CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama's plan for increasing Faith Based Initiatives
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's plan for increasing Faith Based Initiatives

post #1 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
Obama's stance on increasing the role churches play in programs at the grass-roots level really turned me off when I heard about it, but I've got a thought tumbling around in my head that it really won't be so bad.

If you haven't read up on what he wants to do, Hemant Mehta over at The Friendly Atheist has an excellent writeup on what's been going on, and the reactions.

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/07/0...d-initiatives/

My thinking is basically this. Obama loves the idea of local community groups stepping up and helping out their communities. Can't argue with that. People should start by helping the people they know, where they can make the most impact. I can't back this up with any data, but I would guess that the lion's share of existing community groups with any influence are churches, or church-related organizations.

So Obama wants to leverage existing groups to institute programs at the local level. I have a problem on a personal level that those groups are churches, but I'm backing off of my thinking that the plan is harmful the way straight religion is harmful.

Religion itself is largely unassailable in the U.S. at the moment. The best a church/state separatist like myself can do is oppose the encroachment of religion into government and schools. But what about the other way around? Obama's plan is fairly strict in its outline, provides money only for secular programs, and provides some controls to prevent those groups from proselytizing and discrimination.

Shouldn't the encroachment of secularism into religions be encouraged? I'm all for taking any opportunity to take the teeth out of religion. If receiving government money is contingent on providing secular programs, isn't that better than how Bush used the faith-based programs?

I realize that none of this is ideal. Ideally, for me at least, there would be no role for churches in implementing public policy. But I simply think that there are not enough secular organizations to make a difference at a local level. There is also bound to be abuse, and keeping an eye out to make sure that those local churches aren't using money for proselytizing is a nightmare. But I love, love, love the idea of the secular trojan horse invading the religious institutions in America.

Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is pandering, but I think if you're going to pander, this is the way to do it.
Reply
post #2 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:30pm
Thanks for posting this, LM. I agree that it's pandering, and I would be lying if I said I didn't find this a bit disappointing, but that link you posted really helped to put it all in perspective. Very much appreciated.
Reply
post #3 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:36pm
He can pander all he wants, as long as he doesn't actually do anything to favour religion. And as far as I can tell, he isn't. I think Faith-based Initiative is a misleading term, since all this does is put religious charities in the same game as non-religious charities. I've read the guidelines under which churches can benefit from this, and those guidelines pretty much reduce a church to a building where these charitable actions take place.

I'm told these guidelines exist currently under the Bush Administration as well. I'd be surprised if they're being adhered to though, because the Bush Administration simply cannot be trusted to do anything other than use your government as a tool for getting Republicans elected. Rather than, say, running the country. But if they are being adhered to, that's cool.
Reply
post #4 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:40pm
I applaud this, and it shows Obama being smarter than previous Democratic presidential candidates about reaching out to voters who in the end, might have more in common with his values than some traditional Republican politicians. Bravo.
Reply
post #5 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker monkey View Post
I realize that none of this is ideal. Ideally, for me at least, there would be no role for churches in implementing public policy. But I simply think that there are not enough secular organizations to make a difference at a local level. There is also bound to be abuse, and keeping an eye out to make sure that those local churches aren't using money for proselytizing is a nightmare. But I love, love, love the idea of the secular trojan horse invading the religious institutions in America.

Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is pandering, but I think if you're going to pander, this is the way to do it.
Yeah, I agree. I'd love to see them become more "charitable organization-based initiatives" that allow for secular groups to participate, but I like that he'd at least be restricting the funds to non-proselytizing aspects of the religious charities.

I can't fault him too much for wanting to maintain the programs, in general. The guy's worked in low-income neighborhoods and realizes that, as you mentioned, the secular groups just aren't there to fund. Religious groups do a lot of charity work in poor neighborhoods, and you'd potentially be punishing the recipients of this work by stripping it simply due to where it's coming from.

Incidentally, would it be that difficult to expand the programs to encompass secular charitable organizations? Does it get too complicated in terms of what groups might qualify and what counts as "charity work?"

EDIT: Hadn't read Seabass' post. So these initiatives already applied for secular organizations, and Bush simply expanded them to include religious organizations? Guess I was unclear on that.
Reply
post #6 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:49pm
Yay for progress, yeah...

All you'd have to do is convert so Jesus can pay for your groceries...
Reply
post #7 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:54pm
Ignore this post. It never happened.
Reply
post #8 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:54pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I applaud this, and it shows Obama being smarter than previous Democratic presidential candidates about reaching out to voters who in the end, might have more in common with his values than some traditional Republican politicians. Bravo.
That's kind of what I think. A more combative Dem may have called for dismantling the program, and lost some "value voters" in the process.

From what I understand, churches always have been able to do the same essential thing by setting up a different arm that handles charity, and keeping the money separate. So even if the program was dismantled, groups related to the churches could keep receiving money for charitable programs.

This is stirring up some trouble with hard-core atheists, but I hope it is not a deal-breaker for those who see it as unconscionable.
Reply
post #9 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
Yeah, I agree. I'd love to see them become more "charitable organization-based initiatives" that allow for secular groups to participate, but I like that he'd at least be restricting the funds to non-proselytizing aspects of the religious charities.

I can't fault him too much for wanting to maintain the programs, in general. The guy's worked in low-income neighborhoods and realizes that, as you mentioned, the secular groups just aren't there to fund. Religious groups do a lot of charity work in poor neighborhoods, and you'd potentially be punishing the recipients of this work by stripping it simply due to where it's coming from.

Incidentally, would it be that difficult to expand the programs to encompass secular charitable organizations? Does it get too complicated in terms of what groups might qualify and what counts as "charity work?"

What secular charitable organizations are there? Goodwill, and Salvation Army are religious groups. When I was doing Church charity work in Compton in the med 90s. The Church Charity networks were really impressive. So why not use them.
Reply
post #10 of 39
7/2/08 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreary louse View Post
Yay for progress, yeah...

All you'd have to do is convert so Jesus can pay for your groceries...
If that were the case, these people should have their grant revoked. No proselytizing through federally funded charities, no religious discrimination.

In theory. The Bush Administration simply cannot be trusted, it remains to be seen if the next one can be. I predict a McCain victory, so I have my doubts.
Reply
post #11 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker monkey View Post
This is stirring up some trouble with hard-core atheists, but I hope it is not a deal-breaker for those who see it as unconscionable.
How is helping to feed, cloth, and educate poor people unconscionable. If you don't like the way they are doing something go set up your own movement, and compete with them.
Reply
post #12 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:01pm
Like any extreme that ruins it for the rest. Hard core atheists will lose their shit at any mention of god no matter what the intentions are.
Reply
post #13 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
If that were the case, these people should have their grant revoked. No proselytizing through federally funded charities, no religious discrimination.

In theory. The Bush Administration simply cannot be trusted, it remains to be seen if the next one can be. I predict a McCain victory, so I have my doubts.
that is not how most Churches operate anyways. Besides if Jesus is not your thing there is always Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha.
Reply
post #14 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Like any extreme that ruins it for the rest. Hard core atheists will lose their shit at any mention of god no matter what the intentions are.
Are there any atheist organizations for charity work? Not secular organizations, that's different.
Reply
post #15 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Like any extreme that ruins it for the rest. Hard core atheists will lose their shit at any mention of god no matter what the intentions are.
Did you just say "god"? Them's fightin' words mister.

...Sorry, I'm a recovering extreme atheist. I'm trying to make the move from overt activism to stealth missions.
Reply
post #16 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
Are there any atheist organizations for charity work? Not secular organizations, that's different.
Other than ones that will sue at the drop of a hat. I have no idea.
Reply
post #17 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Other than ones that will sue at the drop of a hat. I have no idea.
Pretty much. Unless it is some kind of anti-defamation group, there really aren't much in the way of specifically atheist organizations. My inkling is that after about, say, one meeting they'd kind of be out of things to talk about.
Reply
post #18 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:55pm
Good post and great responses. I was hoping someone was going to mention this issue.

I do have a problem with this plan, however.

As described in the link above, Obama wishes to give taxpayer money to faith-based charitable organizations to create secular programming to help people in need.

It sounds admirable, but there's something really wrong here.

First, the cynic and skeptic in me wonders if these faith-based organizations could be trusted with this money. Case in point, a church brings in a group of homeless people to feed them. Not a religious thing in that and a very great thing they are doing. But, off to the side, separate from the soup line, there is a large group of people (including those homeless people invited to the soup line) who are participating in a Bible study session or a prayer meeting.

Now, I understand that it would be someone's choice to participate in this activity, but the fact that the taxpayer money was used to create the opportunity for this meeting could take away that secular aspect of the program itself.

Also, what if these tax paid events are used as "recruitment" tools of said organization? What if it gets people involved into church activities or changes someone's faith?

These are some tricky questions and before I would even remotely feel comfortable with this plan... I'd like to see what kind of oversight this program has.

Also, Lurker, you said...

Quote:
Shouldn't the encroachment of secularism into religions be encouraged? I'm all for taking any opportunity to take the teeth out of religion. If receiving government money is contingent on providing secular programs, isn't that better than how Bush used the faith-based programs?
If you want to have separation of church and state, it has to be both ways. I'm not a religious person at all, but I would not want my government getting involved in church business just like I don't want this country's churches getting involved with the government. It's a two way street.
Reply
post #19 of 39
7/2/08 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
Now, I understand that it would be someone's choice to participate in this activity, but the fact that the taxpayer money was used to create the opportunity for this meeting could take away that secular aspect of the program itself.
So if I go vote at a Church, and then notice their calendar shows there's confessions 30 minutes later and participate, would that fall under that category.

I think "creating the opportunity" is kind of a vague and broad statement. Also, there are many examples of religious organizations that do charity work while not proselytizing ... maybe you should look those up and see if they work or not.
Reply
post #20 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:08pm
Of course religious charity work is partly used to convert people. As long as they aren't overtly restricting the services offered to those who participate in prayer groups or whatever, it's more or less kosher. If you feel obliged to participate in such a program because of where the charity is coming from, that's your decision. If you further decide that they've got things pretty much right, then that's you again. Go ahead and give Jesus a big smooch from me.

If a group is expressly using it as a recruiting tool, though, that's not kosher.
Reply
post #21 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
So if I go vote at a Church, and then notice their calendar shows there's confessions 30 minutes later and participate, would that fall under that category.

I think "creating the opportunity" is kind of a vague and broad statement. Also, there are many examples of religious organizations that do charity work while not proselytizing ... maybe you should look those up and see if they work or not.
Well, if it was up to me, you wouldn't be voting in a church to begin with.

Last year, the U.S. District Court ruled against a man who believed that his civil rights were violated because he entered a church to vote and he believed was pressured by that church to vote for pro-life candidates because of the banners that they had posted around the polling station.

That was an incorrect ruling, but you aren't going to see too many people side with atheists, humanists, or freethinkers in this political climate.
Reply
post #22 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Of course religious charity work is partly used to convert people. As long as they aren't overtly restricting the services offered to those who participate in prayer groups or whatever, it's more or less kosher. If you feel obliged to participate in such a program because of where the charity is coming from, that's your decision. If you further decide that they've got things pretty much right, then that's you again. Go ahead and give Jesus a big smooch from me.

If a group is expressly using it as a recruiting tool, though, that's not kosher.
Again, that's fine if the church is using their own donated funds, but with government taxpayer monies it comes off as a little suspicious. It almost sounds to me that the government is giving these churches a way to help people, but also ignoring the fact that their services may open a backdoor to converting people or bringing people to join a certain church (which can benefit that church in many ways). That's something the government shouldn't be part of.
Reply
post #23 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:25pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
If you want to have separation of church and state, it has to be both ways. I'm not a religious person at all, but I would not want my government getting involved in church business just like I don't want this country's churches getting involved with the government. It's a two way street.
We essentially agree on that point. I'm idealistically opposed to the idea of our government giving *any* taxpayer money to religious groups. So I'd rather see the "faith-based initiative" become a non-issue. But since it's happening, what I'm saying is that I'm glad that secularism will creep into the equation as part of the deal.

Like I said, nothing about the situation is ideal...but that's part of the charm for me. Right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation are up in arms because this program will cause the churches involved to "lose its ability to preserve its faith-based character through maintaining hiring standards consistent with its mission. It could be forced to hire an atheist.". Left wing organizations are upset at the blurring of church v. state. I love it when something makes those on both sides of an issue upset. When you can't either side of the extremists to agree with you, you're on the right track.
Reply
post #24 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lurker monkey View Post
We essentially agree on that point. I'm idealistically opposed to the idea of our government giving *any* taxpayer money to religious groups. So I'd rather see the "faith-based initiative" become a non-issue. But since it's happening, what I'm saying is that I'm glad that secularism will creep into the equation as part of the deal.

Like I said, nothing about the situation is ideal...but that's part of the charm for me. Right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation are up in arms because this program will cause the churches involved to "lose its ability to preserve its faith-based character through maintaining hiring standards consistent with its mission. It could be forced to hire an atheist.". Left wing organizations are upset at the blurring of church v. state. I love it when something makes those on both sides of an issue upset. When you can't either side of the extremists to agree with you, you're on the right track.

I understand your point and I do think its a good one. It's just that this idea of faith-based organizations creating a secular message seems to me like it could be something that they have adverse feelings toward and could cut corners with the rules in order to get their message across.

I'm not totally cynical of American churches and I do think that they can do good things without having their core message, but I would think something like this would really upset them because they would be doing good without doing good. The whole point of Evangelicalism is to "spread the word" per se. Without that element, it could (and I would hope not) take away from their ability to truly help people.

If right wing org's like Heritage bitch about this, I gotta wonder how churches would take it.
Reply
post #25 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Of course religious charity work is partly used to convert people.
I'm not sure that's always true. Take American Jewish World Service, for instance. It obviously has religious ties (says so right in the name), but it doesn't push a religious agenda on the people it helps. In fact, here's a note from their funding request sheet:

Quote:
Common reasons why AJWS is not able to fund projects:
1) The work of the organization requesting funds is outside AJWS’ funding guidelines.
2) AJWS will not fund projects outside our geographic priority areas (listed above).
3) AJWS will not fund projects that include proselytizing activities.
4) AJWS will not fund individuals, orphanages, political parties, hospitals, private enterprises, or government structures.
While non-Christian religious charities are certainly outnumbered in this country, I'd guess that many of them are more about people simply acting on the basis of belief rather than pushing an agenda. I couldn't find a major Buddhist charitable organization in the U.S. on google, and I don't have time to do further research, but I suspect that any such organization wouldn't proselytize directly or even directly, since Buddhism (like many forms of Judaism) is not focused on conversion.

I suspect even many Christian charities probably come by their charity honestly without the ulterior motive of conversion.
Reply
post #26 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:53pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
If right wing org's like Heritage bitch about this, I gotta wonder how churches would take it.
That's the beauty, as I see it. Churches who are actually interested in doing good for the sake of actually helping people won't care. Evangelicals will get their panties in a twist...which is great. And if they are too upset about it to take the money, that money will go to other groups, which will, Jebus willing, help to undermine the zealots.

I have no doubt that there will be much rule-breaking and corner-cutting by those unwilling to take the secular road that they're supposed to take, but then some volunteer, some teenage idealist, will see the lengths and depths a zealous evangelical will go to in order to get the "soul saving" message out to the the great unwashed heathen biomass...and it might not sit well. That queasy feeling where you find out that a church would rather have another believer than a healthy community is the first step towards the light.
Reply
post #27 of 39
7/2/08 at 5:53pm
Catholics Charities is a good example, and from the goals of the organization they are doing the work they believe their religion expects from them. Not all Christian denominations measure everything in the amount of converts.
Reply
post #28 of 39
7/2/08 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
Catholics Charities is a good example, and from the goals of the organization they are doing the work they believe their religion expects from them. Not all Christian denominations measure everything in the amount of converts.
Didn't say anything of the sort. I never even said seeking conversions was a negative thing, just that extorting them from people by withholding services that are supposed to be generally available would be.

Really, why wouldn't a religious charity use the opportunity to expose more people to their beliefs? If you honestly believe in them, wouldn't you consider it an added service to the people to point them toward the right path?

Of course, the problem is that pointing can easily become nudging, which can quickly become shoving. But if all they're doing is talking or pointing, I think free speech says that you have to let them, but no one has to listen.
Reply
post #29 of 39
7/2/08 at 6:18pm
I have absolutely no problem with this, but I would like to see a corollary measure: cracking down on the tax-exempt status of churches that use their pulpit to push a political message. Fuck that.
Reply
post #30 of 39
7/2/08 at 6:20pm
I wasn't responding to your post, but to this;

Quote:
I'm not totally cynical of American churches and I do think that they can do good things without having their core message, but I would think something like this would really upset them because they would be doing good without doing good. The whole point of Evangelicalism is to "spread the word" per se. Without that element, it could (and I would hope not) take away from their ability to truly help people.
In traditional Christianity, feeding and clothing the poor, housing the homeless, etc. is "doing good". The concept that it is "good not doing good" (???) is a rather more narrow and modern one in my view.
Reply
post #31 of 39
7/2/08 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I wasn't responding to your post, but to this;



In traditional Christianity, feeding and clothing the poor, housing the homeless, etc. is "doing good". The concept that it is "good not doing good" (???) is a rather more narrow and modern one in my view.
The point I made was that the help that churches do today is two fold... help the disadvantaged and to preach about their faith to people who don't believe in it.

It has been going on since the formation of Christianity, commented in the Bible, and currently practiced by churches all across America here and certainly abroad.
Reply
post #32 of 39
7/2/08 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
Really, why wouldn't a religious charity use the opportunity to expose more people to their beliefs? If you honestly believe in them, wouldn't you consider it an added service to the people to point them toward the right path?
If the religion, itself, doesn't make conversion a goal, why would the charity? See the Wiki entry on "proselytizing." Highlights from the "Other Religions" section:

Quote:
Unlike in the Hellenistic era, in the modern era most branches of Judaism do not actively proselytize to non-Jews.

Indian religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism are largely pluralistic. Hinduism as placing faith in a Vedic proclamation which states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it as many".

The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly pointed out that any attempt to convert individuals from their beliefs is not only non-Buddhist, but abusive: the identification of evangelism as an expression of compassion is considered to be false, and indeed the idea that Buddhism is the one true path is likewise false for Buddhists.
I'm not saying that any of these represent a big presence in the U.S., but if you can accept that entire religions have no problem doing good for others without expecting them to take on the faith, it shouldn't be too hard to accept that individual Christian organizations can put aside "The Great Commission of Jesus" to aid the poor without a blatant or hidden agenda of conversion.

It works both ways. Some hardcore atheists might think that the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't think it follows that if one were to work at a homeless shelter, he'd necessarily be doing it with the idea that some homeless Christian might see the error of his irrational, theistic ways. He might be doing it because it's a good thing to do, no agenda required.
Reply
post #33 of 39
7/2/08 at 7:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
The point I made was that the help that churches do today is two fold... help the disadvantaged and to preach about their faith to people who don't believe in it.

It has been going on since the formation of Christianity, commented in the Bible, and currently practiced by churches all across America here and certainly abroad.
But most Christian charities are done to do good towards the world, and don't have to be tied to an explicit evangelism effort. Even more, there is theology that sees "good works" as a form of evangelism itself.

What you said before sounds a bit like what the more fundamentalist organizations (and to be quite honest, not the ones with the biggest charity efforts) that consider "good works" without evangelism/recruitment a wasted effort. I've heard people criticizing temporal efforts to help others when their salvation of their soul is the main and only concern. This idea is not really compatible even with early interpretations of the New Testament.
Reply
post #34 of 39
7/2/08 at 7:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
If the religion, itself, doesn't make conversion a goal, why would the charity? See the Wiki entry on "proselytizing." Highlights from the "Other Religions" section:



I'm not saying that any of these represent a big presence in the U.S., but if you can accept that entire religions have no problem doing good for others without expecting them to take on the faith, it shouldn't be too hard to accept that individual Christian organizations can put aside "The Great Commission of Jesus" to aid the poor without a blatant or hidden agenda of conversion.

It works both ways. Some hardcore atheists might think that the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't think it follows that if one were to work at a homeless shelter, he'd necessarily be doing it with the idea that some homeless Christian might see the error of his irrational, theistic ways. He might be doing it because it's a good thing to do, no agenda required.
Really the only point I was trying to make was that you can "try to convert" people without being a dick about it. Many atheists would jump at any chance to convince a Christian of their ways, and while this may not be a "conversion" per se, it's the same principle; if you believe something to be true and convince someone else of its correctness, you probably think you did something good. To be indifferent to such an opportunity just seems weird to me; I feel like I'm King Shit of Awesomberland every time I convince someone to give Battlestar Galactica a chance.
Reply
post #35 of 39
7/2/08 at 11:07pm
As a "hardcore" atheist, as long as there's a modicum of oversite I like this plan. Helping people is good.
Reply
post #36 of 39
7/3/08 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I have absolutely no problem with this, but I would like to see a corollary measure: cracking down on the tax-exempt status of churches that use their pulpit to push a political message. Fuck that.
I don't have a problem with this, but I'm betting there are more churches that lean to the left than to the right. After all, Bill Clinton got elected in part by making appearances in African-American southern churches. He wore the title of First Black President until he started race-baiting in the Carolinas during the last series of primaries.

Sauce for the goose....
Reply
post #37 of 39
7/3/08 at 2:13pm
This is entirely consistent with who Obama is. The fact that he is such a strong supporter of the Constitution is a good sign that he can navigate these murky waters between church and state.
Reply
post #38 of 39
7/3/08 at 2:16pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector View Post
I don't have a problem with this, but I'm betting there are more churches that lean to the left than to the right. After all, Bill Clinton got elected in part by making appearances in African-American southern churches. He wore the title of First Black President until he started race-baiting in the Carolinas during the last series of primaries.

Sauce for the goose....
I think a large percentage lean left as well, but I agree that there should be a smackdown on churches that whore around with politics. If a few of them started losing their tax exempt status as a result (Cornerstone Church <fingers crossed>) of their political machinations, it would please me greatly.

Does anyone know if this has happened at all in recent history? Has a modern church ever lost its tax exempt status because of preaching politics?
Reply
post #39 of 39
7/3/08 at 2:34pm
Well if any of you leftest atheist want to join in the fun you can always join Unitarian Universalism, or the Religious Society of Friends(branch Hicksite) also known as Quakers(Friends General Conference (FGC)). If you belong to Amnesty International, Greenpeace, OXFAM, Peace Action, or WILPF you may already be a member of FGC.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Obama's plan for increasing Faith Based Initiatives