The Faith Based Iniative: Can We Trust It?

With Obama re-upping Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", my initial reaction is one of concern.  Can the son of an openly secular family really be attempting to blur the line between church and state?  (There is a good quote from Obama's book at this link, describing his mothers view of religion)

Obviously this sort of action is expected from an evangelical oil executive, but not a thoughtful, intelligent, constitutional lawyer.  Is it possible to give federal dollars to any group that bases it's motives on "faith" and still preserve the separation of church from state?  Can faith based groups describe their desire to help others without invoking their mythology?  Will people that claim no faith be able to access this money?  

While looking for answers to these questions, I stumbled upon the website for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  At this site I found a FAQ page regarding the use of "Faith Based" funds, and how exactly these funds are to be used.  Admittedly, these guidelines were written under the previous presidents regime, and surprisingly are quite secular in their design. A Christian soup kitchen can identify itself as "Christian", but cannot make judgements upon those who may eat at the kitchen.  For example, if the soup kitchen refused to serve a customer because they were wearing a Burqa, this would violate the guidelines, as denying the food, (bought with federal funds), would be based on mythology/religious differences.  

It seems that there are guidelines in place to ensure that this federal money is not used in proselytizing, and this is the main worry of the agnostic/atheist movement.  But how do we moniter this?  Is there a regulatory watchdog keeping an eye on the money and the institutions? How can Barack give me the confidence that my taxes aren't going to the "christianization" of the homeless and those under state care, (ex. the incarcerated, those in adoption homes)?  As we know the history of religion's ability to infiltrate the minds of the destitute and undereducated, how do we ensure that our nations core beliefs are heeded and respected?  As previously written, (see my Feb. 8th post, "The fight continues..."), Obama has opened his arms to non-believers, now, can he continue with the systematic secularization of the country?

Trusting churches to spend government funds properly?..."Faith-Based" indeed... 

An article I found direclty pertaining to this...Faith Based Fudging

 

Obama's Team: Part III

In what may currently be the toughest position in America, (outside the presidency), the Treasury Secretary.  

Timothy Geithner - Treasury Secretary

While the onus is on the president to get the economy back on it's feet, it is Geithner who will help design and implement the strategies to do so.  While it is difficult to discern whether Mr. Geithner adheres to any one religion, it has been rumored he is Jewish, but there are no facts to back this up, and according to Tvzee's Talmudic Blog, he was raised Episcopalian.  But even better than that, (for us non-believers anyway), is that Mr. Geithner is described as "hardly religious" by his father-in-law.  Do we have an agnostic in the house?  While I can't say that I support the American pastime of MoneyWorship, I will stand by a man that knows his dinero, especially in this time of dire need for comprehensive economic reform.  

With economic times unjust,

A review of our policies a must.

A good change indeed, 

our money should read, 

"In Barack H. Obama we trust"

Obama's Team: Part II

Continuing with our investigation...scanning for Atheists, inquiring about Agnostics, noodling (?) for Non-Beleivers, in Barack's Cabinet appointees...barring that we will at least reward good secular politicians...

Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State

We all know Hillary, she's been on the national political stage for years now, The First Lady of Arkansas, State Senator of New York, and her most difficult job, keeping Bill's pants on.  Listed as a Methodist, Hillary uses her religion very suspiciously.  While being a politician in the south, there really is no way to be elected than by proclaiming a deep and abiding faith, and as with Obama, we will take her word for it, no reason to suggest she is not religious.  But, we can moniter how and when she chooses to use her religion.  She is not openly religious, unless she's in front of a crowd of evangelicals, but she's reviled by conservative leaders, as her religion is essentially pro-choice.  So, is she the pious disciple that leaned on Jesus through the difficulties in her marriage?  Or is she the pragmatic, open-minded politician that her husband represented? It seems tough to claim both of these positions without alienating people on both sides, but isn't this the Clinton (family) legacy?  Knowing your audience, knowing the law, bending the law, bending the audience.  The Clinton's are nothing if not shrewd politicians, and they know that most people in our country are religious, they certainly convey that they "feel your pain", but behind closed doors they are negotiators to the first degree, and this is the real duty of the politician.  While we take at face value "Hillary as Methodist", we look at her track record of policy making and we see a history of (somewhat) progressive reform.  When the votes are up in the air, Hillary knows the audience, when policy and politics come around, jesus covers his eyes. Since Hillary is now in an appointed position, there are no more elections, no more playing to the audience, so we will soon see how she carries out the work that  Barack will hand her.  This is one voter who hopes to see Rick Warren and the like covering THEIR eyes.

P.S. - Looks like Holder will be confirmed as Attorney General...more next time.