Discussions
Obama Sees Faith as a 'Personal Commitment to Christ'
Posted by TheBigRuski • 7/08/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Barack Obama, Christ, Faith, faith-based, john mccain, presidential campaign, religion
Obama backs Bush on faith-based programs
From The Presidential Prayer Team site:
In remarks made July 1 at Eastside Community Ministry in Chicago, IL, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama called for continuing and renaming President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative program. Obama pledged to make the new program a “moral center” of his administration and call it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. One of its priorities will be to empower large religious charities to mentor smaller ones.
Referring to his early community work in the Chicagoland area, Obama said in his speech, “In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community, that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn’t be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord’s work.”
www.presidentialprayerteam.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ppt_homepage
Isn't this great news!?! Come on liberals...chime in! 
User Comments
-
Well, that's just peachy for him.-
Come on....you ARE voting for him, right?
-
Perhaps. Why should I care what he believes if it doesn't interfere with his policies?
-
Voodoo - I read that quick and thought you wrote, "Thats preachy for him"
-
-
I need to read more on this, what is it that he is planning on doing?
-
Continuing Bush's programs, but with that new name (above).
-
What programs, though?
-
Somehow, the skeptic in me wants to outright call this bullshit BUT Obama is a politician. More research is needed.
-
President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiative program(s)! As posted in the discussion topic and in media reports.
-
-
Heh. -
More importantly what is he going to do regarding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the homeless,high gasoline prices and lost jobs, General Motors, pollution,health care, taxes etc. etc. etc.-
Exactly.
Not to mention protecting our nations National parks and pristine forests! -
He would just be the President...not some kind of miracle worker!
Besides...maybe some of us individuals should step up to the plate! -
You mean me? I do my part, I scare litter throwing tourists away every chance I get.
-
We HAVE pristine forests? I never got the memo...
-
"He would just be the President...not some kind of miracle worker!"
If he is "just the president(although some people would go a step further and define him as a puppet using the snake-oil of political hope) and you have no expectations of him, why the big concern ?
Campaigning to religious groups is similar to kissing babies... -
I don't really have a concern for him becoming president...I think he will make a good one. He is a great communicator...and I think that's important.
And BTW...I'm not going to pass judgement on why he said he has a faith in Jesus...to any crowd!
-
-
Actually I posted these two into another thread 3 or 4 days ago. As this isn't a McCain thread I didn't post about his prayer visit with Billy Graham and the other McCain faith related news links.
Tuesday July 1 2008 The Early Word: You’ve Got to Have Faith
In another sign that his campaign is reaching out to evangelical voters, Senator Barack Obama plans to announce his support for expanding President Bush’s faith-based programs in a speech on religion he will deliver at Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio this afternoon.
thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/the-early-word-youve-got-to-have-fai...
Tuesday July 1 2008 Obama courts conservatives with new faith program
Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican. www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/7623499-
Thanks TT - the notion of it kind of makes me nauseous.
Looks like it will be a vote for "none of the above" this election - unless Obama really pulls something out of his hat. -
@Anok
If I were an American, based on the cursory research I have done I would not vote for either candidate. -
I was hoping he wouldn't play the pandering game....Kind of like being the unpolitician politician, you know?
*sigh* We'll see.
-
-
Americans who say religion is an important part of their daily lives support John McCain over Barack Obama for president, 50% to 40%, while their less religious counterparts support Obama over McCain, 55% to 36%.
"The finding that the Republican candidate does better among more religious Americans is not a new one. White evangelical Christian voters, for example, have traditionally been among the most reliable Republican voters. The current analysis shows that the divide in vote preferences based on religiosity is not confined to white Protestants, but also occurs among non-Hispanic white Catholics..."
www.gallup.com/poll/108688/Religious-Intensity-Predicts-Support-McCain.aspx
Evangelical Leaders to Support McCain
Ninety, not including Dobson, met in Denver last week. They will ask McCain to consider Huckabee as VP candidate. More than 90 evangelical leaders met in Denver Tuesday, July 1, and decided to support Sen. John McCain as the presidential candidate who most shares their values.
Attendees agreed that they are concerned about issues like immigration and gun rights, but determined that opposing abortion and gay marriage are so central that they have no choice but to support McCain. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/julyweb-only/128-21.0.html -
He was speaking to a religious group, for one which says it all. A politician who will do what he needs to get elected. I have hope that this will be a better place when he does. I may be wrong.
This is part of it.
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."
The full speech in below.
tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/obama_speech_we_can_expand...-
Thank you!
-
-
The bottom line, we will know believers by the fruit and character of their lives. Many people espouse religious views, yet their lives tell a different story time and again.
-
globalgirl, well-said!
-
-
I think the faith based initiatives is a VERY VERY bad idea. How about this potential presidents: Stop taking our money!!
If they stop taking our money, we as Christians can give more and have more control over our own initiatives. Now, the government will assign some yahoo that will make sure diversity and sensitivity are more important than the services themselves. Churches and Christians should RUN from government, not ask them for hand-outs.
Obama sees a "personal commitment to Christ" as an opportunity to get more votes.-
Unfortunately "can" and "will" aren't the same (and, of course, not everyone is Christian). Existing programs are already falling far short of need; do you really think individual donations would spring forth to replace existing programs AND fill those gaps if the government "stopped taking our money"? -
"not everyone is Christian"
Exactly. So why have faith-based initiatives in the first place? No one should be forced to give to charity.
"do you really think individual donations would spring forth to replace existing programs"
I think many of the programs deserve to die off. They are obsolete.
"fill those gaps if the government "stopped taking our money"?"
Not our problem. Maybe the government can be more frugal. Maybe they will be more efficient. Either way, its not our problem. As it stands now the citizens of the United States are being extorted. -
I believe freedom is lost once a church, Christian group or organization accept government funds to further their cause or goal. An Old Testament Scripture warns us not to place our trust "in men and princes", I always felt this referred to government.
-
I absolutely fail to understand how you can profess to Christian principles and say that the well-being of your fellow man is "not our problem". That is the single most anti-Christian statement possible.
-
The church is going to take care of people no matter what. We shouldn't concern ourselves with the government's agenda. As Christians, we have some more important issues to take care of, like helping people.
I think individual donations can certainly fill in the gaps. How much money have these stupid politicians raised? What if they took all that money and gave it to charity?
-
-
The original post is rather selective in its use of a quote in connection with Obama's support of using non-governmental organizations to help do social work. When I read Obama, I did not hear him using faith to justify government programs. Faith is personal. Rather he was talking about the size of the challenges facing our country and how there are many groups that can help out. Specifically, he talked about an "all hands on deck" approach. And he spoke of making sure no money went to proselytize.
This quote is just like the one in the Benjamin Franklin thread, that is, it is ripped out of context in order to serve TBR's proselytizing purposes. There is a serious policy debate to be had on this issue, but this ain't it.
Ugh.-
That's the beauty of "discussion", Mark. We're free to expand.
Finally someone who gets that
-
-
"And he spoke of making sure no money went to proselytize."
In practice, that's probably impossible...especially since any specific effort to do so will probably run afoul of the excessive entanglement clause. That's been the ruling on some school-relating funding cases, where courts determined that the effort to police the use of such expenditures would mandate excessive entanglement, and thus that a program couldn't be Constitutionally implemented with regard to religious schools/programs. I don't have time to find cites right now, but will later if anyone is interested in that aspect of this issue.-
So that's a policy debate. But that's not what TheBigRuski is into here.
-
That's the beauty of "discussion", Mark. We're free to expand.
I see a lot of griping in these forums about "hijacking" threads, but it makes no sense to me. Discussion evolves. If we were all standing in a room together I can't imagine that someone would keep jumping up and down every two minutes yelling, "That's not the question I started this discussion with...go talk about that in the kitchen!" if someone introduced a new point. -
"making sure no money went to proselytize"
My wife used to belong to a Christian organization called Teen MOPS (Mothers of Pre-Schoolers) They were allowed to go into classrooms and teach teenage mothers about parenting and diet and nutrition. They did crafts with some of these mothers who were as young as 11. They could go into the classrooms as long as they didn't use the "G" word. The ministry my wife belonged to hooked up with the single mother's donated items ministry I was involved with and started giving these mothers things they needed. They eventually started asking questions about why they did this and where were they from and my wife told them they couldn't talk about it there, they could meet them at the church. Many of the girls came to Christ because of the experience.
None of the money to fund the ministry came from the government and nobody proselytize. But the help came from those with faith in Christ. -
Yet you realize, surely, dlowe, that there are many passionately anti-christian groups in this country that would consider what your wife and her group did nothing but a manipulation, a means of opening the door so that they could proselytize, and would rather see those young women go without all this help than expose them to the evils of christianity?
-
Thats not our problem. God led us to help, therefore we help.
-
It becomes our problem when those people bring successful Constitutional challenges to funding for such operations, which happens. I understand that your program wasn't receiving government funding, but regarding the issue at hand here (the possible expansion of funding to faith based programs) it will very much become "our problem". And it has been a problem even for unfunded programs like yours when they've been kicked out of schools because it was determined that they were "proselytizing".
-
So then religious groups should bow down to non-believers for cash? Not in my church. No one should. We do God's work. Faith-based programs (or ministries as us church folk like to call them) should not compromise our beliefs for money.
-
dlowe, where on earth did you get that idea? I can't even begin to imagine what you are responding to. My point here, under which all of these comments appear as replies, was that Obama's lip service to making sure funds weren't used for proselytizing was probably unworkable, and that past court decisions had deemed programs unconstitutional for that reason. Period. Not ONE WORD about what religious groups should do.
-
If churches start getting involved with government, the government will have a say in how the ministry is run. I am saying churches should not take government funds. It is making a deal with the devil.
-
That may be true. When I worked in legal aid years ago our program declined federal funds for exactly that reason, and it wasn't even a faith-based program.
In the end, though, I'm not sure whether simply declining to take money is going to solve the problem. Some of the movements, for instance, regarding birth control and abortion availability have the potential to shut down huge faith based organizations that provide a substantial portion of the medical care--particularly to lower-income people--in some areas. -
"regarding birth control and abortion availability have the potential to shut down huge faith based organizations that provide a substantial portion of the medical care--particularly to lower-income people--in some areas"
Well then government officials need to know that. These evil Christians proselytizing to the people whose lives they are saving are ACTUALLY saving their lives.
So do you think Christian hospitals should be forced to provide birth-contol and abortions? -
dlowe, I'm not sure how you missed it, because I take a lot of flack for it around here, but I'm a Catholic...and not a modern Catholic. A hard core, no exceptions, God knows what he's doing and vested his authority in this church and the answer to every question I will ever face is found in the Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church Catholic. I entirely expect and sincerely hope that the day that legislation requires hospitals to dispense birth control or morning after pills or perform abortions, every Catholic hospital in that jurisdiction instantly closes its doors. There is no other justifiable response.
-
Then I guess we are in agreement.
-
@dlowe
I loved reading about your wife's experience w/MOPS. People can 'discuss' all they want, but she followed her Lord.
-
-
-
I can't speak for anyone else, Ruski, because the majority of people who object to your club-like approach object generally to Christianity (or at least, any Christianity that doesn't sit quietly in a closet and mind its own business). For me the concern is that you do so much harm to the cause that I sometimes wonder whether it's not intentional, whether you might not be one of those anti-christians trying to make Christians look bad by beating people over the head again and again in a forum where you know its not welcome and arrogantly declining to provide credible sources--you sometimes come across so much like the stereotypical Christian painted by anti-Christians that it's hard for me to believe that you're posting in good faith, and I cringe to consider the various examples you're providing for those who want to go out and talk in generalities about how "Christians" talk and think and make their arguments.
-
-
What Obama said was SOO true. The bible says that faith without works is dead. We can't just have faith and sit..........and wait on God. We have to get up and work hard, and when we've done all we can do THATS when we wait on God.
Check out our blog dedicated to building faith and your walk with God:
stepsoffaithblog.blogspot.com -
As in the Benjamin Franklin thread I strongly disagree with the "it is ripped out of context in order to serve TBR's proselytizing purposes" comment.
I come here to promote my blog, blog posts and interact with BC members just like anyone else.
Talking about faith is part of who I am....and apparently part of who Obama is...
Wouldn't it be something if someone trolled poeple who like cats and said..."you are just trying to get all of us to like cats."
Or any other topic a blogger favors...
"You are just trying to get us all to like fart jokes."
And so on...-
@TheBigRuski, the primary purpose of the discussion areas has nothing to do with promoting BC members blogs. I know that is blunt but it is the premise upon which the Discussions are built.
The purpose of the Discussions is for BC members to have place to discuss topics and connect with each other. Certain topics, such as religion, tend to be lightening rods and cause dissension and outright meanness. Citing scripture, is often taken as preaching, and is not a discussion. The community, a few months back, decided that preaching should be done in the appropriate Groups and not in the Discussions.
If you discuss religion here, of course, certain people are going to respond. Why should they remain quiet. And those people are going to tend to be the same people, since not everyone on here really cares about religious comments.
-
-
Citing scripture doesn't have it's place in the main discussion area. We have been through this before and the community decided it's best to keep it in the Groups area of BlogCatalog.
The particular discussion here does not require citing scripture in order to discuss the issue, as presented by TheBigRuski, as to whether Obamas' comments mean that he will follow "the Bush faith based initiative programs" but with new names.-
Sure...it doesn't require it...but, I guess that means to leave out all scripture references in future discussions?
I thought it was very pertinent in this case, because Obama himself was using scripture to make a point...and what we got into here was helping to define what he was talking about.
Did I answer my own question? i.e. "Citing scripture doesn't have it's place in the main discussion area."
Just a little sad because it was exactly to the point in this particular discussion.
-
-
@TonyB
Thanks for the correction. I'm sorry. I was not aware that scripture ought not to be cited on this forum. As I have seen others quoting it, I followed suit and did likewise.-
I wasn't either, TT--especially since after the big discussion of the issue and the temporary ban on religious topics, a set of rules was posted that didn't include this prohibition.
-
@TimeThief, a few months ago, there was a ton of scripture being cited. It was the same time that the level of personal attacks was really high. There were tons of discussions here and one of the things that came out of them was that it would be better in the Groups.
@TheBigRuski, I don't see the pertinence to the main issue that you raise, which is whether Obama will follow Bush's initiatives.
@MadameX, it's a slippery slope. Preaching is not a conversation. If you look back at the original discussions about the banning of religious threads, this was one of the conclusions, that I believe was drawn. -
@TonyB
I feel bad now. I didn't know. Yesterday I paraphrased scripture because I felt a compulsion to correct the misrepresentation of the New Testament teachings. Today an incorrect scripture citation was offered and I paraphrased and supplied the correct one, as well as, two other relevant ones.
Lest anyone else be misled in this regard in the future, I would like to see this rule to be included in the Read before Posting rules. And, I assume it will have to be worded in such a way as to disallow scripture citations from any and all faiths. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/read-before-posting-1 -
Here is a more appropriate topic. Please do not cite scripture there.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/puppies-and-kittens -
@timethief, I didn't see those discussions. Just like the original post to this thread wasn't removed,and it contains scripture, it depends on the intent and relevancy.
TimeThief, it falls under the overarching guideline that the purpose of these discussions is to have discussions. Citing of scripture, depending on the context, often times is a one way communication. It isn't a discussion. So there is NOT a blanket rule against citation of scripture. It depends on whether the purpose of the citation is for discussion or preaching. -
OK TonyB...thanks for the explanations...but if there is no blanket rule...then, again, I strongly disagree with the removal of scripture backing what Obama said. It was part of the flow of this discussion.
But, like a fan in the crowd booing the refs...that's all I can do!
Keep up the great work! Seriously! -
@TheBigRuski, I may have been too quick on those ones. I saw 4 posts all with scripture and I reacted too fast. They probably were more in line with a discussion than preaching.
-
@ TonyB! No problem...imagine what NBA refs have to go through. I thought for sure they would "force" a Game 7 in Lakers v. Celts...
...but I digress! -
"TimeThief, it falls under the overarching guideline that the purpose of these discussions is to have discussions. Citing of scripture, depending on the context, often times is a one way communication. It isn't a discussion. So there is NOT a blanket rule against citation of scripture. It depends on whether the purpose of the citation is for discussion or preaching."
@TonyB
WHEW! Thanks for the clarification. It confirms that on the occasions that I cited scripture on this forum that I was *NOT* out of line because I was *NOT* preaching, proselytizing or evangelizing. -
@TT I removed those posts in haste. I should not have.
After I did and went through the process of recalling the past discussions about religious threads, I realized that there was no blanket ban. The test is whether they are part of the discussion or preaching. -
@TonyB
Understood.
-
-
Very funny! What about the San Antonio game?
-
Which one?
Oh, the "ghost" foul on what's his name by Derek Fisher? -
The ghost foul. LOL Im' from San Antonio. I think there was a person there.
-
My girlfriend loves the Spurs...further proof that a Lakers fan and Spurs fan can get along!
-
I've just been sent to the Admin Time Out area!
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
