham have made our world a living Hell. Now they will have more power to do so.
Mr. Obama is a disaster. It is hard to image that the American people have fallen for another corporate right wing shill, as mr. Obama is proving himself to be.
"another corporate right wing shill"
Ha-ha-ha-ha....
Partisan shill. If a Republican were to do this, you'd jump up and scream but if a Democrat does it, you're fine with it. You need to take off your partisan goggles and learn the truth.
I think the issue is how broad 'faith-based' is. It should include all the major religions if it truly were 'faith-based' and not catering to religious leaders seeking political power. But, of course, we are not in that world yet. As for Dem versus Republican, G.W. and the neo-con right certainly are narrower than Obama and the Dems in general.
Yeah but the Demos always fold their tents to the GOP and never push their own plans boldly. Until the Demos can prove their worth, all their theoretical talking and thinking is pure bullshit to distract and destroy as usual.
Egad! Sharia law? I want a SECULAR society where everyman can find his own enlightenment.
Such government assistance to churches is violating the First Amendment in spirit if not law. And this is a case in point, because it appears that government is distinctly favoring Protestant Christianity (and fundamentalists at that) and (no suprises) Zionist Judaism. No Catholic , Orthodox, or Muslim leaders are on this board.
Seperation of church and state cuts both ways. Most genuinely justice-oriented Catholic organizations I know of - Catholic Workers, Pax Christi, close the SOA, or ploughshares groups do not want to have anything to do with the government (aside from addressing their demands for justice) because it would completely compromise their independence. My brother refused to even apply for tax-exempt status when he organized a Catholic Worker house in Baton Rouge.
And relying on churches for provision of aid seems to be literally asking for discriminatory distribution of that aid - taht's why Bush supported "faith-based" aid to begin with.
One more awful Obama dissapointment.
---USAn---
The religions do not have as much money or power as the government, which takes from all: Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, and the many who are atheist, agnostic, or just don't give a hoot for theology.
The government in a secular society should spend more of the tax money they collect and use it for people. They have the ability to change the rules the way churches do not.
I am happy to see religions working together, but that does not substitute for modern secular policies regarding health, housing, employment, education.
We have had "Hope". Now we have "Faith". Time to bring on the "Love", the greatest of all.
Work is love made visible. So... it is time to work directly on the problems of people who are losing their homes and jobs right now. Religious institutions can ease the pain, but are hardly in a position to solve the underlying problems.
More people should be blinded on the way to Damascus.
azjoe.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean they should be converted to Christianity like Saul / Paul?
Joe
Hi there, azjoe. I wondered how you meant this as well...It could be taken a few ways.
"The religions do not have as much money or power as the government, which takes from all: Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, and the many who are atheist, agnostic, or just don't give a hoot for theology."
I suggest you check out the multi-thousand dollar suits of the pastors of those megachurches and the TV evangelists. Believe me, such churches are rolling in money and most of their parishioners are very well-heeled, well-tithing Republicans.
The difference is that, while the government does take money in taxes from all citizens (albeit in a very unfair manner for the most part since the time of Reagan), it takes no money from the churches. Churches are tax-exempt.
Given the huge advantage that the tax exemption gives these religious entities I see no reason why they should be bribed by government handouts to perform acts of charity for those less fortunate.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I'm not but here it's tempting, I'd wonder if there wasn't some plot behind the religious institutions getting a free ride on income taxes while pushing wingnut politics including abolition of the income tax, cap. gains tax and estate tax on the rich, while grabbing ever more handouts from the same taxing entity that they are absolved from paying into.
Rainborowe
Yes, there are some rich churches, but not at the trillion dollar mark.
I agree with you that there should be no tax exemption for religious enterprises and their subsidiary activities. It puts IRS in the position of determining which is a true religion. Taxing church profits will be a moot point for small churches, who barely get by. But I do believe that any organization which is tax exempt based on being non-profit should have salary caps. Otherwise it is easy to be non-profit: just give all the excess to the cadillac man.
Joe
I happen to be an atheist. When I hear of this program, I'm reminded of those faith-based, inner-city missions that feed and house the homeless in every large city across America. If this helps them, I'm all for it.
Hey, I know you. You're just spouting this crap simply because your man Barry the Democrap happens to be the president. I know you would be crying foul if a Republican were doing the same thing. HYPOCRITE !
Hello friendly person. Obama has changed Bush's initiative in two very important ways---he says absolutely no proselytizing and no discrimination as to what religion gets support.
But really, how on Earth can you say I'm a hypocrite when you have no idea what my position was in regards to Bush's initiative?
I laugh at your tactic of attacking me rather than addressing my point...
And do you also accept the discriminatory, (and in the case of the homeless, abusive) way church and religious groups dole out the aid?
---USAn---
madcow is just a partisan shill. If Obama were a Republican, then she'd be singing a different tune.
The government is giving the churches the power they've been trying to get for many years. They've fought to get into our schools, into public buildings, and public places, for one single purpose - to force their religion on the rest of us. (I have a pamphlet my mother was given by the VERY fundamentalist church she'd been pulled into when she was vulnerable after my dad died, that spells it all out). And now it's all been handed to them, along with our tax dollars, to carry out their mission.
"Tithe, meet Tax. Tax, Tithe, say hello. You two have a lot in common. You both love to manipulate the masses into surrendering their hard earned money. You both covet the spectacle and priveledge that comes with power. You both go about your business by fabricating elaborate stories designed to frighten. You both magnify real or imaginary things of which to be afraid and warn "the others" often. You both claim to offer protection from those scary things. You both find yourselves to be superior and not bound to laws or covenants set down before the average man. You both like your subjects to be stupid. You both seem to like male alter boys too. You two should make marvelous friends, just be careful that one of you isn't devoured by the other. Now run along and play.
American voters keep voting for the same bunch of corporate/war criminals, time after time and think things will change. The one party system doesn't work!
Next time the Circus comes to town, and rolls out the new Clowns, Don't vote for them, try a third party or forth party, it can't get any worse.
"Faith based" simply means the elite can cheat while the little guys and gals get persecuted for actually working hard and not cheating. Obama sure learned a lot from W on lying and cheating the public. Keep it up Barry boy and we'll kick you out so hard in 2012 and embarrass you so hard that you'll wish you were never born !!
I thought Obama was a Constitutional law scholar. Any government-funded "faith-based program" is unconstitutional.
What kind of president did America elect? Did GW set the Obama standard for spitting on the Constitution? Obama comes across as being extremely ignorant. Or defiant of the Constitution.
Either way, I no longer respect him. He's spent ALL his goodwill capital already.
"Any government-funded "faith-based program" is unconstitutional."
Actually the courts decided otherwise.
Is there some written, oral statement, or documents written by another authority or news report that supports your assertion?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414473/
Of course the decision may be reversed with a less conservative court....
this is going to be very helpful to our faith based congregation. we have been desperate for funding to continue our practice of virgin sacrifices. the availability of qualifying virgins is drying up and the costs are prohibitive. we've had to resort to using goats as a substitute but our God is not very pleased, he wants the real thing as is mandated in our 6000 year old testament.
Obama will give you a tax break on the goats as long as you follow the guidelines set forth. Think of it as drinking grape juice at communion instead of wine. It'll work as long as the goats are female virgins.
How about supporting Reality-Based Partnerships like the Venus Project?
http://www.thevenusproject.com/intro_main/whatis_tvp.htm
Show it to his two daughters. They might love it and nag him into it. :)
Gail
Gorgeous plans and great philosophy!
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,.........
Crusade anyone?
But I could be wrong !
Apologies to Sabine Baring-Gould author
Hmmmmmmmmmm...
I beieve in Universal spirit and a democratiic republic...
That being said... I am all for "separation of church & state"...
It is one of the main tenets of our constitution...
Churches should pay taxes if they lobby the govt...
And the idea of an advisory role of religious "leaders" is chilling...
So they are like a team of economic advisors, yet get lobby for grant $$$ for their "chosen" projects...
This seems like a way for the "good ole boy" network to lobby tax free to hook up their cronies with pork...
For tax-payer funded projects that create programs that reinforce the existing power dynamic...
This will create a dynamic of favoritism, by commodifying the "advice" of the elite advisory council into "pay to pray" scenario...
This will also give an air of religious justification for the militaristic and corporatist approach to our domestic and foreign policy...
And do it all in the name of Jesus...
Deepa
Even though I do appreciate Obama for taking broad-based support of Christian religious groups, do all Americans belong to Christian faith? Who represent the religous groups such as Islam....? If US is a secular country, then all religions should have equal voice.
"25 faith and secular leaders to provide regular input on policy and to advise the White House faith office, which is tasked with distributing grants"
Separation of church and state has a purpose. And the elites fully understand it and consciously seek to destroy it. The elites need the church to help reinforce the corral of delusion/confusion that keeps the cattle stressed, scared, subjugated. The church helps defend the elites from science. Both the church and the elites are vulnerable to anything that frees the people from dogma.
Maybe there should be a Constitutional separation of politics and government as well.
For a majority of Americans, politics is just as blinding, thoughtless, and hypnotic as religion.
If you think about it, we wouldn't even NEED political parties if we were truly a constitutional government, a pretty foreign notion, I know.
If politics and government were separated, what would be left of either one?
A constitutional government would be "left", its representatives understanding of and committed to the constitutional rule of law, not a nation ruled by men. Just think, we could even teach the Constitution in schools so people would grow up understanding it! No more special interests to buy out the parties and candidates, no more corporatism embedded in government, we the people primary, not "we the party".
"25 faith and secular leaders to provide regular input on policy..."
A vision of the robed figures that surrounded the kings and queens in old England, and made the policies they carried out, because even the monarch was under the rule of the church.
Which part of the bible do you suppose these faith and secular leaders are going to be using to guide our new leader?
Regardless of the cynics posting on this issue, I still believe that the Faith-based Office will bring those who choose to belong to a religious community together to make them better members of their church, and this country better for all people, even those who don't choose to belong to organized religion. No one knows better than the church people that churches are full of sinners and rats, so belittling them, will do no good. Personally, I choose faith over cynicism.
And I choose Constitutionality over religion as it pertains to government.
Why can't your choice be personal, and why can't the churches do what you want the government to do? Since when are taxpayers responsible for making people "better members of their churches"?
No one is denying you your faith, just questioning the motives and purpose of a "Faith Based Office" sanctioned and funded by what is supposed to be a secular and non-religious government.
Gods, what FOLLY. The idea of a pentecostal minister heading the office terrifies me. Religion has ALWAYS been divisive and an extremely PERSONAL matter. The constitution specifically forbids government meddling in it, and rightfully so. To the best of my knowledge, ALL religions and faiths are mutually EXCLUSIVE. The Mideast has almost always been more or less chaotic. The followers of Zoroaster were driven out of Iran (Persia) by the Islamics, and they've not gotten along very well with ANYONE, including themselves. ALL religins have terrorised at one time or another, and that includes the Christian faith. The horrors of the Inquisition are too well known. The Koran, if one reads it, early on suggests slaughtering all who do not follow Allah. The Jewish and Christian bibles are filled with horrors, somehow overlooked in most synagogues and churches. I shudder to think that we shall now have a GOVERNMENT-CERTIFIED religiousgroup, headed by a pentecostal.
We can see the influence of religion on everyday-life in many parts of the world and it's not very often in a pleasant way. Let the religious be religious and do their good works, but don't give them any influence in politics; theocracies don't work.
... and tax the shit out of them.
"But Obama is going a significant step further, with the creation of a new board of advisers whose recommendations will be woven directly into his policy-making apparatus."
Does a constitutional law professor believe in the Separation of Church and State? Or is he trying to bring closed off Evangelicals into the fold where they can be swayed?
In case of the latter, I hope he has better luck than with the Repugs in Congress.