Progressive verses Liberalism: Faith, Why Obama is Right
July 5, 2008 by tha-kid
The uproar over Sen. Obama’s plan to keep President Bush’s White House Office of Community and Faith Based Initiatives from the left of the Democratic Party shows the growing split in the nation’s largest political party. This is a split between the vocal and to their credit active liberal wing that icons like Howard Dean, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Russ Feingold, and more. It is clear that they are at odds with their inter-party rivals who are quickly gaining attention as progressives with leaders like Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and more.
This week while progressives, who use to call themselves moderates, praised the new position of the Junior Senator from Illinois to make outreach and involvement with communities of faith a cornerstone of his campaign and if elected administration, liberals led by the Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State took it to the trash. However Obama’s plan and the reaction by the very group that propelled him to the forefront of the parties nomination for President who why so many people refuse to own the liberal label. They are wrong!
I must be up front and remind some that I was a very vocal and supportive advocate for Senator Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House. We refuse to be called moderates because we believe that our values and our politics are what built the party to the strength we have today. A party that is center left as opposed to one that is far left. The reaction to Sen. Obama saying that he intends to reform and revitalize an office that believes that organizations of faith don’t deserve equal funding opportunities to serve their communities instead of special treatment.
The sad opposition from the liberals on the far left can be summed up in the fact that this is a failed Bush Administration policy as Rev. Berry Lynn said. What their opposition refuses to hear is the reform and change that during the primary they belted was a call to unite behind and what the Senator is proposing. A gut opposition rooted in being the opposition for the sake of opposition instead of listening and hearing the change and positive services these programs can provide is why liberals lose out to progressives on a number of issues that include: education reform, the economy, FISA, healthcare, and the list goes on. It is hard for many of the most passionate liberals to get past the ideology and compare it with the very real lives of the American.
An example of this disconnect with their reality verses real reality is their unwillingness to view Sen. Obama’s plan for faith outreach compared with our knowledge of the Bush Administration. As I see it the new President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will from the plan the campaign released, “work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principals that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards as other federal grant recipients.”
Liberals like Rev. Berry Lynn and others who are up in arms about Sen. Obama’s plan have offered no real alternative for the communities that the plan was created to reach out to. Communities like mine. Communities that have been underserved by the government in the past and some that have an unwelcoming attitude towards government authority. It is communities like these that are held up by these very churches who provide in some instances education, health advice, legal counsel, and so much more. Examples below the fold:
1. It was the white protestants in need of religious independence from the British Crown that fought for American independence and risked their lives for the freedoms we have today (I will eagerly acknowledge that some founding fathers weren’t religious at all)
2. It was the northern leaders of faith who took on the powerful southerners to fight for both emancipation for slaves and the right to vote for women
3. It was the black religious elders joined with white northern men of God who organized people into the streets for civil rights
4. And now today it is houses of God in inner-cities that are first to respond to natural disasters, the uprising in crime that has gotten cease fires in urban cities all over, host job trainings, ex-offender reentry services, and services that other organizations just don’t have the power to be successful at.
Once ideological liberals can get off their high stool that allows a seat at the tall table of the concept for American democracy and actually started to live in the American nation is when and how a united party can see just how right Obama’s plan (if put into practice as it is written) is right for America.
It was once said that America was founded by people hungry for their own freedom of religion. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.
Tha-Kid JK
tha-kid@revkitchen.com
For me, freedom of religion does mean freedom from religion. Presently, I find myself an atheist. Though it is good that churches make an attempt to help people, public money should not be directed to religious groups. Individual
people can and should donate to religious groups if they like, but government, tax-payer money should not be spent in that manner. I personally would prefer
public money to go to public, government programs to help people, rather than connecting the government with any religious groups. Though I recognize that this point of view could be wrong and am open to changing my mind.
I first want to thank you for taking the time to write to me about my blog on Obama and faith. However I completely disagree. The freedom to have a religion does not mean that you don’t have to ever see religion. This doesn’t mean that you have be faithful at all. I also wanted to address another issue you raise on government money. Today the United States Government funds programs through non-profits and community groups nationwide for a simple reason. These groups are from the community, reflect the community, and have earned the trust of the community. So have churches. To exclude churches from these programs would be the opposite of what the fathers wanted to protect us against. When America was founded we had a problem that those of faith and faith leaders got unfair access to government and government resources. Now to exclude them from any access would do the same that we wanted to protect against.
Senator Obama is right for expanding this office but also reorganizing it. This office shouldn’t be used to build a base nor should those who get funds use those funds to further their spiritual mission.
Churches should not recieve any public funds or tax exemption in a form of serving the religon. I have experinced why some, not all religous institutions should not get tax exemption. I go to a jewish private school, and are math teacher uses the N word more then he says the word “Times” or “Divide”. We can not take risks in such cases.
And another reason is because then every whacked out cult will be asking for money from the federal government.
Koko;
I am sad to see your point on faith in America because they are wrong. These funds that Sen. Obama is talking about will not and can not go towards expanding the mission of the church but only to their secular and social campaigns. Churches and groups of faith have a long track record especially in the black community of providing the tools for families to rebuild themselves. The one and rare instance that you are faced with is not the rule in the rest of America and therefore shouldn’t prevent the Obama campaign pledge. Your comment seems to draw the conclusion that groups will be allowed to build new worship space and pay ministers with these funds which aren’t true. Just as schools can only use federal funding for federal programs churches will be bound to the same restrictions.