On the Bush administration's policies, I have to disagree with this characterization, here, Doug:

"Further, the new faith-based strategy by this administration respects the potential new partners and their own views of what makes their services most valuable--even if it is sometimes intense, overt, religiosity. It is disrespectful and naive on the part of government to insist that such religiosity is unnecessary to effectiveness."

What we've gotten out of this administration is the government paying people who to promote 'intense religiosity' *as* a solution to problems in poverty and the like, after *cutting* twice as much in public assistance and Gods-know-how-many other social services as was kicked back to these proselytizers... in many cases using government money for access to 'captive audiences' (sometimes literally, as in providing perks for Christian prisoners in various programs) or in fact, to support megachurches who shouldn't be hurting for money as it is, and, even, to promote the very notion that everyone but Christians is 'uncharitable.'

Some things about evangelical Christian 'religiosity' get problematic, legally, since they consider it part of their 'freedom of religion' to try and pressure others into it. The government should not be sanctioning this.

This doesn't mean that local churches can't help out in their neighborhoods, the money just has to go to the help, not the proselytizing, or in fact, the religious observances. The money's supposed to go to *helping,* not advertising and praying and promoting the GOP as 'Christian'.

What's naive and disrespectful is saying, to the poor, 'We're going to solve yer poverty by telling you you've got the wrong unverifiable belief.'

Professor Bane's comments start well, but if she has really been following this issue carefully through the present time I think her analysis would be quite different. Since mid-2006, at least, the Administration's faith-based offices have advanced a pragmatic, problem-solving strategy. This new strategy, by the way, started before the "Iraqi surge," and the faith-based results are at least as impressive for those few still paying attention. As of now, the Administration's guidelines on the appropriate use of public funds are clear and easily available. There have been tens of thousands of new grant applicants, and potential applicants, trained, supported, and informed of accountability structures. Open minded readers can see for themselves at www.innovationincompassion.hhs.gov .

Further, the new faith-based strategy by this administration respects the potential new partners and their own views of what makes their services most valuable--even if it is sometimes intense, overt, religiosity. It is disrespectful and naive on the part of government to insist that such religiosity is unnecessary to effectiveness. Better for the federal government to ask "how can we help you" (in constitutional ways, of course) rather than "how can we control you." It is a difficult balance, but the present strategy by this latest set of faith-based officials gets it closer to right than the strategy Obama proposes, and Prof. Bane appears to endorse.

" Angela:

"It doesn't matter what Obama does, you'll always paint him as the coming of the "Messiah". It's kinda scary...He can do no wrong. Be honest!"

If it matters what he does, how about we talk about what he's *doing* rather than what we can say about it without even *looking* at his plan?

*Finally,* we've got a column talking about the substance of it, rather than saying it's all about 'sides' and how people will 'perceive' it if they don't *know* about it.

It *does* matter what he does, and it *does* matter what Bush did. Sticking the word 'Faith' on it and calling it good-if-Republican and 'bad or fake' if Democrat just isn't what this is about.

It's a sensible plan. It could do some good, and make things more effective, more Constitutional and more pluralistic in the process.

Or is that your *problem with it,* Angela?

"That's good for government and it's good for religious groups performing these need-based services. Most importantly, it's good for the millions of Americans who rely on this help every day."

NOT! I don't want to support this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfy5PFJwcg

The post below addressed: Jacques but I meant to send it to Mary Jo Bane; another installment of the "Elect Obama by Any Means Necessary bandwagon".

It's obvious why Obama wants to continue the faith-based initiatives. It's nothing more than payback to his Uncle Wright and "former" church in Chicago. As he's done in the past, he's hoping to continue funneling tax payer money to support the hate-filled racist teachings coming out of that church. Just say no to faith-based initiatives!

Jacques Berlinerblau: It doesn't matter what Obama does, you'll always paint him as the coming of the "Messiah". It's kinda scary...He can do no wrong. Be honest! We already know the media wants him to win and he probably will but he's the same as any other politican except he sure knows how to sell a speech on his political views even if it changes by the day. It's getting tired...!