ZANESVILLE, Ohio ? With an eye toward courting evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama presented a plan here on Tuesday to expand on President Bush?s program of investing federal money in religious-based initiatives that are intended to fight poverty and perform community aid work.
AA Press Release:AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC.http://www.atheists.orghttp://www.americanatheist.orgFor more information, please contact:Dave Silverman, Communications Director (732) 648-9333 Frank Zindler, Acting President (614) 299-1036ATHEIST CIVIL RIGHTS GROUP BLASTS OBAMA SUPPORT FOR BUSH FAITH-BASED SCHEME An Atheist organization which defends civil rights and the separation of church and state today criticized Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama for his support of the Bush faith-based initiatives. Obama pledged to expand the federal funding scheme, which under Mr. Bush has given over $1.2 billion in taxpayer money to churches, mosques, temples and other religious groups to operate “faith-based” social programs. Frank Zindler, Acting President of American Atheists, said that Obama was “horse trading the constitutional separation of government and religion for votes.” “This makes it official — the Democrats are trying to outdo their Republican colleagues in using religion and the lure of more taxpayer money to turn houses of worship into voting blocks,” said Zindler. “Obama wants to continue the discriminatory policy of taxing millions of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other Americans who profess no religious beliefs, and give that money to organized religion. That’s unfair, that’s discriminatory, and it endangers our First Amendment freedom.” Dave Silverman, Communications Director for American Atheists, said that the Obama pledge to continue Bush’s programs is a risky economic and social experiment. “The faith-based initiative allows religious groups to use our money in programs that are poorly monitored, have little or no accountability, and drain resources for their more effective secular counterparts,” said Silverman. “This is pandering to religious groups, and offers the lure of free government cash in exchange for political support.”AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.
Thats right Phreek, minimum wage people who work everyday are failures. Maybe they should model themselves after the wildly sucessful columbian drug-cartel leaders: those guys know how to make a profit. Saying that emotional fulfillment equals materialism is a very shallow statement for someone who claims to be 52. Are you sure your not just some angry 12 year old who comes here because it makes you feel powerful to bother other people?
C4T, he was smart enough to know that you didn’t need to prove things: They were obvious. His legacy survives with creationists who don’t need proof to demand equal time in the classroom.
Bullshit. Can you not agree that many people are happy with what they do even though they don’t make a pile doing it? What about those who choose to take a lower a paying job even when they are qualified to make more simply because lower paying job will make them happier? Is not the love of money the root of all evil? (Gee, who said that?)
It’s interesting how people like you can claim to follow Christ and reject Darwinism while at the same time subscribing to such an anti-Christ, socially Darwinian political philosophy. And then you have the gaul to admonish us for not having strong convictions – you have none at all.
Libertarians are shitty hypocrits
But so are republicans and democrats so what can you do
Comment from: rainbows4dinosaurs
Absolutely. A person should always seek the work that makes them happy…
Absolutely. So, if you decide to take a position that pays less, but it’s work you love to do, then why oh why do you get so upset by others who decide to work at a different job and make more?
If both are free to seek the work they choose, then on what moral ground is it ok with you, that the one who ends up making more should be taxed at a higher rate then you?
r4d…try keeping the conversation above the fray? You’re starting to sound like “What…do I know” and tom…
I do not. I’ve never had a problem with making money per se, though I do have an issue with mindless consumerism. I also have a problem with our culture’s tendency to equate personal worth with financial worth, and so should you. Whatever you may have the bank, it could all be gone tomorrow. Money is an illusion.
It’s not about the actual rate – that is a red herring. It is about percentage of income. 10% of 20,000 hurts a hellava lot more than 10% of 500,000. That’s just simple math.
Please. You are the one whose entire time here has been about childish taunts and gotcha games. You’re reaping the reactions you’ve sown. You want to have a civil conversation with us? Then quit being a dick.
Comment from: rainbows4dinosaurs [Member]
You just made a moral decision based upon emotion…
Who are we to make that judgement call? So what if Bill Gates makes more…why should he be taxed at any different rate then you and I?
I always laugh at the expression…pay their fair share. What does that mean? How much is fair? Based upon what?
What you and I are discussing is class envy…I try not to subscribe to that. If you end up making 10 times as much as me…more power to you. Keep it. And let your kids enjoy the fruits of your labor. I see absolutely no justification why the Feds can grab any of it, whether when you’re alive or after you’re dead…
Comment from: Augustine (The Faker)
First off…minimum wage is a “feel good policy” that fools people into thinking they’re getting something due them…
It’s nothing more then a hidden tax. Anyone with the basic understanding of economics understands this….
Second…exactly where and when did I ever call “minimum” wage earners failures?
In the end youre just as dead, whether youre buried in a golden casket or a plain pine box. I dont know if there is any objective way of determining a persons “worth” but my tendency would be to value those who advance the cause of human knowledge over those who have a talent for exploiting the labor of others.
r4d
That’s his job. And I’ll bet he isn’t paid well for it because there is huge supply of idiots.
Ralph
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Phreeky just parrots what Rush Drugy Limbaugh fills his empty skull with.
No doubt, both Obama and McCain are pandering the religious right
for their votes . Obviously, because the religious right is a [think and act alike] bloc this will continue to be the case. They think alike, act alike, vote alike and in many ways, they look alike. Since I cannot imagine this ever happening to Atheists (at least, I hope not), we will just have to whittle away, using common sense and reasoning, until their numbers are reduced to the point where the quantity of their votes is insignificant. It should be noted, however, that Obama did stress that he was a firm believer in the separation of church and state.
Comment from: TimeToStandUp
So…he’s says he believes in the “myth” but on the next breath believes it’s ok to funnel tax dollars through churches, masques and temples…
Talk about pandering…
Phreedm:
R4D is exactly on the money (no pun intended) about you. Perfect example is your above post…”myth”? All you do is bait and repeat. And you want a civilized conversation? Please!
Back to topic:
I will still vote for Obama in November. I do not like any support of FBI, but Obama has clearly shown that he is not like the others. Several on this forum have demonstrated that. The problem is that we all want an atheistic president, but it will not happen. What is a libertarian going to do that will make EVERYONE on this site happy?
We need to take what is given to us and make it work. Wishful thinking is what theists do…
“It should be noted, however, that Obama did stress that he was a firm believer in the separation of church and state.”
I hardly think a “firm believer in the separation of church and state” would advocate further involvement of religion in government affairs. And this from a candidate who sat in a church where his country was damned.
But all that aside, if he is elected, and if he is successful in his church-based charity idea, getting the government involved in anything of this nature is just plain dumb. For every $1.00 that goes to help some poor soul it will cost we taxpayers at least $5.00–that’s just the way it is when the government does anything.
Ban the phreakshow! He whines and whines about others doing to him the exact same thing he does practically every day in practically every post around here. He rarely, if ever, makes even half a point in his comments, and instead spends a lot of time catapulting Republican’t propaganda and demanding that the other commenters here respond to the same old religiously insane nonsense over and over again.
His childish antics, lack of coherent points, name calling, spewing of religiously insane dreck, continual refusal to respond to anyone else’s questions while demanding answers to his superstitious nonsense, and throwing the comments threads off-topic are not adding anything to the blog, and frequently cause other commenters here (besides myself) to lose interest in wading through his dren in order to find out what the grownups think about the postings here.
Ban the phreakshow!
I wish (sigh).
On topic, I still plan on voting for Obama because he is by far the lesser of the evils available to us, and his appointments to the Supreme Court would presumably be more moderate/liberal to provide some balance there. I did send a comment to Obama’s campaign telling them how very disappointed I was in his supporting this faith based nonsense. Silly me, I would have thought that any Democratic president would surely dismantle this wretched program, not expand it!
Comment from: David Silverman
?If he allows secular groups to get the money [FBI] AND regulates how the money is spent, he effectively negates the whole FBI initiative, which may be a very good thing if he actually does it?In other words, he’s being sneaky — one way or the other.
You have to keep in mind that if elected he will have the immediate concern of being re-elected. I wouldn?t? expect him to follow through with any covert plans to effectively negate the faith based imitative; at least not in his first term. As for what he might do in his second term in this regard, well he does have the concerns of the party to consider and I think nearly every candidate who ran in the primary made it clear where the party intends to go; where the votes are. The Dems are swinging right as a matter of survival and nothing short of a significant display of dissatisfaction with that tack is going to bring them back.
Look, it obviously comes down to the lesser of two evils and until we can change our method of electing candidates for public office (an unlikely scenario) that situation will not change. Now considering that politicians often say one thing and then do the opposite, might I suggest writing to Obama and telling him you?re not going to support him. Then if you can stomach voting for someone who doesn?t hesitate when stabbing you in the back, vote for him as the lesser of the two evil?s that are being offered this time around.
The fake pfreedm has its’ mouth in overdrive and brain in neutral. I can smell its’ foul breath just reading its’ words. It knows nothing about economics and it knows even less about the bible. Its’ mother should have shoved a coathanger up her ass and aborted it. Does phoney phreedy want a cracker?
I warned you guys about this, but you wouldn’t listen. Nobody to vote for now.
Warned us about what. Like I give a rat’s butt about FBI. When stacked up against the other issues and messes the GOP got us into the FBI issue isn’t even on my list of top 25. BushCo is going to end up costing me and my wife and kids over 100K for his unprovoked attack and occupation of Iraq. What’s this FBI nonsense going to cost me? The constitutional issues and international legal issues related to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq are huge compared to those related to FBI.
Yes I what an openly atheist president and we will have one soon.
Obama seems to be abandoning his natural constituency by pandering to those who will only vote Republican anyway. Gore tried the something similar in 2000 when he said he hated atheists. The result was 8 years of George W. Bush.
Jim
Gore said he hated atheists? I hadn’t heard that.
Karen,
I thought that he said hate, but I can’t find where. I did find where he accused us of arrogance:
http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar12-7-99.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/1999/still1.html
He also promoted his religious outlook whenever he could:
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4D81631F930A15753C1A9669C8B63
He earlier claimed to be for state/church separation, and perhaps he was/is. But accusations of arrogance sent mixed signals.
Thanks, Jim
I hadn’t heard the “arrogant” reference, either, so your links were enlightening. The 3rd one, I’m not sure which article you meant, because it took me to a blank NYTimes page and I just did a search for Al Gore articles. I saw one where he proposed a full religious-based initiative in 1999.
Karen,
It’s an October 23, 2000 New York Times article by Kevin Sack titled:
THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE VICE PRESIDENT; In a Texas Church, Gore Campaigns for Morality, Values and ‘Prosperity of the Spirit’
The Atheist Papers, Essays & Letters: Thoughtful Activist Opposition to Religion:
http://home.comcast. net/~chris.morton/site/?/home/
This is part of an answer to an email response from the Obama camp responding to a letter I wrote to them to question them (in part) about their White House
Faith-based program promise to religious groups. I believe that Obama is all set to infringe the wall of separation with this program, should he be elected.
We must stop this now, before he is able to claim executive privilege. He must be carefully watched for encouraging churches to preach his support from their pulpits, therefore encouraging them to breach their 501(c)3 status as required by the IRS. If they follow his lead and do this they should be reported to the IRS with a written request for an investigation into their 501(c)3 tax exempt status. I believe that churches should all have their tax-exempt status revoked by law as in France.
Just in case you think this is a political ploy to negate Obama against McCain, it is not; I am a lifelong Democrat who is quite sure that McCain is entering
senility, (if he thinks his foreign policy should include Yugoslavia and Chechoslovakia, he is in the wrong century. He also says that he can win the war in Iraq, and he isn’t able to distinguish between the Sunni and Shia Muslim factions that are fighting against each other and will continue to do so long after we have left.) McCain also supports the expansion and continuation of a religious war apart from the Sunni/Shia confrontation as articulated by Bush: a war of Christians against Islam and vice versa.
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” James Madison.
This is my response (in part) to an email from the Obama camp trying to explain why their Faith-based funding provision will not be like Bush’s and will not be
a breach of the separation clause:
“We already provide churches with a clear opportunity to collect and retain funds for programs that they choose to create: we provide them with a completely
tax-free environment. In effect our taxes, which must meet this loss of tax income from the churches, (and in many cases this is millions and millions of dollars – just look at the money that is sent to the Vatican by the Catholic Church and their huge network of hospitals, support centers and schools for which their tax-exempt status pays) pay already for their charitable programs.
“In fact the groups you are discriminating against are the many secular programs because many of them do not get a special tax-free option. Perhaps you should
talk about providing funding for them and get out of the business of kissing religious groups’ bums to get their congregants to vote for the senator. In fact, by meeting with these religious groups and offering them incentives to vote for him, the Senator could be said to be bribing them, but he is also encouraging church leaders to support him from their pulpits and this is against the laws governing the IRS provision of 501(c)3 status, which, if you don’t know what this is, is their tax exempt status.”
By the way, you are more likely to get a response from the Obama camp by writing to them or copying and email to them by snail mail. They don’t read email and you simply get an automated response.
“Ecrasez l’infame!” Voltaire.
Chris Morton
8444 Grand Messina Circle
Boynton Beach, FL 33437
561-685-8057
chris.morton@comcast. net
Copy the following statement and put it on every blog of which you are a member, and every email you send – get all atheists to show themselves to help each other:
[I do not hide my atheism, but flaunt it. Atheists! come out of your closets and join us in the struggle against the empty superstition of belief.]