« Poll: Lieberman's Approval Rating In Connecticut Sinks To Lowest Ever | Home | McCain Camp Manufactures More Outrage Obama Over Wes Clark Comments »

Obama Speech: We Can Expand Faith-Based Charities And Separate Church From State

Barack Obama's prepared speech on faith-based initiatives is in, and in it, the candidate strikes a delicate balance between expanding the role and clout of religious charities, while at the same time taking care to avoid outright violation of the separation of church and state.

On the one hand, Obama's aim is to include church groups -- and remember, he's often talked about his own involvement with churches as a community organizer in Chicago -- and to cement an image with most Americans as a believer in traditional values. On the other hand, many on the left could be taken aback by this expansion of public money going to religious organizations.

From the speech:

"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."

Full speech after the jump.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
(As prepared for delivery)
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Zanesville, Ohio You know, faith based groups like East Side Community Ministry carry a particular meaning for me. Because in a way, they're what led me into public service. It was a Catholic group called The Campaign for Human Development that helped fund the work I did many years ago in Chicago to help lift up neighborhoods that were devastated by the closure of a local steel plant. Now, I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my 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. There are millions of Americans who share a similar view of their faith, who feel they have an obligation to help others. And they're making a difference in communities all across this country - through initiatives like Ready4Work, which is helping ensure that ex-offenders don't return to a life of crime; or Catholic Charities, which is feeding the hungry and making sure we don't have homeless veterans sleeping on the streets of Chicago; or the good work that's being done by a coalition of religious groups to rebuild New Orleans. You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today - from saving our planet to ending poverty - are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck. I'm not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I'm not saying that they're somehow better at lifting people up. What I'm saying is that we all have to work together - Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike - to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Now, I know there are some who bristle at the notion that faith has a place in the public square. But the fact is, leaders in both parties have recognized the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups. President Clinton signed legislation that opened the door for faith-based groups to play a role in a number of areas, including helping people move from welfare to work. Al Gore proposed a partnership between Washington and faith-based groups to provide more support for the least of these. And President Bush came into office with a promise to "rally the armies of compassion," establishing a new Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. But what we saw instead was that the Office never fulfilled its promise. Support for social services to the poor and the needy have been consistently underfunded. Rather than promoting the cause of all faith-based organizations, former officials in the Office have described how it was used to promote partisan interests. As a result, the smaller congregations and community groups that were supposed to be empowered ended up getting short-changed. Well, I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular. But it has to be a real partnership - not a photo-op. That's what it will be when I'm President. I'll establish a new Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart - it will be a critical part of my administration. 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. With these principles as a guide, my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will strengthen faith-based groups by making sure they know the opportunities open to them to build on their good works. Too often, faith-based groups - especially smaller congregations and those that aren't well connected - don't know how to apply for federal dollars, or how to navigate a government website to see what grants are available, or how to comply with federal laws and regulations. We rely too much on conferences in Washington, instead of getting technical assistance to the people who need it on the ground. What this means is that what's stopping many faith-based groups from helping struggling families is simply a lack of knowledge about how the system works. Well, that will change when I'm President. I will empower the nonprofit religious and community groups that do understand how this process works to train the thousands of groups that don't. We'll "train the trainers" by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs. Every house of worship that wants to run an effective program and that's willing to abide by our constitution - from the largest mega-churches and synagogues to the smallest store-front churches and mosques - can and will have access to the information and support they need to run that program. This Council will also help target our efforts to meet key challenges like education. All across America, too many children simply can't read or perform math at their grade-level, a problem that grows worse for low-income students during the summer months and afterschool hours. Nonprofits like Children's Defense Fund are working to solve this problem. They hold summer and afterschool Freedom Schools in communities across this country, and many of their classes are held in churches. There's a lot of evidence that these kinds of partnerships work. Take Youth Education for Tomorrow, an innovative program that's being run by churches, faith-based schools, and others in Philadelphia. To help narrow the summer learning gap, the YET program hires qualified teachers who help students with reading using proven learning techniques. They hold classes four days a week after school and during the summer. And they monitor progress closely. The results have been outstanding. Children who attended a YET center for at least six months improved nearly 2 years in reading ability. And the average high school student gained a full grade in reading level after just three months. That's the kind of real progress that can be made when we empower faith-based organizations. And that's why as President, I'll expand summer programs like this to serve one million students. This won't just help our children learn, it will help keep them off the streets during the summer so they don't turn to crime. And my Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will also have a broader role - it will help set our national agenda. Because if we are going to do something about the injustice of millions of children living in extreme poverty, we need interfaith coalitions like the Let Justice Roll campaign standing up for the powerless. If we're going to end genocide and stop the scourge of HIV/AIDS, we need people of faith on Capitol Hill talking about how these challenges don't just represent a security crisis or a humanitarian crisis, but a moral crisis as well. We know that faith and values can be a source of strength in our own lives. That's what it's been to me. And that's what it is to so many Americans. But it can also be something more. It can be the foundation of a new project of American renewal. And that's the kind of effort I intend to lead as President of the United States.

136 Comments

| Leave a comment

It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!

Bravo for the reference.

compassionate centrism

Compassionate Pragmatism.

compassionate pandering

You don't think Obama believes in the value of churches when it comes to making a difference in communities?

i think he is engaging the religeous electorate. I guess that's the game in town, otherwise, I was just playing with the guy who commented to my snarky comment.

Um, did any of you actually read his books? He has been a proponent of the idea of faith-based initiatives since way back. I think he is coming from a perspective of a community organizer who recognizes the fact that churches form a central hub in much of society's community efforts, and stands as a primary focal point for progressive action. I think he wants to foster that.

personally, I have no problem with government support of faith-based initiatives. That kind of support, until recently, has been tolerated and even encouraged back to the days of our founding. Hell, it's how we got 501(c)(3) status.

What I despise is the model of faith-based initiatives where you funnel money to churches as a form of political favor. Oversight can be done on this to prevent abuse.

user-pic

I've always thought that conservatives should be against this. Once the churches get to feeding from the federal trough, they will no longer be able to quietly go along with the GOP's anti-governmental stance. All a Democratic President or Congress will have to do is threaten to cut funding for faith-based programs and say, "Sorry, the GOP tax cuts, deficits, or defense spending left us no choice."

My gut reaction was horror, but after reading the speech I'm less apprehensive.

I am Horrified! Obama Stepping away from Clark's comments, and Awa from Move On - WTF

user-pic

Did you just start paying attention to this guy during the primary? Obama has always talked about this kind of thing, although he toned it down significantly during the primary.

user-pic

From his campaign's memo:

The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques will only be allowed to go toward secular programs. And Obama will ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.

Hyperbole-prone members of the netroots need to take a deep breath and have a little more (dare I say) faith in Obama.

user-pic

Obvious bunk. Money is fungible. If they get more for charity work, then it frees up money to proselytize.

They know better.

So, does Barack not use paragraph breaks anymore? I thought that was just crazy people ranting in the comments sections of political websites who did that.

Actually, the prepared speech does have paragraph breaks. I think Eric went crazy with his copy/paste.

user-pic

Wright!

Most religious charities are incapable of separating their good works from their evangelization. Indeed, for many of their causes -- religion -- one of the most stringent forms of social control known to man -- is a vital part. What better way to reform a criminal than to turn him into a Christian (yes, I know I am disregarding a certain overlap)? But it is precisely this part of the Christian mission and the choice of religious dogma involved in which the Government must have no part.

Obama thinks he can do it -- does he think that all subsequent Presidents will be as scrupulous or will allowing the Federal government to intervene lead to much greater abuses in the future.

Jefferson and Madison were so scrupulous about the separation that they thought it improper for the state to provide religious books to a state run college -- yet they thought religion so important that they provided such books themselves as a separate library.

Obama's position falls well below this standard. He is a hazard to our nation.

user-pic
Most religious charities are incapable of separating their good works from their evangelization.

Want to back that statement up with some evidence?

I'm sure there is some evidence, just as there are a couple cases of voter fraud, but by and large, that statement, like voter fraud, is a steaming pile of crap.

If you ever find yourself broke and without a place to stay in this world, you could do no better than to head to a church. Someone there will help you. And whenever you see homeless people in a line to eat, 9 times out of 10, it's religious people who are handing out the food. Most religions are doctrines of charity. Why wouldn't you support this, especially in a country with such poor social services?

Oh God, they'll clothe and feed me, but they might give me a pamphlet too! The horror, the horror. People sit on their high horse and talk about how we shouldn't need religion to help us act kindly but that's ignoring the reality that this country is heavily religious. As I've said before, Obama isn't the vessel for all of your wet dreams. He's not going to convince the country to throw down our religious beliefs and become moral for the sake of being moral (never mind the fact that he's actually religious). You could spend a lifetime trying to convince people of that and never make a dent - you expect him to do it by Election Day. For all of your snide criticism of religion, some people here seem to think their candidate could walk on water "if only he'd just grow some balls!"

user-pic

i DO support the idea of social services.

i DO believe the homeless should have a place to sleep at night.

i DONT believe we should be relying on private charity to provide these services in light of their failure to adequately cope with the problem.

given private charity is inadequate, the government should step in and provide the basic social services one would expect in a first world country using tax dollars.

they SHOULD NOT take this as a sign to go out and start funding RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

in the final analysis, if the net result is more money spent on social services, then i'm for it despite the implications for separation of church and state.

without a doubt, government funding will allow Churchs to spend less of their own resources on Charity and more on self-promotion.

un-intended side effect?

on the up side, i read that Obama will open up these funds to secular organizations as well.

Sincerely, isn't barak kinda giving proof here:

You know, faith based groups like East Side Community Ministry carry a particular meaning for me. Because in a way, they're what led me into public service...I didn't grow up in a particularly religious household. But my experience in Chicago showed me how faith and values could be an anchor in my life. And in time, I came to see my 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.

and inherently, isn't the govt suppose to play no role in sponsoring any religon?

and can't the groups exist on there own with the standard donations from the public and biz (as they usually do)?

Aren't they all ready exempt from paying taxes?

and what about enforcement?

Who polices these programs?
What about violations? How is punishment handled?

Enough, already.

You have been on here for months pushing this line. However, despite your valiant effort to save the Republic from this Looming Threat to Everything We Hold Dear and Quite Possibly Civilization Itself, he is going to be the nominee.

So the question is, wtf is the underlying point of your ever more apocolyptic and dyspeptic comments? Are you just here accumulating points for the biggest "toldja so" in history? If so, mission accomplished and you've reached the point of diminishing return.

Or are you instead suggesting that we vote for McCain, or Barr, or Nader or the stuffed and mounted corpse of Trigger in the Roy Rogers museum? If so, please at least say so.

You should program a macro on your computer to cut and paste this same response, because we have quite a few members of late taking this line. I think that your response addressed the matter with admirable clarity.

Yes, a big, bad scary man, this Obama.

This Obama supporter just went from enthusiastic to begrudging.

The separation of Church and State needs to be upheld. By supporting an EXPANSION of Bush's Church Welfare system, Obama is not doing that.

This is one less person out ringing doorbells for Obama.

Bush's faith-based program was very partisan, and excluded smaller churches, especially mainline progressive denominations.

Obama is seeking to redefine faith-based outreach in this speech.

He is seeking to redefine "faith", just as he was seeking to re-define "patriotism" yesterday in the sense that we have allow the Right Wing to define these terms for way to long.

'exactly' however people will hear what they wanna hear...

That's cool. If you're so condescending to people of faith that you'd oppose constitutionally sound measures to fund charities just because they're run by religious institutions, we wouldn't want you on the campaign trail driving people into the hands of the Republicans. Byeee!

user-pic

This is actually kind of interesting. While I personally have little problem with hiring based on religion (i.e. if it's a Lutheran Charity why wouldn't you want to hire just Lutherans?) as long as the money is not used for direct proselytizing, it will be a help. Aside from government services religious organizations including mosques, for a major social network and are a way to reach people.

However, if the money can't be used for preaching and if that is enforced, then don't worry, I'm sure many of the most horrendous churches (SBC!) will decline.

Hi LionsTB,

The odious CFBCI's of the Bush era actually had their parents in the Clinton administration.

The enforcement got laxer on how the money was being spent. Admin officers said that was because of lack of funding to monitor compliance.

The wall of separation in this area has been partially breached for at least two different presidents as far as I know....

user-pic

This wasn't my favorite thing to hear him say, but I get it.

He comes from a background where the community organizers are generally the churches.


If I may, let me explains what I see in my community in Dallas - we have a tremendous homeless problem - I think because our winters are warm. Business wants these people out of downtown, but there's no where else to go. The only groups serving these people are based from churches and synagogues. We have a successful homesless outreach downtown run by a coalition of thePresbyterian Church, the Espicopal diocese and Temple Emanual . I'd like to see them get government money - they do tremendous good and no one else is helping down there.

Tena, you are exactly right about the situation in Dallas. The churches are the only charitable organizations around who have the manpower and organization to tackle serious issues like the homeless problem there.

user-pic

You know, I am not a fan of organized religion, but if it weren't for First Presbyterian downtown Dallas, I don't know what we would do. They feed the homeless, give them shelter, clothes, try to get them jobs, they have a facility where homeless people produce a news memo for the homeless - I can't say enough good about what they are doing.

The other really socially active church is the UCC in Oak Cliff. That church is responsible for the Peace house in Crawford, Texas.

Among other things -

One other organization I would add is Catholic Charities of Dallas. They do a tremendous amount of work for people trying to get back on their feet. They also have the city's largest outreach program for immigrants.

user-pic

O my gosh - you are so right. I had forgotten about them but they're great. They've been around forever, too.

user-pic

In Memphis we have MIFA The Memphis InterFaith Association. It was created after the King assination to get the curches for the black and white communities working together. They are the provider of meals on weels for the home bound and many other cheritable activities here. This atheist supports what they do and would not mind them getting federal dollars to help. They do not prostylize at all because they have board members from many religions.

hey,i currently live in Dallas too, former Katrina refugee now proud Dallasite(?).

user-pic

Jeez, I'm glad you're proud after what you've been through.

Maybe we can get together when I'm back in Dallas in the fall.

cool beans. Would love to find someone who a pol like I've recently become. My family and friends are sick of me.
And speaking of Dallas churches, after Katrina where did my family and other "refugees" get the most help from? Ding ding ding! Local churches!

i dont think it matters as long as he doesnt make intelligent design being taught in schools mandatory

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bush-gives-mccain-credit-4-gi-bill-he-opposed/

I'm starting to really mis Bill Clinton. He pandered to the white working class so much more convincingly than Obama does.

Maybe Obama can fight for removing the moratorium on executions on Illinois, and pull the switch himself on a couple of Death Row inmates for us next.

user-pic

So you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If faith based organizations are working, there's no reason to turn against them just because Bush started it as long as everybody follows the law.

user-pic

It reminds me of what Bill Maher said - he hated when the right would attack a decent idea just because it came from Bill Clinton.

Granted, there are much fewer decent ideas to deal with, but if it happens to come from Bush, there's no reason to throw it out.

There's a world of difference between not rescinding Bush's program and expanding it, which is how this speech is being characterized.

And I wholeheartedly agree with the commenters that point out that enforcement is a big question mark here.

As a former literature major, I would have loved to have had a class in high school that taught the bible as literature, since so much of what I studied later alluded to it. Unfortunately, such a class cannot be permitted because the fundies would use it as an opportunity to indoctrinate public school students in their warped belief system.

I just don't see the clamor for patriotism speeches and expansion of faith-based social services. Why is this what Obama is talking about now, while McCain is getting ever more lionized as a "Leader," and the "flip-flop" charges are staring to mount against Obama?

AHH! I wish you TPM Lefties (myself included) would stop saying "Oh, I don't support Obama as much anymore because he's swinging to the middle".

I've got news for you, he never was left. He has always been about sticking to good ideas when they're good (including those from the right) and bad ideas when they're bad.

Bush has a good idea. I know, sounds like i'm insane, but hear me out. He has a good idea BUT his proposal is just a ridiculous partisan pile of crap that excludes denominations. Obama agrees with the idea but is coming up with a more comprehensive and workable proposal. This is what he has always done. This is what he will continue to do.

Lefties like us should get off our high horse and get this guy in as president!

I've got news for you, he never was left. He has always been about sticking to good ideas when they're good (including those from the right) and bad ideas when they're bad.

Absolutely right. Ideology is so 20th century anyway. If it works, do it.

Support of the 1st and 4th amendments are not "leftie" positions, they are the only positions.

are you questioning my patriotism?!?