why do we even have a faith based office (4.00 / 12)

the whole thing needs to be abolished.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:26:44 AM CDT

offices -- every dept and agency now has a faith-based "branch office" inside -- (4.00 / 3)

and Obama's all for it, sadly.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:32:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

because we voted Democrat (4.00 / 3)

and the Democrats have no priciples. "Everything is negotiable but success! Rahm Emmanuel"

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:52:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

they have the same "principles" -- and policies -- as the GOP nowadays -- (4.00 / 3)

as this shows --

for just one example of many many many.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:20:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

also -- the "health reform" -- she'll be awarding the $$ and grants, no? (4.00 / 2)

& whether it'll have the "conscience clause" & explicit faith-based funds too --

and education funding -- contraception and realistic sex-ed as well....

they have already expanded faith-based funding to begin with -- and have shown absolutely no desire or support for reproductive rights/education or separation of church and state --- they show with appointments like this and everything else the exact opposite of support.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 10:31:12 AM CDT

Yep (4.00 / 7)

I only went through and listed grants that directly pertained to the issue, passing up several that might be tangentially affected by an anti-contraception stance.

For instance, there's a grant for services to unwed, low-income parents - you would think that this is a demographic desperately in need of contraceptive counseling, so they don't repeat past mistakes. Then, they have two research grants for international HIV/AIDS, and it wasn't immediately obvious from their titles and abstracts that they had a prevention angle but that's part of the scope. Or there're the grants to study how religious and spiritual beliefs affect health risk, including HIV transmission, in young adults.

I decided to leave out grants that seemed to require a lot of discussion for the sake of brevity, but I was really shocked by how much of an impact she'll be able to have in this policy arena. I thought before I looked that it was possible I might discover that she had a very minimal role in these things, but it flat out amazes me that an actual Democrat put someone with her opinions in charge of this office. It sounds like a news item from the Bush administration.

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:03:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

just one of many amazing (in a bad way) appts, no? (0.00 / 0)

from all the Republicans, "free traders", and privatizers to all the Wall St cronies...

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:15:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you <i>sure</i> Kelley decides who gets the grant money? (0.00 / 0)

From the site:

The Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI) welcomes the participation of faith-based and community organizations (FBCOs) as essential partners in assisting our country's neediest citizens.  CFBCI empowers FBCOs to compete more effectively for Federal funds so that they may provide better human services to more people.

Through regional conferences, training workshops, e-mail updates, and general technical assistance, CFBCI is committed to providing FBCOs with the necessary tools, contact information, and potential funding opportunities to enhance the work they are doing throughout their communities.

While CFBCI exists to supply information and resources, it is important to note that there is no "faith-based money."  Rather, CFBCI works to create a "level-playing field" to enable faith-based organizations to compete equally for Federal funding which will assist them in serving the needs of their communities.

"There is no 'faith-based money.'" That sounds to me like churches and such can apply for such grants like any other social services organization, but the funding decisions are handled using the same, secular criteria. Of course, I don't know for sure that Kelley won't be able to interfere in the way such grants are awarded, but I don't think you do, either.

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:21:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Isn't influence enough? (4.00 / 3)

Does she have to micromanage every decision her office makes for this to be a problem?

---

by: Natasha Chart @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:26:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does she even have influence? (0.00 / 0)

The way I read the Center's mission, they provide help to the FBCOs who are filling out grant apps. I see nothing at all that says the Center has anything whatsoever to do with the grant decision.

You're alleging in the post that Kelley controls all this grant money. But really you're not sure if she even influences how it is awarded. I suggest that a little more research is required.

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:29:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No faith-based money? (4.00 / 2)

Then what is this about?

http://www.au.org/resources/br...

Bush gave hundred of millions of taxpayer dollars away to white, evangelical churches and Obama looks like he plans to continue the program. For what purpose? At least Bush was funding his own base.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:42:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think that's a different question (0.00 / 0)

The article you link to is an argument against giving grants to churches at all. I like that argument, but it's not the one we're having.

What Natasha asserted in her post is that the head of the CFBCI "is being put in charge of $63,082,000 directly intended for HIV/AIDS prevention and family planning in 2009 for the poorest, most medically underserved populations in the country." I say that's not been proved. In fact, the only evidence I can find - the CFBCI's mission statement - makes it sound like the grant applications aren't even going to come through their office, much less that they will control where it goes.  

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:53:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Their mission statement is nothing but a bunch of (4.00 / 3)

weasel words. What is this "level playing field?" Doesn't that mean churches get federal money without having to follow federal rules, i.e., they are allowed to discriminate? That's what most people would call an unlevel playing field.

Also they are disingenious when they claim the money is not used for proselytizing. Okay, so maybe Dollar A is not used to proselytize, but it offsets Dollar B in the church's budget, which is used to proselytize.

Really, the mission statement of these con artists is the last place I would look for the truth.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:05:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Nation also makes a good case: (4.00 / 4)

These patterns appear even more intentional when you look at who hands out the money. The Department of Health and Human Services responded to a Freedom of Information Act request by providing a list of independent experts the agency tapped to review grant applications from 2001 to 2003 for one of the most significant federal abstinence funding streams, known as SPRANS. The list is revealing. While it does include some state public health officials, it lacks any nationally respected experts on sexuality education and pregnancy prevention, whether from the Kaiser Foundation, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood or prestigious universities. Instead it includes nine representatives of Christian evangelizing outfits such as Summit Ministries and the Turning Point. The list also includes multiple representatives from some of the most politically influential Christian-right lobby groups in the nation: the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Heritage Foundation, even Weyrich's Free Congress Foundation. It likewise features Congressional family-values operatives such as House Republican aide Roland Foster, who has used his perch as a Governmental Reform subcommittee staffer to instigate audits of AIDS organizations and AIDS researchers. The Bush Administration has effectively turned over tens of millions of public dollars to the Christian right to distribute as it sees fit.

You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...


Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:18:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is a good case for what happened in 2001-2003 (0.00 / 0)

But it's still doesn't prove what Natasha wrote. In fact, it undercuts her assertion that Kelley will be the one directing the grant monies, since it references "independent experts the agency tapped to review grant applications"; presumably independent experts will be employed again. A good question would be, who are the experts to be used in the Obama administration? But nothing in The Nation article or on the HHS website tends to show that Kelley will control the grant money.

---

by: Mithras Invicti @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:46:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The point is (4.00 / 3)

the "independent experts" were neither independent, nor, in many cases, experts. They were evangelical cronies. Like Kelley.

We have no reason to believe any of this has changed. The appointment of Kelley certainly does not inspire confidence that it has.

Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:41:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but Obama is ending that program (0.00 / 0)

I mean, it really seems like people here are mainly interested in symbolism. Obama's budget eliminates these abstinence-only programs, though we'll have to see what gets through Congress.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h...

It seems like you should be praising Obama rather than attacking him based on your quotes.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:07:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Symbolism? (4.00 / 3)

Try power.

Appointments matter. It matters who is in charge of stuff like this.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:47:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait (4.00 / 3)

did you read that article?

Because I did. It doesn't say he eliminated abstinence-only programs, it says:

Obama's budget proposes almost $178 million for teen pregnancy prevention, including $110 million for community-based programs. About 75% of that is for programs proven to have delayed sex and increased contraceptive use or reduced teen pregnancy. The other 25% could be for "innovative" programs.

Obama "is open to innovation, and that could include abstinence-only if there is some indication it would work," Barnes says.

Have you not figured out yet how this stuff works? Because the Religious Right has. Melody Barnes, Obama's Director of the Domestic Policy Council just told the Religious Right they only have to come up with "some indication" and they can have $27 million of our money, to screw with our kids. That's not chump change.

And in case they still aren't satisfied customers, here is the appointment of Alexia Kelley.

Pretty sweet deal for a bunch of people who didn't vote for him.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 21:12:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but Obama is ending that program (0.00 / 0)

I mean, it really seems like people here are mainly interested in symbolism. Obama's budget eliminates these abstinence-only programs, though we'll have to see what gets through Congress.  

http://www.usatoday.com/news/h...

It seems like you should be praising Obama rather than attacking him based on your quotes.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:07:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

very related -- "religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis - and help to shape decisions on matters large and small." (4.00 / 2)

Politico -- Barack Obama invokes Jesus more than George W. Bush -- http://www.politico.com/news/s...

... inside his White House, Obama has placed his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - run by a 26-year old Pentecostal minister named Josh DuBois - under the White House's Domestic Policy Council. That was widely seen as an effort to involve a religious perspective in the administration's policy decisions.

Also, religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis - and help to shape decisions on matters large and small. A White House speechwriter working on Obama's Egypt speech called several faith leaders to get their thoughts. After the White House unveiled its budget in April, officials convened a two-hour conference call with religious leaders to discuss how the spending plan would help the poor.

"President Obama is a committed Christian, and he's being true to who he is," DuBois told POLITICO. ...

it's not a progressive or liberal religious perspective they're soliciting -- at all.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:18:49 AM CDT

Yep. The Catholics in Alliance for Common Good condemned Kelley's (4.00 / 4)

appointment. Their report, "Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors" looks at stuff that's, y'know, not in la la land, like economic assistance to low income families corresponds to a 20% reduction in abortion rate:
http://www.catholicsinalliance...

---

by: sb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:09:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

but somehow (4.00 / 6)

Obama does not have time to meet with the religious coalition for single payer. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:24:54 AM CDT

where is NARAL? (4.00 / 3)

where is NOW? where are all the women's groups? the silence is deafening.

---

by: AliceDem @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:42:30 AM CDT

11-Dimnensional Chess! Ponies! Ponies! Ponies! (4.00 / 6)

Would you believe tiddly-winks in the horseshit?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:53:51 AM CDT

As you've pointed out before (4.00 / 3)

these lunatics will not support him under any circumstances.  This is yet another sop to Versailles in hope of further legitimizing Obama's 'bipartisan' bona fides.  

Obama defines the right as a bunch of fringe-lunatics like Limbaugh, Cheney, and now a woman who doesn't believe in contraception so he can take the neoliberal - read Rockefeller Republican sans labor mov't - middle ground.  How charming.  

---

by: wobbly @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:14:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fallout from Notre Dame (4.00 / 5)

So Obama gives the commencement speech at Notre Dame.  Instead of talking about the economy or even things the official catholic position TM agrees with, he tries to make common ground on the one irreconciliable difference: abortion.  No amount of charm will settle this but most Catholicsa have other fish to fry.  I guarantee you, most of those kids and their familioes are scared about the economy.

This is a further attempt to make the powers that be love him.  It won't work.  Frankly, he would have done better to stfu and skip the jokes about Notre Dame football sucking so much.  The people who are full bore anti-abortionists don't give a rat's a** about lowering the number of abortion's, out of wedlocl births, teen births, etc.  It is, to them, all black and white and it is better to talk a good game and increase the number of abortions, teen pregnancies, etc. than have a lower number of safe, legal abortions and fewer teen pregnancies based on wide-spread availability of contraception. This group is dealing with their Truth, a world of mass murderers and those who condone it versus a bunch of Republican Sir Galahads.

Do the job and these wack jobs don't matter.  Please them but don't totally abandon Roe v. Wade and you still get nothing.  To paraphrase Abe Lincoln, you can't please all the people all the time.  The Lord sure must love the common people, He made enough of them.  So do what's right for ordinary folks and let the elite and their shills deal with it.  

---

by: David Kowalski @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 13:14:01 PM CDT

way before Notre Dame -- during the campaign itself "women should consult their pastor" (4.00 / 5)

before deciding whether to abort or not told many of us all we needed to know -- and there was plenty more like that too.

---

by: amberglow @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 14:00:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Is there literally no limit to Obama's cowardice? (0.00 / 0)

It's pretty much becoming his signature characteristic: threaten me enough and I WILL back down. This is leadership? More and more, he is revealing himself to be without courage, principle or honesty, utterly unwilling to take any hits from the right. His sole governing philosophy appears to be whatever pleases the establishment, and screw the left.

Oh, but I shouldn't complain, because at least there's still this:

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 16:42:16 PM CDT

OT: but what's w. that dude w. the photo diaries at Kos? (0.00 / 0)

It's clear he has some sort of, let's just say, uncommon access. At what point will kids there start to call out propaganda for what it is? I don't doubt the dude means well, although he's no stranger to sexism, but c'mon...something's up there, and there needs to be more candor.

---

by: sb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:30:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What's most amazing/troubling (4.00 / 2)

is that his UID is so low, so he's had an account since almost the beginning of the progressive blogosphere. He's a very smart guy, PR and media-wise, a brilliant propagandist really, and it makes me wonder who he is and what he's up to here, and whether this is about some misguided progressive with misplaced priorities trying to set up a virtual Obama Facebook-like lovepage on the world'd biggest progressive blog, or something else entirely.

Yes, I am asking whether he's a plant, and whether he has planted allies who are directed to back him up whenever he's criticized or questions. It happened to me recently, and I've got to suspect that there's something going on here than isn't kosher.

I absolutely believe that there's major astroturfing going on in the progressive blogosphere, and suspect that this is a part of it. Surely someone who's been through the past 6 or so years of politics can't be as naive as he pretends to be.

Or is it really cultism?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:50:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who are you talking about:? (0.00 / 0)

?

---

by: Dameocrat @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 22:14:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Click on the picture (0.00 / 0)

It will take you to his diary.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 00:56:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's a place for contraception opponents in the Democratic Party (4.00 / 1)

They may be fringe lunatics, but it's a broad church.

And that place is as far as it is possible to be from having influence over contraception policy. Stick 'em on the US Soft Toy Promotion Council or something.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 17:42:56 PM CDT

Christ, if you think soft toys aren't contoversial these days, you (4.00 / 1)

haven't been paying attention. We all should be so lucky as to have the Soft Toy Promotion Council be harmless. Wouldn't trust Alexia Kelley there, either, sadly.  

---

by: sb @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 18:33:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bovine insemination council? (4.00 / 1)

There's surely no reason opposition to contraception could be an issue there?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:43:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would prefer (0.00 / 0)

bovine elimination council. Seems like a natural fit.

Montani semper liberi

---

by: Sadie Baker @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 20:50:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]