Glenn Beck's "COMRADE UPDATE" & Obama & Bush's Faith-Based Socialism

peaceandlove · 02-05-2009, 10:11 PM

Telling it Like It Is: Glenn Beck's "Comrade Update"

Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

Video (4:12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwgH...layer_embedded

Obama and Bush's Faith-Based Socialism

Posted by Anthony Gregory on 02/05/09

When George W. Bush established his "faith-based" welfare programs, much of the left screamed in horror. It would usher in a theocracy, we were told. The hysterical protests were deafening.

Now that Barack Obama is running with the idea with his "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," there is dissent, but not as loud as I recall it being under Bush.

Controversy surrounds Obama's faith office 2/5/2009
ARTICLE: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...a.faith.based/

This is perhaps another instance of the Democrats getting away with more of what you would expect from Republicans, because those who would most complain are quieted by the fact that their allies are in power.

The Bush/Obama logic is not completely without validity: Why should churches and religious institutions be shut off from government money just because they are religious? If they work better than traditional welfare programs in helping those in need, why stand in the way of their success?

But this begs the question: The faith-based programs work better partly because, traditionally, they have not been supported by the federal government nor hampered by its regulations. They have acted as religious organizations, not government programs.

As soon as religious groups get on the dole, they have to obey counterproductive guidelines and end up devoting much too much time on lobbying efforts. Before Catholic Charities, for example, got money from the feds, they had nearly no lobbying infrastructure. In the last decade, they began devoting more and more resources to lobbying Washington. Now, their president, Rev. Larry Snyder, is scheduled to serve on Obama's new Faith-Based Council.

President of Catholic Charities USA to Serve on the Newly Created President's Council of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships 2/5/2009
ARTICLE: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...a,706323.shtml

There is nothing wrong with faith guiding public officials, especially if they are guided to do the right thing within their constitutionally prescribed limits. But unfortunately, this kind of measure does risk compromising the First Amendment separation of the federal government from matters of religion. And here's the Catch-22: The more socialized a society, the more resources are handed out by government. Now we have an intractable situation. Under socialism, religion is either subsidized or crowded out, and neither option is consistent with our Constitution or religious liberty.

Consider the choice we must face once religious groups accept money. Should they be allowed to discriminate in choosing their patrons or employees? Should they be allowed to practice their faith in ways that alienate many taxpayers? Either answer to these questions is divisive. If they are allowed to practice freely, taxpayers are forced to support religious programs they might disagree with. If they are not, their value and uniqueness as religious orgranizations are diminished, as their strings are now pulled by a secular government. To avoid this problem, government in a free society avoids supporting or hindering religion, and maintains a very small role in civil society in general. The more freedom, the more we are brought together. The less freedom and more government, the more divided we become.

Aside from the friction with the First Amendment, these federal programs certainly are an affront to the Tenth Amendment, which bars the federal government, which has no enumerated Constitutional authority to be involved in charity, from any kind of welfare program, whether it be religious or secular.

Furthermore, there is a risk that the religious organizations, like private schools under a heavy-handed voucher system, will become compromised or even corrupted by a close relationship with the government. If something is virtuous, subsidizing it might sound like a good idea, but it could very well taint the very virtue that made it special and effective.

Obama is not getting quite the same reaction Bush did in pursuing faith-based socialism. Perhaps it is because he, unlike Bush, is not feared by the left for allegedly having theocratic impulses. But although that might in some cases be a real concern, the more fundamental issue here has always been different: Faith-based socialism is unconstitutional, it's unethical as redistribution programs are in general, and like all other welfare schemes, it threatens to weaken the very social institutions and fabric it seeks to strenghten. Had that been the left's main critique of Bush's faith-based socialism, perhaps it would have never continued and become inherited by the new president, who seems determined to expand upon his predecessor's religious welfare program.

02-05-2009, 10:11 PM	#1
peaceandlove Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Turtle Island Posts: 2,776	Glenn Beck's "COMRADE UPDATE" & Obama & Bush's Faith-Based Socialism Telling it Like It Is: Glenn Beck's "Comrade Update" Source: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/ Video (4:12): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuwgH...layer_embedded Obama and Bush's Faith-Based Socialism Posted by Anthony Gregory on 02/05/09 When George W. Bush established his "faith-based" welfare programs, much of the left screamed in horror. It would usher in a theocracy, we were told. The hysterical protests were deafening. Now that Barack Obama is running with the idea with his "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives," there is dissent, but not as loud as I recall it being under Bush. Controversy surrounds Obama's faith office 2/5/2009 ARTICLE: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS...a.faith.based/ This is perhaps another instance of the Democrats getting away with more of what you would expect from Republicans, because those who would most complain are quieted by the fact that their allies are in power. The Bush/Obama logic is not completely without validity: Why should churches and religious institutions be shut off from government money just because they are religious? If they work better than traditional welfare programs in helping those in need, why stand in the way of their success? But this begs the question: The faith-based programs work better partly because, traditionally, they have not been supported by the federal government nor hampered by its regulations. They have acted as religious organizations, not government programs. As soon as religious groups get on the dole, they have to obey counterproductive guidelines and end up devoting much too much time on lobbying efforts. Before Catholic Charities, for example, got money from the feds, they had nearly no lobbying infrastructure. In the last decade, they began devoting more and more resources to lobbying Washington. Now, their president, Rev. Larry Snyder, is scheduled to serve on Obama's new Faith-Based Council. President of Catholic Charities USA to Serve on the Newly Created President's Council of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships 2/5/2009 ARTICLE: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...a,706323.shtml There is nothing wrong with faith guiding public officials, especially if they are guided to do the right thing within their constitutionally prescribed limits. But unfortunately, this kind of measure does risk compromising the First Amendment separation of the federal government from matters of religion. And here's the Catch-22: The more socialized a society, the more resources are handed out by government. Now we have an intractable situation. Under socialism, religion is either subsidized or crowded out, and neither option is consistent with our Constitution or religious liberty. Consider the choice we must face once religious groups accept money. Should they be allowed to discriminate in choosing their patrons or employees? Should they be allowed to practice their faith in ways that alienate many taxpayers? Either answer to these questions is divisive. If they are allowed to practice freely, taxpayers are forced to support religious programs they might disagree with. If they are not, their value and uniqueness as religious orgranizations are diminished, as their strings are now pulled by a secular government. To avoid this problem, government in a free society avoids supporting or hindering religion, and maintains a very small role in civil society in general. The more freedom, the more we are brought together. The less freedom and more government, the more divided we become. Aside from the friction with the First Amendment, these federal programs certainly are an affront to the Tenth Amendment, which bars the federal government, which has no enumerated Constitutional authority to be involved in charity, from any kind of welfare program, whether it be religious or secular. Furthermore, there is a risk that the religious organizations, like private schools under a heavy-handed voucher system, will become compromised or even corrupted by a close relationship with the government. If something is virtuous, subsidizing it might sound like a good idea, but it could very well taint the very virtue that made it special and effective. Obama is not getting quite the same reaction Bush did in pursuing faith-based socialism. Perhaps it is because he, unlike Bush, is not feared by the left for allegedly having theocratic impulses. But although that might in some cases be a real concern, the more fundamental issue here has always been different: Faith-based socialism is unconstitutional, it's unethical as redistribution programs are in general, and like all other welfare schemes, it threatens to weaken the very social institutions and fabric it seeks to strenghten. Had that been the left's main critique of Bush's faith-based socialism, perhaps it would have never continued and become inherited by the new president, who seems determined to expand upon his predecessor's religious welfare program.