I just gave them a zero

Another (lengthy) opinion on Obama's funding of faith-based programs. The first part discusses how Bush's program got written into laws (and just not one law, but lots of favoritism snuck into lots of different laws), and then a peek into a federal bureaucracy that gave out the grants. An example of the latter is the story of a woman who scored the applications for worthiness. "'But,' she said with a giggle, 'when I saw one of those non-Christian groups in the set I was reviewing. I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero.'"

What to do? Of Obama wants to keep faith-based programs, this is how he must separate church from state:

Fund organizations with religious ties (Lutheran Social Services) but not pervasively religious groups, such as actual churches.

Taxpayer money does not fund proselytizing nor discrimination in who is served or hired (even so, as I mentioned in that previous post, it is still legal to discriminate against gays).

Secular alternatives are readily available and religious services must tell clients about them.

Proper firewalls between secular and sectarian parts requires a separate corporate structure to handle the government funded programs.

To put it another way.. Obama needs to go back to the rules in place before 1996.

If you don't like these rules there is always private funding. But that is harder to raise and usually comes with a lot more oversight -- donors want to know how effective you are with their money.

Of course, Bush's pals are going to fight the change in rules. And even progressive pastors have their own agendas.

Inadvertently endorsing discrimination

At a time when Newsweek says Evangelicals are no longer crucial to winning elections -- the firebrands of the last election are in their 70s or have died and younger leaders are wary of politics -- we find Obama appearing to pander to them.

Obama has announced plans to continue and expand Bush's efforts to steer dollars to faith based social services. He wants to elevate it to a "moral center" of his administration.

Obama dismisses claims that this is bridging the separation of church and state because the money can't be used to discriminate or proselytize.

Sorry, buddy, even if it is in their bylaws such charities (or at least their workers) do discriminate against obvious non-Christians (Wiccans, lesbians) and dollars given to them also suck up private sources leave secular charities without funding.

A lot of gays (frequently the target of discrimination in services or hiring by such faith-based groups) are feeling sold out. This first reaction is of that type.

Another reaction, starting with the premise no matter how big Obama's faults, McCain's are worse. So, Barack, old buddy, if you're going to fund discriminatory charities, here's some questions for you to answer:

You are a constitutional scholar. How does funding such programs not contradict the First Amendment?

You have recently said that religious views of laws and proposed laws should be translated into universal, rather than religion-specific language. How does this proposal translate into non-religious values?

Since funding is appropriated by Congress will you obey their funding guidelines and will you allow these programs to come under court scrutiny?

How will you, and the subordinates running the program, avoid religious discrimination, since you have said that "religious" does not necessarily mean "Christian"?

If an organization proselytizes and discriminates as part of their programs how do you insure that the addition of federal dollars doesn't support those problems?

If the challenges are too big for government to solve alone (as you have said), how does diverting money to faith based groups accomplish the same goal?

If you are taking money from me (reportedly funding these programs with a half billion dollars a year) and giving it to groups with whom I have religious disagreements how is this not religious discrimination?

A much more reasoned look, not at the program itself, but at reactions to it.

Bush's precedent has poisoned the waters, making rational discussion difficult. His administration has consistently politicized and destroyed a lot of what we hold dear and that colors our view. This really isn't a church/state issue, but one of competence -- church organizations were much better at responding to Katrina than federal agencies. But we don't know -- there was no oversight -- how many of those church organizations included preaching with their hammering. (When I was in Biloxi in March of 2007 to replace a roof the other organization that shared our campground definitely did that.)

Obama's intent, whether political, altruistic, both, or neither, is unknown. But with the Bush disaster and destruction it is easy to assume that Obama is succumbing to encroaching theocracy. But there are a lot of faith-based organizations willing and able to run secular programs. Since Obama has already talked at length about his faith and about his time as a constitutional scholar an announcement like this shouldn't be a big surprise. But it does have other Democrats worried.

Obama has been courting gays and religious blacks, which means he has to deal with groups with opposite goals. He has to say both "Marriage is for one man and one woman," and "Gays deserve equal rights." With this kind of balancing act, he will step on land mines.

The reason to partner with local agencies (secular or faith-based) rather than doing it all from Washington is that local agencies know their communities and its problems and they are more willing and able to offer innovative solutions.

Now to the issue of discrimination. Though Obama insists that his programs must comply with state and local non-discrimination laws even though he is offering federal dollars, the big problem is there is no federal discrimination protection for gays. In addition, many states have not enacted such protections. And it is faith-based programs that are most likely to discriminate against gays. Big problem.

But balance that against the sheer numbers -- millions -- of those that could be helped by this proposal. Should the plan be scuttled because a few gays might be excluded? Is the definition of "greater good" dependent on where your blind spot is? And for progressives, there is still a blind spot for gay rights. However, it probably isn't a "few" gays: they are one of the most at-risk populations for addiction, depression, homelessness, and suicide and yet they face significant deterrents to seeking help from faith-based programs.

There is a way out of that bind: along with this proposal announce support for the Employment Non Discrimination Act, which has gotten stuck in Congress.

There is probably merit in this kind of program. Obama will do better at it than Bush but it is unknown if he can pull it off.

There was no way the Obama campaign could have announced this program without causing dissent in the base because current federal means through this program Obama endorses discrimination without a plan to counter it.

Here is Obama's actual report. I've read some and skimmed through the rest. He doesn't say why he feels the government must outsource this much needed work for the poor, but he does list the failings of the program under Bush and does list guiding principles.

Bush's failures: The initiative was underfunded. It was used for partisan purposes. Smaller organizations were ignored.

Guiding principles: Can't use the money for religious efforts, use the money only for secular programs. Can't discriminate against employees or recipients. Must show effectiveness.

Arizona amendment circus

Here is an insider account of the chaos around how the Arizona Senate passed their Marriage Protection Amendment. It sounds like a few senators ended their careers with this vote.

But what *is* the dark side?

For good or ill, here are today’s practical definitions:

A Democrat not attracted to the dark side is called an idealist.
A Republican not enticed by the dark side is called a Democrat.

Rex est Lex

What's with Congressional Democrats when faced with a Bush tirade? Bush's approval is at an historic 17%. Democrats -- the ones actually making laws, not campaigning for Bush's job (uh, sorry, no difference there) -- are being reviled in public opinion polls for their refusal to stand up to Bush. Why?

Case in point, is the new FISA bill approved by the House and Senate (alass Russ Feingold couldn't pull off a filibuster). It has some big anti-democracy flaws in it:

* Telecom companies are given immunity for committing crimes on Bush's behalf. Congress need not have acted on this matter. The courts could easily sort out if a crime had actually been committed.

* The old law allowed wiretapping for three days while getting approval from the FISA court. The new law extends it to seven days, allows wiretapping to continue through the appeals process, and allows the gov't to keep whatever it collects even if FISA doesn't grant approval.

* Blanket approval is given for data mining of email and phone calls. No court required.

The second and third items mean the executive branch no longer needs judicial oversight for spying. That has left it in the hands of congressional oversight, and this is evidence they have effectively punted on the issue. That is why the public is upset with Democrats.

We got into this mess because "Democracy will subsist only when the people value freedom and understand the properties that constitute it. When the people submit to superstition, ignorance, and the lies and distortions that inevitably accompany war, then freedom and its logic are ever at bay." The people have woken up. Why not Democrats?

Alas, the reason seems to be simple: Telecom companies were very generous to Democrats with their campaign contributions. The Dem level of corruption is approaching GOP levels. Democracy has been sold out.

Another opinion about the FISA bill. Most lawmakers haven't read the actual bill because the language is so opaque, with even a spokesperson from the Justice Department saying it is so intricate the guys who must apply it will be stumped. That sounds like the standard Bush operating procedure: since nobody will be able to figure out what the thing actually means he can do whatever he wants and claim the law gives him permission. But the opacity gives rise to myths:

* "It's a compromise," says Steny Hoyer, one of the authors. Russ Feingold responds "It's a capitulation." Feingold is right. Why else would Bush agree to it so quickly after spending a year threatening a veto if it wasn't exactly what he wanted?

* We need it to intercept enemies abroad. Nope, the old law would allow wiretaps if just cause can be shown. What this bill does is abolish warrants, a key instrument of the founders to preserve liberty.

* Telecom companies still must go before the courts. Well, yeah, but their defense need be nothing more than "Bush told us to."

* Democrats folded to avoid being tarred with standing with the ACLU and trial lawyers against security as the election approaches. Standing with Bush and AT&T is better?

* The new law is the "exclusive means" of surveillance. Dems are patting themselves on the back for making sure the law includes the language of the old law that Bush has ignored since 2001.

Bush has effectively kept a review of his illegal actions out of the courts by simply saying this stuff is so classified we can't let it appear in court for litigation. And now they get a retroactive blessing of their crimes.

No judge can make an assessment of what Bush has done, cannot declare willful violation a crime, cannot produce a landmark ruling as a warning to future presidents about government excess. Instead, we have the precedent of a president setting aside a law he doesn't like. Rex est Lex. The king is the law.

Dobson doesn't speak for me

Yet even more about that Dobson - Obama spat. Here is an opinion, by Amy Sullivan in Time, that Dobson's rant is backfiring. One issue which brought out Dobson's ire is Obama's statement that it is possible to be moral without being religious. Here are some developments related to Dobson's rant:

Democrats as a whole, and Obama in particular, are no longer cowering in silence when Dobson speaks.

Within a day, the website www.jamesdobsondoesntspeakforme.com was up. It's a site that's been in the works for quite a while, waiting for Dobson to open his mouth. Behind it is group of Christian leaders, headed by Kirbyjon Caldwell, who was gave the benediction at Bush's first inauguration. Similarly, a political action committee called the Matthew 25 Network (named for a chapter in the bible that has 3 stories -- the wise and foolish virgins in which Jesus tells us to stay alert, the story of investment in which a slave is berated because he didn't invest some money for fear he will lose it, and the story of sheep and goats in which Jesus describes what will send you to hell or get you into heaven [hint: being gay isn't listed]) has started airing ads in Dobson's home market.

McCain has refused to trek to Dobson for a blessing (not surprising since Dobson came out forcefully against McCain in the primary).

Obama has been talking about his faith, making it harder for Evangelicals to call him a secular bogeyman, even as Obama criticizes their "certainty theology," the idea that "real" Christians have no doubts about how right they are.

Obama's case has been helped by a shift in attitude documented in a recent poll which shows 70% of Americans agree with the statement "Many religions can lead to eternal life."

Dobson's younger colleagues are refusing to enter the political fray at the same time they add environment, poverty, and health care to the top issues alongside abortion, gay rights, and stem-cell research.

And even mainstream conservative media are no longer piling on when Dobson and colleagues rant. Now they are calling such rants "intolerant."

All of this is good news.

Because it is divisive and discrimnatory

As some people were wondering if Obama would oppose the Calif. marriage amendment -- and they were wondering because he recently said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- he did exactly that. His reasoning it that it is divisive and discriminatory and for too long gay issues have been used to divide us. Yay!

They are definitely not Christian

Bush is credited with one diplomatic and foreign policy success -- his AIDS program. By this I think it is referring to his efforts to reduce AIDS in Africa. You would think a spending increase for this program would fly through Congress. Alas, no. Seven GOP senators disagree with the balance between two parts of the program. They want more for AIDS treatment and less for AIDS prevention. Reason? They don't want to talk about -- don't want field workers to talk about -- how gay sex affects the spread of the disease.

Now we're talking about a deadly disease here. It is very expensive to treat in America and difficult, if not impossible, to treat in the developing nations. The best way to treat AIDS is to not get it. And here we have a bunch of squeamish senators who would rather spend money on treatment than on prevention. Thousands will die from this moral rectitude. America's image gets tarnished some more. One of the seven is David "DC Madam" Vitter.

Arizona: We gotta do it again

The Arizona Senate on Wednesday defeated a bill to put a marriage protection amendment on the November ballot. They got 14 votes and needed 16. But there was one more vote on Wednesday -- to take another vote on Friday (last day of the session) when a couple Senators would be back in town.

So they did, breaking all kinds of Senate rules, shutting off the microphones of two gay senators speaking about some other bill, and causing 20 minutes of chaos. But they got their 16 votes, including that of the President of the Senate, who tried to not allow the vote to happen, then voted for it. Remember that Arizona voted down such an amendment in 2006. Many of these senators voted against how their district voted in 2006. A tally will be kept of how many don't get re-elected.

Is the Obama Factor good?

The marriage protection amendment in Calif. may depend on turnout. And that turnout may be affected by the Obama factor. He will draw out the black vote to get him elected (a good thing), but blacks -- even black Democrats -- are fiercely homophobic and drawing them out will increase the chances the amendment will pass. Yet we may need all those black voters because the amendment will also draw out the GOP vote. What a bind! Which means Obama has to be very careful how he talks if he is against the amendment (he hasn't said yet).

It's the Supreme Court for a reason

It is good to see someone talking about the importance of the Supreme Court in this presidential election. Three justices who are moderate to progressive are rumored to not last 4 years. Will we replace them with more moderates or get a total of 6-7 conservatives?

McCain uses the court as a punching bag and wishes to appoint legal eunuchs. Obama wants someone who understands the teenage mom. Both sides talk in code about abortion, but the issue, as seen by Dahlia Lithwick in Newsweek, is much broader. The job of the Supremes is judicial review: no matter how popular a law is or how correctly the legislature did its job, if the law clashes with the Constitution it must go. But there are currently four justices who don't see themselves as protectors of the Constitution and an equal branch of government. They see themselves as "unelected, politically unaccountable judges" who should not interfere in the people's will (unless, of course, the issue is some core conservative ideal like owning guns) and that they should not second-guess Congress or the president on such issues as national security, discrimination, separation of church and state, free speech, election law, and the environment. Do you want a president who will nominate a justices who will sideline themselves? Or will you vote for a president who believes we call it a Supreme Court for a reason?

We get to count them, but they're not real

There is a new book out by Christine Wicker titled The Fall of the Evangelical Nation. Our first reviewer, from a "Mainstream Baptist" on a progressive blog (we know the biases are progressive), says the book tells two stories well.

First is that explains how Evangelicals, only 7% of the population, have "duped" the rest of the country into believing that they are larger (claims of America being "87% Christian"), much more important (declaring themselves to be arbiters of right and wrong), and growing.

The second story is a desire of millions of Americans for a faith that does not require surrendering the intellect. She claims that most Evangelicals leave that faith within a few years of high school when college or Real Life requires critical thinking about the conflicts they now have of the faith of their youth.

The second review is from Publishers Weekly/Reed Business Information which calls the book "shrill," containing chapters "which seem like filler," and "should be bolstered by more rigorous research and source citation." One wonders about the biases of the reviewer.

Then we get to reviews from Amazon users, which could be just about anyone. One calls the book worth a read, but says Wicker missed an important book -- education is not required to be on staff at an Evangelical Church and, at times, not having an education is an advantage. Another Amazon reviewer notes that many of these same ideas are being said by others within the Evangelical movement, including telling the religious right political operators to take a hike.

A comment about that Dobson - Obama spat that tie in with this books review:

Everyone who calls themself "Christian" counts towards the majority, but people who don't agree with [Tom] Minnery [Focus on the Family spokesman] aren't real Christians so their views can be discounted. So the theocratically-inclined can claim a large majority of "Christians" while safely ignoring that only a smaller number of people actually support their positions -- and that a lot of Christians disagree with them on political and religious grounds.

Don't study science in Louisiana

Sigh. It was only last Monday that I wrote about bills pushing "academic freedom" as a way to allow teachers to teach the weaknesses of evolution, meaning a way to teach creationism. I said then that several states had introduced the bills and "none had gotten into law -- yet." Alas, the bill in Louisiana had passed the state legislature by the time I wrote that and today the governor signed it. The governor is Bobby Jindal who has recently promoted Creationism. Alas, again, no public official, elected or appointed, anywhere in the state, has said anything against the bill. Ouch. This report tells how the Louisiana Family Forum, state organization for Focus on the Family, has the Louisiana legislature in its pocket when it comes to issues the LFF cares about.

Why don't we make it easy for them?

This one has Democrats smelling blood. Larry "tap-tap" Craig and David "DC Madam" Vitter are two of the cosponsors of the Marriage Protection Amendment introduced to the Senate. Just in time to get votes recorded before the fall campaign. I seriously doubt the Democratic leadership will allow a constitution amendment to get very far. They're just happy to get Craig's and Vitter's names on the document.

Divinely inspired text needs some correction

I came across Dr. Robert Gagnon and his anti-gay diatribes several years ago in a book with a title something like "Two Views on Homosexuality." Not a book I can recommend. The pro-gay guy did little to support the cause and Gagnon seemed to think that the Bible definitely condemns gays because so many other ancient texts do so as well. Gagnon, of course, is still at it, the guy to turn to for the biblical "scholarship" needed to bash gays. The latest flap is the Presbyterian Church, the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 it uses to teach doctrine, and the 1962 translation from German into English. The issues is that this translation uses the phrase "homosexual perversion" in the same manner as 1 Corinthians 6:9 in the New English Bible, which came out in 1970. But this verse, while it talks about several nasty things we shouldn't do, has a couple words that don't translate from the original Greek. All we know for sure is they talk of sexual perversion involving men, perhaps male prostitutes. Through the ages translators have decided what kind of sexual perversion those words were supposed to mean. So, back to the Heidelberg Catechism. The original German said nothing about homosexual perversion. Presbyterian scholars want to correct the translation. Gagnon, of course, declares they are agents of the Homosexual Agenda and the translations of both the Catechism and New English Bible are true to the spirit of the original text, even if not true to the text itself.

I've heard this next little tidbit before, but didn't quite understand this new way of looking at it. The story is in Matthew 8:5-13 (also in Luke). A Roman captain comes to Jesus in a panic about a sick servant. Jesus offers to come to the house to heal him, but the captain doesn't want Jesus to go through so much trouble. He, like Jesus, is a man of authority and he knows Jesus only needs to say the word and the servant will be healed. Jesus praises his faith. Scholars have puzzled over the language in that passage (rarely are masters that distraught over a servant and a Roman conqueror would not come to a Jewish rabbi to help a mere servant) and have concluded that the word servant would be better translated as "boy-toy," meaning they were gay lovers. And Jesus blesses both the servant (with restored health) and the Roman captain. This link may not work right, but you should be able to click through appropriate buttons.

Gagnon, of course, says that Matthew got the details all wrong (the captain really wasn't Roman, as a start). So much for a book that is supposedly divinely inspired.

First loser

I went out to a movie theater again today to see the documentary "Bigger Stronger Faster: The Side Effect of Being American." Chris Bell, when a kid, idolized Hulk Hogan and Arnold, and was dismayed to find so many sports heroes were on steroids. So, starting with his brothers, "Mad Dog" and "Smelly," he's off to explore the steroid subculture. He explores the extent of their use, the debate of whether they're harmful, why congress has made them illegal, why other performance enhancements aren't illegal, and what is it about our society that makes people feel they need to take them. A telling moment is when he is shown GI Joe dolls from the 60s, 80s, and 90s. All kinds of commercials drum into us that body image is extremely critical today. And in America, second place is known as "first loser."

Sorry, Dad, no more Father's Day

Here's a twist: The Family Research Council is shrieking that now that gays can marry in Calif. straight dads won't be able to celebrate Father's Day anymore. The reason is that marriage licenses will no longer have the term "husband" (it never did, the term was "groom") and they claim Calif. will soon remove the term "father" from birth certificates.

Sorry, no. Men will still be fathers and can still celebrate Father's Day and allowing gay men (who already do) to do the same has no effect on the day. Which leads to the question: Why do these organizations reach for the most hysterical, lurid -- and foolish -- explanations they can find? Do they actually raise money through using such nonsense? The rest of the country is quite aware of how empty their arguments are.

Focus on the Fruitcake

More on the Dobson - Obama spat that I blogged about recently. Apparently, the Obama side of it is from a speech he gave in 2006 and only now, because he is the presumptive nominee, is Dobson bothering to comment. Dobson is head of Focus on the Family.

Dobson's main claim is that Obama has a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" because Obama said that laws must have a secular rationale. Religious organizations can (and should) say whether they are for or against a particular law (or such things as abortion) but they need to back it up with more than a biblical or papal decree. Dobson also implies that the views of non-Christians can be discarded because they are in the minority.

There is new data out from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life that show Dobson's rigid approach to theology is less appealing to Americans. One tidbits of the survey: 63% believe that various sacred texts are the Word of God, but only 33% insist they must be taken literally.

So the louder Dobson and friends yell, the more Americans are driven from Christianity.

A related blog entry notes that Dobson has consistently distorted the Constitution -- such as denying the concept of separation of church and state (the words as such don't exist in the Constitution but the concept is in the First Amendment and Jefferson used the words in a letter to pastors) -- and Obama taught Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years. Who would you trust with your Constitution?

Dispel the myth

It is official: The GOP (at least in Texas) wants a Theocracy. The Fundies wrote the party platform, so it is in writing (though a responder says it has been for a while now). Here, according to the Texas Freedom Network, are some of what they want:

* Dispel the myth of separation of Church and State.

* Bar courts from hearing cases in which the officials involved acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

* End Supreme Court jurisdiction over cases having to do with abortion and the Bill of Rights.

* Lessen oversight of faith-based providers of social services.

* Promotion of teaching Creationism.

* Teach abstinence until straight marriage sex education.

* Criminalize research into embryonic stem cells.

* Promote discrimination against anyone not straight (while deploring all discrimination) by restoring sodomy laws, banning gays from adopting or having custody or visitation rights of children, and banning gays from armed forces.

* Demands a strict test that candidates must support the end of abortion.

A commenter thinks that declarations like this will work against the Texas GOP. State officials recently did some redistricting, which gave the GOP more districts, each with smaller margins. Disgust with the GOP could swing a lot of districts to Democrats and put them in the majority in the statehouse.

Trojan Horse

When plans were first proposed of putting the GW Bush library at Southern Methodist University I wrote about my distaste for the choice (probably before I started blogging). One of my sisters disagreed with me, saying that having the Bush papers there will allow good Methodist students to research his presidency and shed light on his secrets, besides lending prestige to SMU.

Turns out I was right in my distaste -- the deal, designed by Karl Rove, is highly rigged. In addition to getting the library itself, SMU must accept an educational institute that is highly partisan and completely autonomous. This institute borrows on SMU prestige, yet will have the goals of rewriting the Bush legacy, making sure secrets stay secret, and pushing the domination of the GOP right wing on American politics. This institute would corrode the neutrality and objectivity of American higher education. SMU doesn't even get compensating dollars for the deal. The lease is for 99 years with a 249 year extension, all for a single dollar. Rove gets to subvert a mainline denomination and recruit, train, support, organize, and deploy the next generation of right-wing political operatives. The United Methodist Church, which wholly owns SMU, will vote on the deal July 15-16. I think the cost is way too high and should be soundly rejected.