I like The Huffington Post. I really do. They've got a lot of excellent writers and the comments are usually interesting. They do seem to have a wee bit of a problem with inconsistent rules, particularly in regard to personal attacks, but they moderate comments and it usually works well.
Generally, HuffPo is a liberal blog. They've got pro-Obama folks and pro-Clinton folks, not to mention occasional comments from the pro-Kucinich, pro-Paul, pro-Barr, and pro-Nader contingents. There are atheists and religious people there, too. Their writers include former evangelical Frank Schaeffer as well as current evangelist Jim Wallis. However, the bias of HuffPo towards religion is pronounced.
Why do I think this diary needs to be written?
Mayhill Fowler went to Zanesville, Ohio, where Obama made his most recent outreach to the believers of faith-based government programs. She wrote a great piece about her trip. She included information from her interviews of some of the church leaders in Zanesville. (Generally speaking, the church representatives she spoke with didn't want government funding for their charitable work.) So far, so good. My complaint is that I had something to say about the opinions of the religious leaders that she quoted. My comment, quoted below, had no bad words in it. It was not a personal attack. It was not posted. Twice. I still think that it's important to hear from the non-Christian community, so I'm posting my comment here, where it will be allowed. Comment space on HuffPo is limited, so I've "enhanced" my comments after the quote. You'll have to read the original article to see what's in places where I used "...", see for yourself if I took anything out of context, and see for yourself if I said anything that should have caused the comment to be blocked from posting.
This is NOT a personal attack, just a comment on the article. It didn't post before.
It's nice to see that at least some christian churches don't want federal funds. Still...
"Eastside ... no intention of applying for or accepting tax-payer dollars. ... not ... tied to any one particular branch of the Christian faith." They're still all christians. How about changing the "christian" to "moslem" and "church" to "mosque." Not so happy about it now, are we?
"Mary Perone ... she'd like to ... do more with adult literacy." Every Kentucky county has adult literacy centers. Leave preaching to the preachers and adult education to people trained in adult education! (Disclaimer: I'm an adult educator with training specific to the teaching of adults. Preachers aren't trained to teach reading, math, GED, etc. Preach is not equal to teach!)
"Muskingum Vineyard ... starting a teenage substance abuse program." Leave the preaching to the preachers, and leave substance abuse programs to Narcotics Anonymous. NA tells folks they have to have a Higher Power, but it's spiritual, not religious.
"Coffey ... has divined that I have a troublesome right leg and hip ... prays for me to be healed. ..... but strangely my leg and hip never bother me once." I used to be a phone "psychic." Come see me. I can divine your problems, and treat you for them, too. Can you say "gambler's tell" and "placebo effect?" Shame on you, Ms. Fowler. You got took.
All of the church leaders she quoted were Christians. No Moslems, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no Jews, no atheists, no Others. We might be happy (or at least relieved) about churches refusing federal funding. The evangelicals among us wouldn't be happy if federal funds went to places other than their specific brands of churches. We might be willing to overlook the church in the article that did want federal tax money - but not if it was a mosque. Then we wouldn't be quite so happy.
We seem to be tickled pink that churches want to get involved with the community, but we usually don't look to see what they want to do to get involved. For example, one of the church representatives wanted to get into the field of adult literacy, and another wanted to start a substance abuse program for teens. That sounds great, until you realize that there are already many, many adult education programs (Kentucky has one in every county) that are designed to help adults learn to read, do math, understand science and social studies, and prepare for the GED exam. There are also many substance abuse programs for teens and adults, one of which is Narcotics Anonymous.
Mr. Obama, preachers aren't teachers. Most of us like the idea that teachers have to have specialized training not only in the subjects they teach, but in the mechanics of teaching. One need not have this specialized training to preach. (For that matter, one need not have any credentials at all to be ordained. Fer cryin' out loud, I'm ordained - and I'm an atheist!) Why not leave teaching to teachers? I'd bet my bottom dollar that the church that wants to start an adult education program doesn't have a church leader who is also a certified Reading and Math teacher.
Mr. Obama, preachers aren't substance abuse counselors (or addicts), either. The sad truth is that most substance abuse programs don't work. NA works better than most, but it's still not great. NA does emphasize spirituality, but not religion. That wouldn't be acceptable to the church representative from the wanna-be substance abuse program - he presumably won't accept anything that doesn't have Jesus in it, regardless of whether it works or not.
The kicker, for me, is the faith-healing at the end of the article. I used to be a phone "psychic," and believe me, there's no "psychic" to it. I also have taught several pseudoscience units in public schools and I've taught the psychology of belief. I read Viking runes, M & Ms, coffee grounds, pieces of candy, regular cards, shredded paper, anything at all that serves as a prop. I'm best at face-to-face readings, but phone readings aren't hard to do, and I've even done live chat readings. They're all cold readings, and they're all bunk. At best, I was a free or inexpensive uncertified counselor. If you get better after faith healing, that's great - but please, don't credit the faith healer with the cure.
What has all of that got to do with Obama? The people he wants to fund with our tax dollars are not only mainly uninterested, those who are interested are desirous of doing things that churches have no business doing. Churches should not be in the adult education business. They should not be in the substance abuse treatment business, especially if it's laden with their specific religion. And please, please, HP, get them out of the faith-healing business.
I can't help but get the feeling that one can be anti-Obama on HuffPo, or anti-organized-religion on HuffPo, but not both at the same time. Or perhaps one can gripe about candidates, or famous people, but not about the human sources who will be funneling our tax dollars to the ideas they promote.
Mr. Obama, if you want Christian churches to feed, clothe, and shelter the needy, I'm all for it. Put your money into the collection plate and bypass the additional overhead of the government. If you want to fund substance abuse treatment, start a residential treatment center (sorry, NA doesn't accept contributions from non-addicts). And if you want to fund someone to (temporarily) take pain away - do a reverse campaign contribution and send the money to me!