Sweet Jesus! Obama Proclaims Faith in Faith-Based Initiatives?

by D. Cupples |  Some of our Founding Fathers had a colorful way of speaking.  Thomas Paine, for example, said this about the separation of church and state:

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet `Common Sense' in America I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion.   

"The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed those subjects could not be."

That said, I'm more than a bit surprised that Sen. Barack Obama seems to be proposing less (rather than more) separation between church and state.  Yesterday, the God-O-Meter blog reported:

"Faith without works, they say, is dead--and that faith without conservative social positions shouldn't be enough to win the hearts of values voters.

"That's why Obama's announcement today about wanting to expand President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives into what he's calling a President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he's being so bold as to criticize Bush's faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups.

"In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy." (God-O-Meter)

Well, Sen. Obama did promise "change," and outspending President Bush on faith-based initiatives technically would constitute a change.

But is this the type of change that most Obama supporters can truly get behind and believe in -- especially on the heels of Sen. Obama's reversal on NAFTA and FISA?

Claims that Sen. Obama has taken a sudden leap to the faith-based-initiative path would be too bizarre for me to believe, if the Associated Press hadn't run a similar story.  But the AP did run such a story yesterday. 

I'm not quoting it or linking to it, because the AP has publicly stated that it doesn't like being quoted by bloggers who don't pay for the privilege.  Fine.  The AP will, as a result of my respecting its preferences, get less traffic.

Back to my point: for years, Sen. Obama has taught constitutional law.  Presumably, he  understands our Constitution's First Amendment, which is where our Founding Fathers inserted "The Establishment Clause," which we now shorthand as "The Separation of Church and State."

Memeorandum has commentary.

Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:

* FISA: Olbermann Tries but Doesn't Quite Re-reverse Himself

* Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11, and Money Changed Hands

* The Free-Style Flip-Flopping of John McCain

* Olbermann's O'Reilly-ish FISA Stance: Greenwald Delivers Knock-out Punch

.

.

Comments

[Thomas]

We are making the same mistake that the Republican Party made in 2000 and 2004. This fraudulent election is much, much, bigger than Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. This is part II of the hijacking of the United States government and America itself.

George Bush and Barack Obama are identical. Both are arrogant, inexperienced, simple-minded, egotistical politicians, selected for these very qualities, to acquire the office of the presidency. Bush’s family’s name and Obama’s personality disarmed/disarms their respective parties. Dick Cheney represented the power behind the thrown for Bush while David Alexrod is Obama’s puppet-master.

Real Republicans stood by paralyzed and, in disbelief, as neo-con named agents gutted and reformulated the party, the different branches of government, and the main stream media. This was Part I of seizing control of the largest economy and the mightiest military on earth.

Part II is unfolding before our very eyes this election cycle inside the Democratic Party. If these agents of global dominance succeed again, the American experience will have ended.

This isn’t about race, or class, or party, or gender, or even generational; this is about co-opting our near perfect union for selfish gain.

Are there enough Democrats who will stand up and stop this hijacking of our party?

Even though I am a partisan, just look at the Republican Party and compare it to what it was eight years ago. And, then, listen to long time Republicans who have been marginalized in their own party. Can’t you see the similarities?

If we fall for the obvious traps of race, gender, class, and so forth, instead of recognizing the real threat that’s invading our party, the republic will change into the most toxic Corporatocracy humanly imaginable.

The last days of America: being brought to you by the first Black President and the Democratic Party.

[Adam]

This is not the same as FISA. FISA was a reversal of both core principles that Obama has stood for, and the previous attitude and tone of his campaign on national security issues. Neither is the case here.

Anyone deeply surprised by this announcement has not been paying close attention to Obama's past statements and policies. He's talked about expanding school voucher programs in ways that may open the possibility of public funding reaching private religious schools. While the specific language and application here is new, this is not a reversal of tone or policy for Obama.

I'm not the lawyer here, but my guess is that, if you got Obama in the right setting, he would be happy to hold forth on how he would suggest structuring programs as to avoid violating the "Lemon test".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test
"For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion."

While I've voted Democratic in every election to national office since I turned 18, I have more than my share of issue positions that disagree with the core Democratic constituency. I decided to support Obama with eyes wide open to this side of his political makeup, and it doesn't really bother me.

(Again, the FISA thing does bother me precisely because it *does* conflict with my expectations for Obama, and that set of issues was part of the reason why I support him.)

[Deb]

HI Adam,

Where did you come up with Lemon? I took con law 6 years ago and forgot it. Is the Obama campaign citing that case?

For First Amendment fundamentalists, the point isn't how the Court interps certain constitutional provisions but how it should. Incidentally, did you see the part just past what you quoted at Wikipedia? It suggests that Lemon is vulnerable to overturning.

That's NOT my point, though.

It really doesn't matter if this is a technical reversal (as FISA was).

My point is that Obama likely would not have received such strong support from progressives and non-religious "intellectuals" had he been more up front on the campaign trail (most of us haven't actually read his book) about his stance on faith-based spending (and FISA and NAFTA and campaign funding...).

That point underlies my the point that I've been making for months: Sen. Obama has misrepresented who he is and where he stands on some not-so-small issues.

[Adam]

I got Lemon simply by researching the establishment clause online for a few minutes. I'm no expert by any means, but it does seem like the relevant interpretation. And yes, you're right, Lemon could end up overturned if the SCOTUS gets one more conservative judge.

Although it might not matter to you, it absolutely does matter to me whether this is a fundamental reversal of Obama's past policy. And it's not.

But to respond to your point, Obama has NOT misrepresented himself on this front. He has said some things in the past that suggested he would tilt this way, so it's not out of the blue. And I'm not aware of Obama saying anything, even indirectly and hyperbolically, that would imply he was against federal support of charity or education work by faith-based organizations.

That some people didn't see this coming is not really his problem. It's not his responsibility to go around stumping on issues that aren't going to win him votes at that juncture. And it is his perrogative to publicize the issue now, when it suits him. That's not dishonest, it's just how one runs a campaign.

With NAFTA you have a little more of a point. NAFTA is a case where the rhetorical framing of the subject has varied quite a bit. But only the rhetoric changed, not the core point. Obama's basic stance has been fairly clear (to me, anyway) throughout the campaign. He supports free trade, but wants to negotiate stronger environmental and labor standards; he will do this with NAFTA but does not think there is more than a miniscule chance that this will cause the deal to collapse. The way that argument has been FRAMED has varied based on the audience, but the core view has not.

That said, if you want to claim that Obama's campaign fooled people about their NAFTA stance, I see your argument. I disagree with it, because Obama has never really contradicted himself on this. But unlike the faith-based initiatives issue, reasonable minds can disagree.

Furthermore, lots of self-styled "progressive intellecutals", myself included, are not opposed to "free trade" or NAFTA. Obama's position on trade probably didn't significantly impact his fundraising. It didn't even become a major campaign issue until the end of February, for that matter.

Let's call a spade a spade; Obama's grassroots donations flowed, more than anything, from his personality, the theme of his campaign, and his stance on the Iraq war. Everything else was details.

Obama has never claimed to be the progressive-est progressive who ever progressed. There's a difference between being fooled and fooling yourself. Obama supporters who are shocked and horrified by the support of faith-based initiatives are a whole lot closer to the latter than the former.

FISA is different because there was a clear reversal, and because it belongs to a set of issues where Obama's stance had previously been pretty unimpeachably progressive. That's not the case with either of the other two issues.

[Blythe]

Oh please, this is why he was all coy and vague about his policies. Stating them wouldn't have allowed him to be all hopey and changey. No one looked at him, no one asked any questions, they were too busy fawning.

His about faces are more reasons why I cannot vote for him, there is no clothespin big enough.

And would someone please tell him that $250,000 in this economy is NOT = to $200 million. Why such an arbitrary number for income tax? If he's going to be all xtiany and do stuff that hits formerly democratic supporters in the wallet, why vote for the guy at all?

[Adam]

Blythe,

Obama is and has been specific about a multitude of issues. The idea that he spoke only in platitudes and never gave specifics is a complete falsehood.

Are you arguing that his proposed tax structure is too progressive? If so, then we'll just have to disagree.