Real Dangers of Obama’s Revamped Faith-Based Programs
I usually don’t blog here at all, but it’s time for me to toss in my two cents over the issue of Obama revamping the faith-based program first founded by Bush. Recently in news, President Obama signed an executive order to establish a revamped White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
But as we know, while President Obama speaks in the language of unity and strength in diversity, he remains a radical liberal. In his inaugrational speech, he said that America is a nation of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-believers. But what does it mean when addressing the revamped White House Office on faith-based programs?
The most contentious issue surrounding the updated office, potential restrictions on the hiring practices of religious groups that receive taxpayer dollars, will undergo a thorough legal review before Obama makes a decision on hiring guidelines.
If the religious organizations receive federal money, will that mean they have to compromise on hiring workers who may not share their religious beliefs? Does that an evaneglical organization which receives federal money will have to hire homosexuals or workers whose religions are in sharp contrast with the aforementioned organization’s religious tenets? Obama professes to be a Christian, but yet, he never demonstrates true Christian principles on touchy subjects like abortion. So, it’s important to see what kind of hiring guidelines Obama will establish in regards to faith-based programs.
Obama’s advisers want to be certain tax dollars sent to the faith-based social service groups are being used for secular purposes, such as to feeding the hungry or housing the homeless — not for religious evangelism. The administration doesn’t want to be perceived as managing the groups yet does want transparency and accountability.
Herein lies the main problem. There are some faith-based programs that use social services as a means of preaching the message of salvation through Jesus Christ’s atoned blood on the Cross for our sins. By avoiding to preach the Gospel and offering social services at the same time really defeats the main goal of such programs. And they are more likely to be excluded from receiving any sort of federal money.
If Obama professes to be a Christian, then how can he tell Christian organizations to shut up on offering the free gift of God while at the same time sending off people with cookies on way to Hell? Yes, that’s right you heard it correctly, I do believe there is a literal place called Hell, and that’s for people who have rejected God’s love through Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. I know that it’s a touchy subject, but I believe in being blunt here. Religious evangelism is an imporant part of many Christian organizations.
I thin it’s only fair to let faith-based programs do their work without having to compromise their religious principles. After all, as a born-again Christian, it pains me to pay taxes to federal government which has just lifted off bans on providing federal funding to agencies that promote abortion aboard. In short, I’ve just paid taxes so that an unborn baby can be murdered at will, without giving it a chance to live a life full of potential possibilities. There you go.
To be perfectly honest, it seems to me that Obama is using federal money as a means of enforcing his idea of religious unity on all faith-based organizations. However, to be fair, if any organization receives some sort of federal money, there would have to be some strings attached to it, after all, there’s no such thing as a free ride. But avoiding religious evangelism? Come on.
How can Obama call for accountability and transparency if he nominates tax cheats and display flawed moral judgments on the issues like abortion? But I guess the only thing Obama can say is, “I won.” Yeah, right.
Cross-posted at Deaf Conservative’s Domain blog