Obama's recent push toward the Christian community, especially as it comes to a White House connection to something resembling Bush's policies, has me a little edgy. The recent poll revelation that roughly 92% of Americans are believers in some form of religion (with Christians by far in the lead) puts me in a shaky 8% that misses the true separation of church and state that Jefferson enjoyed.

While riding in to work this morning and listening to public radio do a story on the Middle East, they gave up the statistic that over 80% of Arabs are convinced that the US's position in the Iraqi and Afghanistani campaigns is to replace Islam with Christianity, therefor giving Al Quaeda it's strongest recruiting message.

An article on Huffington Post this morning talked about Franklin Graham (Billy Graham's heir apparent) questioning Obama in public on whether or not he was a Muslim and trying to bring him to Christ in front of a group of clerics Obama was meeting with.

All of this is making me feel so far to the outside that I fear the worst happening both in the US and in the World.

Atheists rarely stand up proudly to declare their non-belief. More likely, they wish to be ignored by believers... left alone and unbothered. The organizations which have formed around atheism (The Brights, The Humanists, etc.) seem like they are competing more for membership and money than for the freedom from believing that everything is God-created and that we are doomed to hell for not taking part in the Jesus chorus.

It doesn't matter, it seems, whether you support a Democrat or a Republican. Both sides want to tie themselves to pastors and priests who advocate the most outlandish things... and who, when these things don't happen on schedule (you can look back for centuries and see the Rapture as having been expected and missed several times), simply revise the due-date.  At all political levels we are seeing this stuff happening (the Governor of Louisiana, for instance, just signed into law a bill making creationism ... excuse me, "intelligent design"... a subject being taught to the youngest of schoolchildren) and it is getting worse.

When I was younger I thought we were getting farther from religion as a culture, but we have actually swung the other way. I fear that my grandchildren's grandchildren will never see a religion-free cultural climate. Perhaps they will be able to finally disengage at least elective politics from this bugaboo.

Under The LobsterScope

Once upon a time, a long, long year or two ago, I was roundly and purely opposed to any sort of public funding for faith-based initiatives.  I had several long arguments with a friend of mine, another liberal atheist who nevertheless had a more pragmatic position on the topic.  As usually happens with this particular friend, I eventually saw the wisdom in much of what he was saying, and my own position has moderated since then.

In the same vein as Saintcog's excellent diary Why This Atheist Supports Obama's Faith Based Initiative, allow me to describe my experience at the Lakes Region St. Vincent De Paul food pantry today.

Evangelicals seem to be odd man out this political season. Their much-vaunted voting block isn't concrete-solid this time around. McCain courts them with little success, even after gratuitously changing his official religion from those darn liberal Episcopalians to the more palatable and conservative Baptists. Obama's working the liberal evangelicals with daily mentions of his faith and a new evangelical plank - faith-based initiatives.

La Bama isn't talking the moribund photo-op that God's Main ManTM kicked off to lefty howls and Congressional reticence. No, he'll give it a shiny new name - the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships - and elevate it to the moral center of his administration. I'm not clear where the moral center of his administration is and whether jamming "neighborhood" into the title makes it taste any better to the opposition. We'll see.

It was lead balloon time when Obama raised the flag. The liberal rank and file did not salute. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State summed it up, "I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration. It ought to be shut down, not continued."

He's right about Bush policies being daft and there are legitimate concerns about the integrity of the firewall between church and state. However, Obama argues there's a great humanitarian need out there and the nation needs all the help it can get to fill it.

Alright, let's simmer down.  I'm already seeing diaries and comments berating Senator Obama for what some are seeing as pandering to conservatives.

Taking a page from President Bush, Democrat Barack Obama said Tuesday he wants to expand White House efforts to steer social service dollars to religious groups, risking protests in his own party with his latest aggressive reach for voters who usually vote Republican.

I'm happy I reserved judgment, and waited to read Obama's speech on his faith-based initiatives plan.  After reading it, I am heartened by his attempt at harnessing the will and actions of the religious community to help people.  Further, I am also delighted that he's included three key provisions as terms of the agreement.  I was surprised to read earlier that he would support allowing groups to practice discriminatory hiring practices (but not discriminate in whom receives assistance).  But upon reading the speech, he says the exact opposite.  I've read it a couple of times to see if I've erred, but it's as plain as day.  I wonder why the reports have stated that he'll allow it.  Anyway, the relevant passage follows:

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.

With that concern out of the way, I see a great attempt by Obama to do good.  We all know that Bush's attempts at doing this were done only for votes, and he did not follow through.  What Obama has set forth is a construct to get religious groups already inclined and out there helping people more assistance.  Not only that, he has also explicitly included secular groups in this effort.  As far as the efficacy of this proposal, some religious groups may back away, since he demands that they are not allowed to proselytize, or discriminate.  But many groups, whether their impetus is religious or secular empathy, will get assistance with helping the poor, children, and other worthwhile causes.  As the plan is laid out, I can say I am comfortable with its social aims, as well as its constitutionality.  I am not a religious person, but I've always recognized the great works that many church going people do (I also recognize that people act without religious reasons).  With the plan Obama's set forth, he's allowing more people to conduct important social work more effectively, while also discouraging them from discrimination.  Both goals are worthy.  

The full speech : http://thepage.time.com/full-remarks-of- obamas-faith-speech-in-ohio/

Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama.

I really wish the VRWC would make up their minds already.  Last week, it was the terrorist fist jab.  Today, he's bad a Christian, this smear, via the Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family.  Dr. Dobson resurrected a 2006 speech by Senator Obama on the need for progressives to reach out to people of all religious faiths, including the traditionally Republican evangelical Protestants:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

I do not blame all Christians for his actions, but this man is insane.

http://www.mountvernonnews.com/local/08/ 06/20/freshwater_upd2.html

The investigators found that Freshwater: Used a high-frequency generator to make the shape of a cross into the arm of eighth-grade students; consistently failed to adhere to established curriculum under the American Content Standards for eighth-grade science and taught religious beliefs in his classroom; exceeded the statutorily imposed limitations of a monitor for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes; and was insubordinate in his deliberate failure to remove all religious articles from his classroom.

Freshwater continues to maintain that the allegations against him are false. His attorney Kelly Hamilton said the charges of improper use of the electrostatic device are from one particular student and asserted that students were never in danger of harm from Freshwater.

Freshwater said the marks inflicted on the students' arms were not religious symbols. "They weren't crosses," he said, "They were Xs."

Today I thought I was actually going to have a day where something wouldn't piss me off. Well the FISA thing ended that notion, but also something else I read in the news.