Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Pandering to the right on this one. Don't trust his motives or what he will really do ... Government control.

You have to be a self-serving, spoon-fed idiot to fall for Obama's trinket promises.

Oh my gosh!!

What will all the Athiest / Muslim Obama in, Seattle, Chicago, NYC, Miami, San Francisco, supporters do now??

especially his Athiest , white-trailer-trash
Mother ??

hillary would never do such a thing

Is this for the people who cling to their guns and their religion?

why not all religons should be getting the same chances for federal money. The feds shouldent be favoring one group over another.

No tax payer money for ANY religion. That is why we have separation of church and state.

x

JBBURROWS wrote:

why not all religons should be getting the same chances for federal money. The feds shouldent be favoring one group over another.

Does Obama really think people can't see his motives? Does this move surprise anyone?

It was his dear friend Rev. Wright that stated "Black churches are often short on money to meet the needs of our communities" but it is subverted and perverted for a black church to take money from the Bush("Shrub")/Republ ican Administration.

My guess is that Trinity United Church will have no qualms about accepting money from an Obama administration - if there is one. Come to think of it, that's one more reason to vote against Barack. I don't want one dime of taxpayer money going into the pockets of such a radical organization.

(Page 6)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2368311/Trinity-Uni...

Now this guy is really for change. I think all of you Barack supporters are a bunch of suckers and are taking the bait. There is no change here. Nothing but normal political maneuvering to capture more votes. Pathetic!

JBBURROWS wrote:

why not all religons should be getting the same chances for federal money. The feds shouldent be favoring one group over another.

But Historically, they have, and they will...and Historically they have favored those of their denomination in giving the charities and help to...which is using religion as extortion.

Government is not suppose to control or support Churches....Churches are not suppose to support or control government. This is yet another erroding of our Civil Rights...Religious Freedom...which will be greatly affected.

TOTALLY NOT OK.

Is there anything that A-hole Obama does not do that is divisive?

JCD wrote:

No tax payer money for ANY religion. That is why we have separation of church and state.
x
<quoted text>

Absolutely!!!

Obamas problem is that hes wants to appeal to everybody, but unfortunately in the real world you can't. To the Left, To the Middle, To the right here we goo!!.

In my own personal opinion, these are valid and reasonable views:

"Pandering to the right on this one. Don't trust his motives or what he will really do ... Government control."

"Does Obama really think people can't see his motives? Does this move surprise anyone?"

"It was his dear friend Rev. Wright that stated "Black churches are often short on money to meet the needs of our communities" but it is subverted and perverted for a black church to take money from the Bush("Shrub")/Republ ican Administration.

My guess is that Trinity United Church will have no qualms about accepting money from an Obama administration - if there is one. Come to think of it, that's one more reason to vote against Barack. I don't want one dime of taxpayer money going into the pockets of such a radical organization."

"Now this guy is really NOT for change. I think all of you Barack supporters are a bunch of suckers and are taking the bait. There is no change here. Nothing but normal political maneuvering to capture more votes. Pathetic!"

"Obama's problem is that he wants to appeal to everybody, but unfortunately in the real world you can't. To the Left, To the Middle, To the right here we go!"

Posted by HIM Yao Sui, officially by China's history, Emperor of China in exile.

http://www.topix.net/member/profile/himyaosui
http://himyaosui2.wordpress.com (citing my thoughts on America and on this current presidential election)

Who's Obama going to put in charge? Rev. Wright & Louis Farrakhan?

Former Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
But Historically, they have, and they will...and Historically they have favored those of their denomination in giving the charities and help to...which is using religion as extortion.
Government is not suppose to control or support Churches....Churches are not suppose to support or control government. This is yet another erroding of our Civil Rights...Religious Freedom...which will be greatly affected.
TOTALLY NOT OK.
Is there anything that A-hole Obama does not do that is divisive?

Actually ths program was started by Bill Clinton, vastly expanded by George Bush with a right-wing fundamentalist twist should we say favoritism - that borders on further violating federal law, and now to be be vastly expanded by Obama. Was a bad idea for Clinton to do it- was a bad idea to let Bush continue it - is still a bad idea. Can see the logic though that maybe the other less denominational praise Jesus groups will have their turn at the funds - since most available money's that used to go to religious and charitable contributions is being spent on increased prices for other fundamentals in our life. So question is why is it divisive unless you are a right-wing Christian fundamentalist and your funds are about to be evenly distributed and by federal law people won't have to find Jesus in a blaze of light and glory to help their families? One other thing that bothers me about this is that employees hired for the administration of this won't be under federal guidleines of non-discrimination - which mean Baptists will only hire Baptist, etc.

wyojake wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually ths program was started by Bill Clinton, vastly expanded by George Bush with a right-wing fundamentalist twist should we say favoritism - that borders on further violating federal law, and now to be be vastly expanded by Obama. Was a bad idea for Clinton to do it- was a bad idea to let Bush continue it - is still a bad idea. Can see the logic though that maybe the other less denominational praise Jesus groups will have their turn at the funds - since most available money's that used to go to religious and charitable contributions is being spent on increased prices for other fundamentals in our life. So question is why is it divisive unless you are a right-wing Christian fundamentalist and your funds are about to be evenly distributed and by federal law people won't have to find Jesus in a blaze of light and glory to help their families? One other thing that bothers me about this is that employees hired for the administration of this won't be under federal guidleines of non-discrimination - which mean Baptists will only hire Baptist, etc.

Exactly...and the administration costs will out weigh the actual benefit to The People it was intended to help...creating a bigger government...which will reguire more taxes...which will kick more middle class workers onto Welfare and government aid...which will reguire more funds....and around and around it goes.

My favorite description of this type of scenario, from another Topix Poster:

River Veteran wrote:
McCain and Obama were walking down the street and came to a homeless person. The Republican, John
McCain, gave him his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the
homeless person.

Obama was impressed, so when they came to another
homeless person, he stepped forward to help. He gave him directions to the welfare office, then reached into McCain's pocket and got out
another $20. He kept $15 for administrative costs and gave the homeless person $5.

Do you understand the difference?

Former Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly...and the administration costs will out weigh the actual benefit to The People it was intended to help...creating a bigger government...which will reguire more taxes...which will kick more middle class workers onto Welfare and government aid...which will reguire more funds....and around and around it goes.
My favorite description of this type of scenario, from another Topix Poster:
River Veteran wrote:
McCain and Obama were walking down the street and came to a homeless person. The Republican, John
McCain, gave him his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the
homeless person.
Obama was impressed, so when they came to another
homeless person, he stepped forward to help. He gave him directions to the welfare office, then reached into McCain's pocket and got out
another $20. He kept $15 for administrative costs and gave the homeless person $5.
Do you understand the difference?

Oh of course just two minor questions -

Did McCain actually have a job to offer with a liveable wage when he got to his office?(Know he wrote off the money to a tax deduction for charity.)

Did the employer who laid off the homeless person stick the government with the costs, or if the homeless person was in the service - did he have any long term veterans support structure when he was discharged so he could be retrained and find a meaningful job on his own? At any rate wasn't $5 dollars more than he had to begin with, and was pointed in the direction of help for his plight?

River is an intelligent man and understand his phrasing :-) We agree to disagree.

So they don't have to pay taxes, but they get tax money? Lovely. If they are going to initiate "secular programs" why give it to churches then? Why not give it to secular organi- oh nevermind, what am I talking about.

Obama is just reinstating the policy that existed under Bill Clinton. The changes Bush introduced were allowing religious discrimination in hiring and a complete lack of accountability in spending and results. Obama will simply reverse those two changes. I think this is a great policy (and I'm an atheist).

Bush and his allies combed through the records of the Clinton social services grants looking for evidence of discrimination against religious groups.
They found none.

The pretense that atheists/leftists/Obama supporters are anti religion is amusing. Freedom of conscience applies to all Americans, religious groups have a perfect right to offer social services within the Constitution framework, and the social services are badly needed.

Under Constitutional law, the Bible cannot be a basis for laws. Get over it.

Obama '08!

Summer Rain wrote:

Obama is just reinstating the policy that existed under Bill Clinton. The changes Bush introduced were allowing religious discrimination in hiring and a complete lack of accountability in spending and results. Obama will simply reverse those two changes. I think this is a great policy (and I'm an atheist).
Bush and his allies combed through the records of the Clinton social services grants looking for evidence of discrimination against religious groups.
They found none.
The pretense that atheists/leftists/Obama supporters are anti religion is amusing. Freedom of conscience applies to all Americans, religious groups have a perfect right to offer social services within the Constitution framework, and the social services are badly needed.
Under Constitutional law, the Bible cannot be a basis for laws. Get over it.
Obama '08!

So you don't like Bush. Why build this big complicated structure to convince people you are thinking things through? Just say you don't like Bush and as an atheist you excuse government money going towards religious groups as long as Bush isn't doing it.

I heard a rumor that Obama was seen having sex with a man in the back of a limosine once and that the NYTIMES has the info on the incident. Has anyone ever heard this rumor?