Oh, Denny.

I want to support him.

Then do.

I just don't know who he is.  
And keep in mind, I always vote straight Dem ticket, regardless who's on the ticket.  I have voted for Obama.  Now, just tell me who he is!

Plenty of info out there, go get it.  I'm not interested in trying to sway perpetual naysayers.  It's like pouring water into sand.

On the one hand, Obama's aim is to include church groups -- and remember, he's often talked about his own involvement with churches as a community organizer in Chicago -- and to cement an image with most Americans as a believer in traditional values. On the other hand, many on the left could be taken aback by this expansion of public money going to religious organizations.

From the speech:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

Eric Kleefeld - Obama Speech: We Can Expand Faith-Based Charities And Separate Church From State TPM Election Central 1 Jul 08

Ya' gotta' read for content these days, not just skim.

religious groups and the idea of them themselves. It is the few vocal minority within those groups that want to push their radical theocratic agenda. And the religious right is not just about gay-bashing, abortion, and anti-science. It is MUCH bigger than that. It is just Bush and Republicans have given these people the loudest mics the past 8 years because of divide and conquer politics.

Enabling faith-based groups isn't inherently anti-progressive.  You're right that some:

Religious groups have been at the forefront in "protecting marriage" from evil gays and lesbians who are going to hell, along with women who even contemplate having an abortion, and along with those scientists and educators who oppose teaching Genesis in high school biology.

Which is exactly why Obama's program won't allow for prostelytising, and will only fund secular efforts aimed at community service, helping the poor, etc.

I'm not religious myself, and am none too keen on organized religion's grasp on the American consciousness---but it's here (and likely will be for some time).  You know, in terms of overall religiousity, we're second only to Saudia Arabia and Kuwait amongst wealthy nations.

I'm of the opinion that we can bring some of these folks (the ones with good intentions) into the tent by respecting them, and putting them to work on issues that matter to us all, whether we're pious or not (e.g. poverty).

Keep the nutcases out of our party.

I hear you, bet's not call all religious people nutcases.  The kooks are keeping themselves away for the most part.  Thanks PUMA!

Amen! err.. yeah I agree completely!

You:  Exactly right.

Me:  Fellow Atheist

that the courts ruled faith-based initiatives are okay as long as they serve a secular purpose and that they are not chosen discriminatly.

Yeah catfish.  Pools and pools of money lying around.  Insightful commentary, as always.

And here comes catfish with the daily "drop a steaming turd in the comments section of a diary and run" technique.

Yeah.  The irony is that we castigate the right, social conservatives, those with faith, etc.  We berate them for stereotyping by stereotyping them right back.

Sure, there are plenty of goofy zealots out there, but there are also a growing number of religious people with progressive values that ought to be encouraged.

Thanks for reading, and for the compliment on the diary.