I have voted for the full Democratic ticket in every general election
since 1972, when I was first eligible to vote in a general election. While
I was physically able, I attended my Democratic precinct caucus and several
times I was selected to go on to my county Democratic convention. I was not
physically able to do so this year, but I did what I could to support the
nomination of Sen. Barack Obama. It was not much, but it was everything I
could do within my physical and financial limitations.
Foolish as it seems now, I believed in change, I believed in hope, and I
believed in Sen. Obama.
But no more.
Since Sen. Clinton conceded that Obama had the delegates to win the
Democratic presidential nomination Obama and his camp have made a series of
disquieting moves which did raise the question of whether Obama really was
change we could believe in. Obama voted to absolve telecommunication
companies from liability for helping to spy on Americans. He received with
equanimity approaching an endorsement, the Supreme Court decision that
created a radical new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, stripping local
government of the right to limit gun violence. Several pronouncements
seemed to suggest that Obama's promise to remove US troops from Iraq was
contingent on his findings on a hastily arranged world tour this summer.
It was as if he were taking lessons in spinelessness from Speaker of the
House Pelosi.
The deal breaker was Obama's promise to refurbish and expand Bush's
policy of public funding for religious organizations, usually called
"faith-based initiatives."
Public funding of churches is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment's
prohibition on the establishment of religion. But of course to Bush and
Bush's Supreme Court, the Constitution is no bar to political
expediency.
A commitment to change would surely require that this affront to
conscience would be utterly and completely abolished. And what is hope if
the government is committed to funding religious persecution?
Naturally Obama promised his plans would contain certain safeguards. He
said faith-based organization who receive government funds would not be
allowed to discriminate in staffing or providing assistance and could not
use government funded programs to proselytize. The 1st Amendment, however,
does not permit establishment of religions that behave themselves. It
provides an absolute prohibition on government support of religion.
Anyone who just wants to help people, who does not want to discriminate in
staffing, who does not plan to use government funding to persecute people or
discriminate against people, and who will not use a publicly funded program
to proselytize can form a non-profit, secular organization and contract with
the government to provide services. Even for-profit businesses who agree to
nondiscrimination may do the same thing.
So what does the "faith" in "faith-based initiatives" mean? If, as Obama
claims, a faith-based organization will not be allowed to discriminate in
favor of the faithful in staffing and provision of services and if they will
use the opportunity of a government contract to spread their faith, why do
they have to have a "faith"-based organization? Plenty of eleemosynary
organizations provide services on the public dime without having to claim
they are "faith-based."
Pretty clearly people who are moved to do good works do not have to call
themselves "faith-based" unless they intend to persecute the people their
faith tells them need to be persecuted and to try to ensnare helpless people
in that faith. People in need should never have to choose between their
consciences and a bowl of rice, and certainly not when that rice is provided
by the
USDA.
In fly-over country, where school boards vote to teach "Intelligence
Design" and mandate student prayers, these programs are not going to receive
critical scrutiny, even if big-city Unitarians can be observed adhering
strictly to the guidelines for nondiscrimination. But it is precisely in
East Jesus, Texas that poor and unfortunate who are persecuted by Christian
sects need protection from that persecution. Just as "separate, but equal"
is a contraction in terms because separate never is equal, "faith"-based
programs are inherently discriminatory. Faith requires the persecution of
infidels and heretics and demands promulgation of the faith. No program can
be both nondiscriminatory and faith-based.
I have to wonder who Obama thought this pandering will please. It is not
going to satisfy the religious right who will vote in this election
according to race. It is certain to enrage anyone who believes in personal
liberty and the equal protection of the law. Who did Obama hope to buy with
this proposed program?
I recant my endorsement of Obama, which was made long before the outcome
of the primaries and caucus was certain. I regret it. I repudiated it
utterly. All I can say in defense of it is that anyone who thinks Sen.
Clinton would have done better has not paid attention to the strategy of her
failed campaign.
Now it is clear Bush will get his third term whether it is called Obama
or McCain.
I live in Texas. It does not matter whom I vote for at the top of the
ticket. Some polls have Obama as close as 10 points in Texas, but in the
real world, there is no chance of Obama's carrying Texas. So refusing to
vote for Obama is not enough.
This year I will vote for no Democrat for any office.
Down ticket Democrats have to know after we were given the spineless
Democratic Congress that would not cut off funding for Bush's war and after
Obama's betrayal of hope, they need to do better next time. They need to
put up a slate of people who really stand for change and hope, and who still
will stand for change and hope when the nominating process is over.
