jump to navigation

Obama Support Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative, but only if it progressively becomes secular July 3, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Christians, faith, faith-based, fascism, Jews, Muslims, news, politics, poverty, religion, secularism, social services.
trackback

How could any one criticize Obama’s sincere sup- port of religion. After all, he worked with churches   to help inner-city needy. Sarcasm aside, it is com- mendable that he was willing to get a little dirty by helping the needy. The same can be said of his supporters like the Nation of Islam. They have help quit a few people achieve moral and social reform. The appearance of supporting the many religious organization who live among the people they serve is commendable.

However, the Nation of Islam and all other faith-based social services have a something to be concerned about.

In an e-commentary written by someone at the Catholic League, the author points out that Obama intends to secularize the hiring practices of faith-based services.

“Any church or religious agency that agrees to take federal money on the condition that it must operate in a secular fashion—in hiring and in disseminating its values—is selling out. If Orthodox Jews running a day care center are not allowed to exclusively hire Orthodox Jews, there is nothing kosher about it. If a Catholic foster care program cannot place Catholic children with Catholic parents, it is doing a disservice to the children. If an evangelical drug rehab program can’t deliver a Christian message to its clients, it may as well close up shop. But that’s what Obama wants—he wants to secularize the religious workplace.

In secularizing the workforce at religion community service organizations, Obama would also make it possible for gays and like-minded people to further their sexual politics against the morality and faith of the religion; that is non- liberal religion. Remember, it is the Christian faith to which Obama says he is genuinely committed.

The Catholic author continued by mentioning Obama’s belief that religious social service are no better than government or secular non-profits at helping people in poverty, addiction, and many related problems. As for the secular non-profits, a majority of their employees are Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and Protestants. Washington, DC gave a Christian non-profit, who lived and worked in the inner-city neighborhood serving mostly single-mothers and their child- ren, some large properties for a few dollars because they were much more effective at helping those people than government social services.

It proves that the government slogan “what works” is very apropos concerning faith-based social services.

In Obama’s winning multi-million dollar sermons, he has repeatedly identified his religion as progressive. Historically, progressives have been democrats, socialists, fascists, and non-classical liberals. Many of the founders in Congress are identified as classical liberals. FDR and his New Deal ideas and programs resembled those of fascists like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. Liberal churches and their theology are the born-again children of Germany’s pseudo-scientific ideas of its evolution-based higher criticism. Like George W. Bush’s accusers, they are more like wolves in sheep clothing, which may also apply to Obama. He talks the religious talk. His stories and preaching are wonderful. I image God is even impressed, but not deceived. When the billion dollar prize is Pres- idential power, the religion men and their financiers must be regarded with a salt shaker or two of skepticism. Looking closely at Obama religious rhetoric, I see the flip-side of Hitler who used Christian talk to woo and awe the masses into his lair. Talking religion and big-daddy provider of people’s welfare is a sure ticket to the heart, stomach, and iPod of many a voter. So is supporting faith-based socials services while overtly planning to destroy their basis of faith.

The Catholic author said, “Obama wants to gut the religious values and bar religious agencies from hiring people who share their religion.” This is partly correct. I think Obama would argue that religious agencies could hire people of their religion but not exclusively. It is his progressive inclusiveness that would destroy their exclusive religious values.

For all of these reasons more, “his initiative [and politics] is a fraud.”

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: