Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The ‘Conspiracy’ Is Fact: Santorum Booster Franklin Graham Questions Obama’s Faith
A few days ago Andrea Mitchell failed to catch a Santorum spokesperson referring to Obama’s “radical Islamic policies” and in the apology tour, Anne Kornblut from the Washington Post tittered about the “conspiracy theorists” who would jump on this statement to think it meant that Santorum really speaks this way about the President.
Politico reported Monday (yesterday):
“I expect we’re going to hear more from Alice Stewart (Santorum spokesperson) apologizing about those remarks. But there will be conspiracy theorists thinking it was some kind of message she was trying to get out or it was really on the mind of the Santorum campaign when they are talking about President Obama,” Kornblut said.
Newsflash to Andrea and Anne and the rest of the mainstream media: It is. Where have you been?
In fact, as a political reporter, for one to have missed this rather salient point, is confounding. It happens to be a major part of every Republican’s “policies”. They are, in fact, running on a 2008 redux of “He’s not like us.”
In case there is any confusion, here is Franklin Graham on this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe claiming that he can’t be sure Obama is a Christian and Obama doesn’t care about Christians being murdered, courtesy of Media Matters:
Graham: Obama seems more concerned about (Muslims) than the Christians that are being murdered in Muslim countries.
Graham then refuses to assert whether or not he thinks the President is a Christian, and relies upon the petulant and much-abused, “You have to ask President Obama….He has said he’s a Christian so I have to assume that he is but the question is what is a Christian….” refuge.
Graham then proceeds to give us a definition of a Christian, which apparently involves getting approval of Franklin Graham. Graham then goes on to suggest that Obama may not have really come to Jesus. The good news is that Graham is sure that Jesus has forgiven him (Franklin) for his sins. This much he DOES know. After hard push back from the Morning Joe panel, Graham then tells us that Islam sees Obama as a son of Islam. Ahhh….Yes, so now we’re impugning the President based on Graham’s feelings about how Islam sees the President. Nice trick.
But if we were to connect this to Santorum’s religious digs at Obama, we’d be “conspiracy theorists”.
Kudos to the MSNBC panel of Morning Joe for trying to force Graham to articulate his fallacious attacks on the President’s religious beliefs. Graham’s duck and dodge was quite the dance under the circumstances.
Franklin Graham is, of course, an evangelical leader of the Right (CEO of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritans Purse — think Palin) and as such, now a leader of the political religious cult referred to as the Republican Party. If he says something, you can bet the self-proclaimed “conservative” candidates (who are actually radical religious activists clinging to Randian economic beliefs in spite of all evidence that they don’t work and were, in fact, nothing but fiction from their birth which leads us to the odd mix of Ayn Rand who hated religion with the Corporate Christians of the Republican Party) will say it or have said it in certain circles.
And of course, Santorum did suggest that Obama’s policies are based on a theology other than the Bible (in his circles, this is a bad thing as he apparently has read our Constitution yet). Last Saturday in Ohio Santorum said this about Obama’s policies, “It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.”
Post 9/11, Graham called Islam a “a very evil and wicked religion” so remind me again why it’s a conspiracy to suggest that Republicans are deliberately using “Islamic” policies in regards to President Obama but they don’t mean it, even though they can’t say for sure if he’s a Christian and they slip up on national TV and say “radical Islamic policies” while one of their leaders, Franklin Graham, says Obama doesn’t care about Christians only Muslims. It’s not as if this were a new Republican attack; in March of last year, Graham suggested that President Obama had invited the Muslim Brotherhood into the US government.
Wow, yeah, this is so tin foily. Gee, whiz the connection is so far from reality. It’s not as if we didn’t see this in 2008 when the lady in the audience called Obama a Muslim after being instructed on this very thought by Fox Republicans and led there by a screeching Sarah Palin. Poor, doddering, confused John McCain had to correct her in order to save what remained of his reputation. Oh, yes.
Tin foil, they say.
If it is a conspiracy to suggest that Santorum (the Dominionist Catholic) actually refers to Obama’s policies as “radical Islamic policies” in private or is oh-so-subtly alluding to that and calling Obama’s religion into question, pray tell me why major news outlets reported on Santorum’s statements in Ohio as just that? Google it. Santorum had to come out and say he’s impugning Obama’s “worldview” not his “faith”.
Or do we have to prove that the religious leaders of the Right run the Republican Party? ABC news gets it. Here’s what ABC wrote about the South Carolina primaries:
With just more than a week before the crucial South Carolina GOP primary, more than 100 conservative Christians and evangelical leaders will gather in Texas this weekend to discuss which of the GOP candidates they will be backing in the race for the White House.
So, the connection between Graham and Santorum and the rest of the Republican Party’s religious attacks on Obama is tenuous tin foil? Not in reality land, it’s not. Ironically, Graham is flip-flopping all over the place in order to make Romney’s Mormonism okay for his flock, suggesting that we are not voting for a “pastor-in-chief”, apparently in spite of all suggestions on Graham’s behalf to the contrary when he is not discussing Mormonism.
Graham was sure today that Santorum is a Christian. He says Santorum’s faith is clear, and he was called out for this double standard by the MSNBC panel. Graham claims he is sure about Santorum’s faith because of his actions and what he stands for. He closed out with “I feel in my heart…. Rick Santorum is a fine man.”
Oh, so it’s Graham’s heart that we are to assume is a directive from God himself, apparently. Graham claims it’s his “business” to know other people’s spiritual positions. You can bet it’s his “business” because he makes a LOT of money spewing hate in the name of Jesus, a sin for which we are assured he has been forgiven.
Phew. So, according to some in the Main Stream Media, it would be a conspiracy for us to believe that Obama’s religion is being questioned by major Republican candidates. How’s that bridge to nowhere looking now?
It’s long past time for the Main Stream Media to stop pretending that Republicans aren’t playing the “Obama’s not like us” card. If they continue this specious game of pandering to the right wing, they need to be called out on it for they are as much to blame for allowing this to continue as the people uttering these transparent, fallacious attacks.
Enough.
Related Posts :
Conservative media bias reared its head today as Franklin Graham was allowed to go on ABC’s This Week to ...
Franklin Graham One Man Jihad Against Freedom of Religion Franklin Graham wants to use democratic pri ...
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham went on Fox News Sunday today, where he continued his one man campaign to dis ...
This morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough added his name to the growing list of conservatives ...
It's an odd coincidence, don't you think, that just in time for the latest debate, Billy Graham de ...
51 Responses to The ‘Conspiracy’ Is Fact: Santorum Booster Franklin Graham Questions Obama’s Faith
Public Service Advertisements
JAnderson
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Billy Graham’s sons are money grubbing, greedy bastards that are more concerned with making themselves rich than actually helping those who need it.
Phil Perspective
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Doesn’t that go for almost all Talibangelical “preachers”?
froggyalley
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 2:46 pm
If the Republicans are saying that Obama is not like them, then that solidifies my decision to support Obama, as disappointed as I have been by his anemic performance for most of his first term.
The Obamas are more like my family than any Republican candidate. Solidly middle-class.
Ingarose
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 3:12 pm
I ‘ditto’ that.
Churchlady320
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 4:22 pm
An excellent first term if you actually read beyond the pundits who are the same people telling you they are “balanced” by giving lots of voices – all the religious right – fair say. Any time you think you see this president negatively, think about where you got the information. Then read more deeply of the strategic ways this administration has done end runs around forty years of RW march toward theocracy and oligarchy. NO one is going to change things overnight, but what has been accomplished is amazing. Even our “own” on the Left have no clue most of the time. So pay attention to sites such as this that give details on policies, not just snark and screed. It matters.
Debra_VS
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Thank you for saying it! I’m tired of people overlooking all that Obama’s administration has done under horrendous circumstances. His first brilliant move: appointing Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State. The SOS is in charge of all foreign policy and diplomatic matters. She’s done an awesome job so that he could focus on domestic issues like health care, job creation, economic recovery, and separation of church and state. And, despite the GOP’s blatant sabotage and his fellow Democrats’ blatant desertion, he’s managed to accomplish a LOT!
Leah L Burton
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Spot on! This needs to be emphasized more often – especially now. It is too easy to follow the “chicken-littles” whose skies are always falling no matter who was in office.
1voice1vote
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 3:19 pm
F. Graham is a charlatan of the first order. He can be counted on to show up in a disaster area, a year later, with his private jet loaded with bibles for the homeless and starving.
I wonder how many homeless Americans would still be sleeping in the streets if the churches opened their doors. Sorry, I forgot the word of God requires a tithing of 10% of income. Sorry, homeless, come back when you can afford to buy a 1-hour service. Pew sitting is tax free, but it is not free-of-charge for admission. It’s what Jesus would do.
Churchlady320
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 4:27 pm
This is what progressive and mainline churches ARE doing – opening their doors to the homeless. Providing food and shelter. But the volume exceeds the capacity. Your snark is just as mindless as the RW. Get over it. Yes – conservative churches largely are NOT opening their doors, but mainline Protestants certainly ARE and don’t proselytize at ALL. They come FROM their values to do outreach and care, they don’t impose dogma on those in need. That is entirely what Graham does – and if you want to know why he shows up now? HE comes under the mandate to provide health care coverage with contraception because he takes YOUR tax money to do his “charity” work. He needs to be stopped because he also uses your money to proselytize. Have the good sense to separate those on your side in the faith community and those wishing your eternal damnation right along with ours because we’re on your side. And BTW – we do it all LEGALLY, thanks.
Chris in Colorado
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Thank-you for your response. Yes it is true, not all churches and people of faith are Women/gay/poor hating hypocrites. just the real loud ones.
1voice1vote
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 6:14 pm
“Yes – conservative churches largely are NOT opening their doors…” Franklin Graham is a conservative church owner who lives large off the photo opportunities his “charitable works” provide for him and his entourage.
I thank you, Churchlady320, and all those “mainline Protestants” that do care for the less privileged. That is what I was taught the Christian faith was all about. Unfortunately, carnival barkers like Graham have huge followings of “Christians” that do not. My “mindless snark” is directed at Christian hypocrites like Graham and company. I mean no offense to those who actually practice the teachings of Jesus. Since we are on the same side, I see no reason that we cannot come together to voice our opposition to Christian frauds like Graham, after all, 2 voices are louder.
And finally, I’m completely in favor of having a line item veto on the federal taxes that my household pays.
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 8:54 pm
If only that were true.
The mainstream churches I’ve had any contact with provide cards for the homeless… giving them directions to a homeless ministry, where they ARE proselytized (not hard sell YET, thankfully).
They started the ministry (by a coalition of churches) so that they wouldn’t have “duplication of effort” and “free up space used by a food closet (stated reasons). Real reason – that way they could give a check to the shelter and not deal with the people (except for the above-mentioned card). The last I heard, most of the funding for the shelter came from grants and not the churches – which is the inverse of what I heard was the original plan.
At least they aren’t outright abusive and high-demand (requiring religious observance/conversion before receiving services), like so many of the more sectarian shelters in this area. They HAVE been targeted for steeplejacking and the steeplejackers have had some success in changing them (they used to be less conservative and didn’t blame the homeless for their situation – that had changed in the last couple of years).
So the mainstream churches in this area as a general rule show the poor and homeless the door… send them elsewhere so that someone else can deal with them.
SinghX
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 9:06 am
Thank you for this insight based upon fact revealed by digging a bit deeper around the edges of the foundation.
…do you remember the uproar in an old, traditional wealthy Phoenix area (around where Cindy McCain’s parents used to own a home) where the local ministries were told to stop feeding the poor at their church because of all the dregs, er ah, homeless that were supposedly wandering “their” streets? (no real legal issues with these folks; it was the fact that they were not living there and therefore…).
That N Phoenix neighborhood has a several large (one has gone mega) mainstream christian denominations along it’s Central Ave corridor (the Temples are a mile or so west) and have served the poor for decades…this is new and an unprecedented twist; I think you’re right in that many of these churches have been steeple-jacked. The fundamentalist bigots are giving those who provide shelter, social justice a very black eye.
A Walkaway
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 11:09 am
It’s a well known fact among poverty researchers that the motivation behind shelters is to get the homeless away from the “nicer areas” and to MANAGE homelessness instead of trying to eliminate it. By managing homelessness, they provide a negative life-example to working people – “If you screw up, this is what happens to you!”, while keeping the reality of homelessness hidden from the general public AND providing just enough assistance to justify their existence. With the exception of the “Housing First” programs (with demonstrated long-term success rates of over 90%), all other programs have success rates of less than 10%, most are under 5%, and the more religious ones… they lie about their successes (especially long-term), but they are in the 1% range or so – low enough to be statistically important.
Some of the churches know this. Others, well, they think they’re doing good, but by what they support they reinforce the “Homeless people are broken and must be fixed, and they brought it on themselves” LIE.
In our city, we had the reputation for a while of being one of the more enlightened cities in the nation when it came to homelessness, and people would come here because they got treated better. The wealthier members of the city, however, finally started griping about “Lowered property values” and those horrible homeless -and the police started cracking down on them. They destroyed many homeless people’s tents (including all of what they had left to their name including IDs and papers for many) and ordered the shelters to restrict them to the shelter grounds. Now this place is just as cruel as the rest of the state.
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:04 pm
Hi there Church Lady,
I know of a Church not far from me who does the same and welcomes all and does “good” works food pantry and other things in the community.
How would you separate the good from the bad? Churches should not enter politics.
Franklin Graham is and obviously making political statements?
Do we demand all churches not have a 501c unless they can PROVE they are being service to their community?
What do we do?
I do not belong to a church. But the church I referenced above is one I would consider if I was a church going person.
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Well, what could be done – the churches can form a non-religious non-profit designated to help people, and obey the same rules of any other non-profit. We should eliminate the “faith-based” programs altogether – because the churches could have done that (form a non-profit for helping people) at any time. Since they insist on it being religious, it’s obviously done so that people know that religion is involved (and thus put pressure on them to convert).
The rules against electioneering and using the pulpit to promote politics should be strongly enforced (people insist that they are, but not from my point of view).
I also like the idea of requiring that a church show that it is a benefit to the community before they can get their tax-free status. Good churches will find that easy to do (like the ‘good-works’ church you mentioned), while the more fundamentalist/dominionist will have a much harder time – and people can easily point out their attempts to, for instance, require conversion before they feed the starving (showing that they aren’t really doing it to benefit society).
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Very accurate observation about Graham (and Samaritan’s purse). There are a few churches that don’t demand money from people. You can tell them because the more fundamentalist/dominionist ones will deride and reject them.
Jesus, by the way, never charged for helping people, nor did he condemn or reject people. His teachings went very much against that sort of thinking (and thus you can understand how I view the fundamentalist/dominionist churches, and the more conservative mainstream ones too).
1voice1vote
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 11:23 pm
“Jesus, by the way, never charged for helping people, nor did he condemn or reject people.”
I know the truth of the teachings, A walkaway.
The truths are universal – peace and love and strength and vision
anything else is, not the way, call it Jesus or any other name
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 11:36 pm
Sorry… misread what you wrote.
C.L.
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Who does Franklin Graham think he is? The sorting hat from the religious version of “Harry Potter?”
The guy’s self-righteous hubris is nauseating.
rod
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 3:28 pm
That Franklin Graham EVIL CREEP and MONEY LOVER is nothing of what Jesus represented to the World. Graham has no shame!!!
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 3:56 pm
You should have seen his dad in younger years. He used to claim he healed people by them touching the TV or the radio. Send money! Thats how he got rich
Churchlady320
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Shiva – NO Billy Graham never did that. It was and is Pat Robertson. Billy had his own problems, but he was never possessed of the belief he is superhuman, could heal, and he does NOT agree with his son on many issues. Get your facts correct – it matters.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Actually we are both wrong, it was Oral Roberts
My mother used to listen to both when I was young. In the 1950′s
Phil Perspective
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Oral Roberts was the clownshow who raised money by saying if he didn’t, for example, raise 5 million by April 1st that God would call him home.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Oral Roberts used to yell at people to put their hands on the radio of TV and he would heal them. A long time ago
Jim Faubel
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 4:05 pm
When the Ayatollah Komanni spouted this kind of crap in Iran, most Americans rightly criticized this kind of rhetoric. Now that the Republican Party has been taken over by our home-grown religious fascists, it’s time again for Americans to speak out against this form of religious hate-mongering.
Diane
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
It’s another jab in the attempt to turn us into a theocracy, with un-Constitutional tests of faith for the President. Call their asses out on this and remind them that the United States of America is a secular democratic republic and the Constitution is a Godless document. Neither God, nor Jesus, nor Allah, nor even Freyja, Mithras, Dambala, Coyote, Kokopelli, Kartikeya or Susanoo for that matter are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Rick Santorum is a traitor and an apostate! Jesus rejected earthly power!
boil
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 5:16 pm
my jesus is bigger than their jesus…. whats next Catholics fighting Protestants in belfast, alabama next?
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 6:08 pm
“Santorum (the Dominionist Catholic)”
Bingo
Chris Matthews said today that he doesn’t want Franklin back on MSNBC
Leah L Burton
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Really? Wow! Now THAT is progress…
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Yea! Good for Tweety! (does he know Franklin if BBF of Palin?) Just sayin’…..
j
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 7:38 pm
The church of the GOP is not my kind of church, I do not want my tax dollars to support it or want the church this bigoted to enjoy a tax exemption,. churches are not supposed to dabble in politics. I grew up in the Church of England and we certainly did not see any of our vicars giving political opinions, or for that matter living in luxury, they were busy tending to their parishoners.
Scorpie
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I am thinking that this tirade of Grahams’ is his idea of payback for not being allowed at that service at the Pentagon a couple of years ago.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I think Graham is part and parcel the same group as Brian Fisher, tony perkins and Rick Sanitarium and the rest of the dominionists.
Phil Perspective
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:10 pm
He is. They’re all part of the same grift, really. Frankie’s old man hid his bigotry fairly well. Frankie, not so much.
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Also his comment that POTUS was “Letting” “Christians” be killed? Ummm usually when there is a uprising in any country the State dept tells people to leave…I don’t think that extends to churches but common sense… would be shut the church and stay home!
WTF is wrong with these people? They choose to live in a Muslim country and the laws must bend for them?
He is really off base and its the whole “he’s not like us Canard” from his BFF Palin…screw them!
Oh yea, Boycott Samaritan’s purse!!!
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:29 pm
I think they were referring to the people who were citizens of those countries but were Christian, and were killed. It’s a real problem.
What he’s NOT saying is that the Christians and Muslims got along fine until the “Good Christians” came along and stirred up the pot and inflamed Muslim prejudices (I recognize that Christians have them too). So in a very real sense, they bear responsibility for the deaths.
If the people were missionaries… and as offensive as missionaries area almost always are (only a handful throughout history were NOT), then I’d say that they brought it all down on themselves.
SinghX
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 9:22 am
…”What he’s NOT saying is that the Christians and Muslims got along fine until the “Good Christians” came along and stirred up the pot and inflamed Muslim prejudices …
And what we are forgetting is that Hitler (sorry I have to go their for historical purposes) sent agitators to the middle east and India to stir up the religious prejudices to see what advantages he would have in those regions…
Reynardine
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 9:51 am
He did do exactly that. To this day, a great many people that have never seen a Jew hate them; in the British Mandate of Palestine he was trying to engineer genocide; his agents first stirred up Taliban-type sentiments in the border regions of what was then India, with the result that the Faquir of Ipi and other such leaders were committing unspeakable atrocities on women and children, not only of colonials but of native families tarred as “Westernizers”; the people of Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Kabardino- Balkash were promised “liberation” for insurrection against Soviet rule, which only got them deported to Siberia. Yet surely in the last case, and likely in most of the others, their reward would have been “deportation” of a worse kind: the kind from which no one comes back, except as bars of soap.
A Walkaway
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Very VERY interesting. I knew that the Nazis were very involved in those regions, and that they created a lot of hardship and misery (and I’d read several times that Palestine had supported Hitler, but don’t know the veracity of that)… but not to the depth it now looks like they were.
(Side note: they were also a big headache for archaeology… trying to “prove” their ideologies instead of doing REAL science.)
A Walkaway
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Boycott ALL of the bad charities.
Here’s a list a friend of mine worked up some time ago:
nola-biglist.blogspot.com...
It’s got both good and bad ones listed – the bad list is pretty revealing.
Shiva (Moderator)
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Thats a good bookmark there
Reynardine
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:35 pm
The truth about Corporate Christians, I think, is that at least in the top echelons, the religion is feigned. It is, however, promoted among “the little people” because ignorance, fear, superstition, and a profound sense of their own unworth make them so obedient and self-abnegating. Clearly, this tyranny in the making will be plowed under and sown with salt by global competitors if the technocracy thinks the universe is geocentric and the earth is six thousand years old; similarly, the Dominionist shepherds (who keep sheep specifically so their masters can fleece and eat them) must believe their own carp just enough to be convincing but not so much they lose their grip on their true priority, which is keeping society running safely for the corporate royalty. Only the very top and the very bottom are not engaging in “doublethink”. As for the silvery-laughter pundits, they likely know the conspiracy does exist at the same time they find it useful to pretend it doesn’t. Because they are practicing doublethink with full awareness, I suspect that, in the event of a Friedmanist/Dominionist takeover, they’ll find themselves facing a Night of the Long Knives instead of the sinecure they expected. You know what Long John Silver said: Dead men tell no tales.
A Walkaway
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 10:20 am
I happen to know that in the cases of some of the top echelon, they are true believers, although the cognitive dissonance must be unbelievable.
One of the leaders (in Florida) in the 70s through the 90s wasn’t a believer – according to a priest I used to know, he’d openly brag about how he knew what he preached was bullshit in the monthly ecumenical clergy meetings and how much money it brought in. His son, however (a leader although not often mentioned) is a true believer – I know a couple of people who knew him intimately.
It seems that the first generation were hypocrites of the first water, feigning it. The second generation actually started buying what they preached.
(That doesn’t mean they both weren’t nutcases, however.)
Dan Skinner
Feb. 21st, 2012 at 9:56 pm
I think all republicans drank something at a convention that made them all crazy… now there’s a conspiracy theory…
Enjay in E MT
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 1:13 am
Once again – we should be cursing King George Bush!
In Jan. 2001, King George created the Office of Faith Based & Community Initiatives with $8B for non-government community organizations (think Boys & Girls Clubs, community gardens, food bank, battered women’s’ shelter) and Faith Based (Religious) organizations like soup kitchens, homeless shelters, adoption programs and perhaps local medical clinics.
Now I haven’t done a lot of research into the failures & successes of the OFBCI, which I’m sure there are both. One of the failures brought to the forefront are (some) OFBCI recipients were discriminating against different religious groups, as well as GLBT, based on their doctrines. My understanding is IF a recipient is not serving the community equally & fairly – they lose their government funding.
President Obama has re-titled the OFBCI to “Faith Based & Neighborhood Partnerships” and apparently made it clear they cannot discriminate on race, sexual orientation, religion, etc.
Several times Newt has stated Obama is ending the MA Catholic Adoption program. No, Obama is NOT! The US Catholic Adoption org will not allow same-sex couples to adopt (based on their doctrines) and therefore no longer receive funds. Remember Catholic Charities survived for generations without US TAXPAYER support. They can continue to operate under their own rules – with their own funding, not OURS.
I believe, and willing to admit I might be wrong, but much of this so-called, “War on Religion” is blowback from the President getting tough on those Faith Based groups who want $$ from our government coffers, while denying services to those they believe are less than deserving.
A Walkaway
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 4:39 pm
I am not so sure that President Obama did away with the employment discrimination in favor of church members rule (allowing faith-based groups to discriminate against those people that don’t go to their church or follow the dictates of their religion, even if the position was strictly non-clergy or connected to church stuff). I do know that as of a couple of years ago, discrimination in services provided was fairly common, and proselytizing – even hard sell/high demand – of people receiving services from federally-funded “faith-based” groups was very common.
Jolly Roger
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 5:23 am
Billy seems like a decent human being. None of that rubbed off on his Jesusistani asshat of a son, though.
sierra
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 10:43 am
Graham is an evil hearted charlatan.
Lynda Harrison
Feb. 22nd, 2012 at 3:28 pm
So Ayatollah Santorum questions the President’s faith . . . I would question Santorum’s honesty and allegiance to his country in addition to the intelligence of those who buy into his warped theories.