Across the blogoshpere this AM there has been a general gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands and liberal moral outrage over Obama's supposed pandering to the religious right. His supposed ignoring of the separation of church and state. His supposed turning a blind eye to discriminatory hiring practices. Well maybe we should all just try to avoid knee jerk reactions to the phrase "Faith Based" and look a bit deeper.
First this is not a new position that just came to him. If you thought this you were not paying attention. This from an interview with Beliefnet in January '08 -
You wrote in “The Audacity of Hope” about the role that faith and faith-based programs could play in confronting social ills. Isn’t your view on that similar to George W. Bush’s?
No, I don’t think so, because I am much more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries…. I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn’t conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that.
My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.
That, by the way, is a view based not just on my concern about the state or the apparatus of the state being captured by a particular religious faith, but it’s also because I want the church protected from the state. And I don’t think that we promote the incredible richness of our religious life and our religious institutions when the government starts getting too deeply entangled in their business. That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe. Part of that has to do with the fact that, traditionally, it was an extension of the state. And so there is less experimentation, less vitality, less responsiveness to the yearnings of people. It became a rigid institution that no longer served people’s needs. Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.
Next the issue of discrimination in hiring practices. This from Politco.
The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
So all in all I think we need to get a grip. It is never wise to act like the rabid right who jump on words or phrases rather than whole thoughts.
Note: Cross Posted at TPM
Update: There seems to also be some confusion that this is strictly Faith Based. It is not.
Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that they’re better at lifting people but. But what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Obama’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will help empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet these challenges.