White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

9kxZ5y mkmapzzwszzs, [url=http://yjczmibaggrj.com/]yjczmibaggrj[/url], [link=http://ciftcnosprth.com/]ciftcnosprth[/link], http://diksmdzvepar.com/

The good news is that there are still ten openings on the Advisory Committee. On Wednesday, we sent Rev. Joshua DuBois, the new head of the office, a congratulatory letter introducing the work of the Religious Institute and our network of more than 4400 religious leaders committed to sexual justice 70-630 exam. I’ll be calling him for a meeting next week. We will be sending the White House a letter with the names of religious leaders who are committed to sexual justice and knowledgeable about reducing teenage pregnancy and unintended pregnancy prevention for their consideration.

I am mindful of the President's call to reach out an open hand, rather than a clenched fist 70-640 exam. Although we agree with our colleagues at Americans United and The Interfaith Alliance that we might have preferred to see an end to this program 70-642 exam, we are prepared to work with it and the Council to be sure that a progressive religious voice is represented and that its recommendations are consistent with the President's commitments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR200902...

The following is the unaltered text (I have not even corrected typographical errors) of an e-mail dialogue I recently had on this subject. I had referred him to an article--http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/29/obama_selects_pastor_26_to_hea.html?wprss=44--and lamented the continuation of this pernicious program. He replied, and I commented:

Friend: "Yeah, I had read about Dubois and this office in the NYTimes version. Generally, I don't like it either, as I think it is a mistake for government to entangle itself unnecessarily with anything that is even remotely religious. My thought is to leave this kind of stuff in the hands of private citizens."

Me: Lockstep so far. And to me, end of story.

Friend: "However, in a political sense, I keep reminding myself that if Obama's a Christian, then it would be difficult to abandon this office."

Me: This makes no sense. It would be easy to come up with fine analogies to show how ridiculous this idea is. Obama can be a Christian, and I don't care, qua citizen as subject to him as a governor, about his religion (although I'd bet we could have some stimulating discussion about theology in a personal capacity). But his being a Christian in no way makes it "difficult" for him to let this ill-begotten enterprise die.

Friend: "It would be a complicated thing to explain to the religious voters all over the U.S. why you're abandoning this office. I doubt that Obama would have started such an office, but now that it's there . . . what good options does he have?"

Me: To say the truth: that the office would be more trouble than it's worth because it would constantly operate under the cloud of possible unconstitutionality, and that as much time and energy would be occupied in trying to administer it so as to ensure that religious orgs. don't unconstitutionally proselytize when their activity is promoted by federal (taxpayer) funds.

That is, in fact, the truth. And Bush, or at least, the people who designed this unnecessary, patent frontal assault on church / state separation, knew that: they wanted this thing to ignite a constitutional fight so that the Court would rule in favor of more federal involvement in promoting religion.

There is no way on Earth or in Heaven to give federal money to religious groups, tell them to go out and do good but not proselytize, and expect them, compliantly to act like neutral or secular organizations when they are in the field: that is foreign to their primary reason for existing, which is fundamentally theological. For the religious, doing good is part and parcel with spreading their religion, otherwise known as proselytizing. You see how preposterous that notion is: it's inherently impossible to have the slightest confidence in this enterprise's fundamental compliance with the Constitution and with federal law in this whole area. And it is no secret that people respond especially receptively to missionaries when, along with their dogmas, those missionaries come with desperately needed material assistance to supplement it.

And here's a point worth considering in all this deliberately generated smoke (which is what the rightists like to use instead of reason and deliberation and evidence, and which almost no one except a few people such as I cut through): Why is it preferable, from any practical point of view, to pay religious groups to aid the poor and undertake community projects than for the government to do those things through its own agencies that are charged with doing those same activities? That is what the social services' own agencies, HUD, etc. have budgets and personnel for. Or the government could hire indivuduals who need jobs to do those things rather than missionaries. Social workers, for example, are working in dangerous conditions for a pittance, and yet are absolutely indispensable: How about spending some money to help them rather than support evangelists? This business of the government hiring religious groups to do social work and community improvement is, as you now see, totally indefensible. It is a manifest pretext for increasing the role of religion in government, and it is rotten to the core. It needs to be extirpated, not tweaked.

Friend: "I guess the best I'm hoping for is that he uses it very differently than Bush did. If he can marshall religious interests to help people in New Orleans rebuild their houses, or to feed homeless people, to help struggling children in difficult situations, help unemployed people develop skills for employment, or other similar aims, then I will restrain my criticism. If the office is used by Christians to attempt to influence people's religious views, then I will not restrain my criticism."

Me: Refer again to the above. The government has no role in marshaling religious interests, for one thing: it's their role to marshal themselves. And I've made the point about paying religious organizations to deliver services in their own names, when they're actually doing it only with taxpayers' money, and when the money is misdirected from agencies that already have (grossly inadequate) annual budgets and officially operate every day to do the things we're illicitly paying churches to do, knowing that they will use the money to proselytize. The pretense that this kind of program is so practical and efficient is smoke and mirrors. And I repeat my obvious point: There is no way to give religious organizations money, tell them to go out and do good things, and realistically assume that they will not connect their help with their Lord.

Friend: "I mean, Jimmy Carter was a committed Christian too, but I won't attack him for his religious views. If his views in some way are part of what makes him such a gentle and benevolent human being, then I won't denigrate him for those ideas."

Me: What has that to do with the issue of a government program designed to promote religion? Do you know that the fundies despies Carter right after they voted for him? My dad told me that he voted for Carter because he was a "born-again Christian." Before long, Carter was a pariah with those people. One reason for that is precisely that he did NOT try to institutionalize Christianity, because to him, Christianity was a personal matter between the believer and the Lord. The last Christian in politics, I guess. (end of dialogue)

I wrote and sent this missive to my friend quickly, and now that I've thought more about it, I'd express one or two points a bit differently; but I still think that my comments here are, on the whole, correct. Please note any errors that you find here, or add any information that would undermine what I said. I'll be watching the media for further reports about this program.