|
|
| Also listed in: Female political bloggers |
Categories: Economic Fairness and Security, Election Reform, Social Justice, Religion, Reproductive Rights, African-American Issues, Faith and Religion, Opinion, Front Page
In a review of Obama's Zanesville visit, The New York Times says: "Obama's high-profile embrace of a key theme of Bush's time in office -- the 'faith-based initiative' -- is just the latest example of him trying to show his centrist side."
If I didn't know the guy was a professor of constitutional law and actually cared about things like the rights of nonbelievers and the importance of separation of church and state, I'd be worried. But he does.
In his outreach to evangelicals, Obama needs to watch out for charity workers who proselytize, religious-based organizations that restrict health care services to the public, religious leaders who distort the abortion issue, and a holy host of other stuff. He knows that.
He also knows that it's worth the effort to extend a hand to religious folks. Even those suspicious of organized religion like I am have to admit that churches are the strongest social group in many Ohio neighborhoods. Church groups drive anti-poverty programs and are a rallying point for all types of social causes.
Unlike the online community, the faith-based community represents warm bodies with their shirt sleeves rolled up and ready to offer help.
Like the man said, "We need an all-hands-on-deck approach." (And I love the quasi-military phrasing.)
As tax-free institutions, I believe churches are obligated to give back not only to their members, but also to the community at large. This is a much broader task than just giving to the needy. ("Needy," in itself is problematic...Who decides who's needy?)
In Columbus, there are some black pastors (sorry I don't know their names) who have been working with the city on its new curfew law and mentoring young people. I applaud these men and their genuinely faith-based efforts.
In many neighborhoods, churches and synagogues can best support their communities by giving young people (especially teens) some place to gather. When I was a kid, churches sponsored Friday night "coffeehouses" and group activities for teens. Today, no church seems to want the liability.
My point is there are many worthy faith-based ventures that do not require federal funding.
I was pleased to hear Sen. Obama when he made those statements. If elected, I hope he does keep the separation as it is (between gov’t and churches) and supports their function. It would be nice if there were additional incentives to charitable gift-giving. We need a Federal government for many things, but churches can better serve a broad range of needs of their local communities.