In this way, the particular faith that motivates each of us can promote a greater good for all of us. Instead of driving us apart, our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife and rebuild what has broken; to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. This is not only our call as people of faith, but our duty as citizens of America, and it will be the purpose of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships that I'm announcing later today.
-- Remarks of President Barack Obama at National Prayer Breakfast
As FFRF notes, though Obama is to be honored for remembering those who "subscribe to no faith at all," his nice words (and they are) are not without problems. When Obama speaks of "a living, breathing, active faith," he implies a religious faith. And, that word is not universal, as I sometimes suggest it might be by giving it a broad reach, since he is sure to reference unbelievers. But, everyone "believes" in something. They have "faith" in something. Not necessary God, though. Assumptions like this follow:
"But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know."
Oh really? What planet is he on? In fact, this sort of thing -- as noted in the panel discussion on C-SPAN last weekend on reporting on religion -- can be dangerous. It is akin to saying that Islam is a religion of peace. Sure, for many or most (as a portion of the whole), but not all. Hyperbole that suggests otherwise causes people to not trust such rosy-eyed accounts at all, some tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Who is to say no "religion" can have a central tenet of hate? That "no God" condones the taking of innocent life? I rather not my President do so, let me tell you. This is not what should be; it is what is.
As Marci Hamilton, a conservative strong believer in the separation of church and state argues, promotion of governmentally supported faith based funding is problematic. All the same, as she notes: "he also opposed a regulation that gives entities that receive such funding the right to hire only co-religionist to provide the services at issue." Important correction. Some are upset, since this might interfere with the mission of the group involved, but we are dealing with government involvement too. Strings necessarily follow. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
But, why is "faith-based" favored in particular? Why not just "neighborhood partnerships," some being religious groups providing secular services? The favoritism simply is inherent in the program. This puts aside the likelihood that not all faiths will get equal time here, even if the new executive order is sure to include this proviso:
to ensure that services paid for with Federal Government funds are provided in a manner consistent with fundamental constitutional commitments guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws and the free exercise of religion and prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion
So be it. We knew Obama was a believer in this sort of thing, especially given his Christian faith grew from his own community activism days. Let us still remember the dangers in mixing church and state, as noted by the dissent here in a case involving the sensitive area of abstinence education:
There is a very real and important difference between running a soup kitchen or a hospital, and counseling pregnant teenagers on how to make the difficult decisions facing them. The risk of advancing religion at public expense, and of creating an appearance that the government is endorsing the medium and the message, is much greater when the religious organization is directly engaged in pedagogy, with the express intent of shaping belief and changing behavior, than where it is neutrally dispensing medication, food, or shelter.
Certain programs, even if they seem to promote benign ends, should not be promoted using public funds. In fact, as the same dissent notes, the other path (given the strings) might even be anti-religious in effect:
By enlisting its aid in combating certain social ills, while imposing the restrictions required by the First Amendment on the use of public funds to promote religion, we risk secularizing and demeaning the sacred enterprise.
So, it's a tricky wicket. Unlike a prayer at the start of a governmental meeting, the prayer breakfast is a "privately run" affair. This doesn't make Obama's stupid statement as to what "all" religions believe as to the nature of God (not what he does) much better. Putting aside the special care he should have given his position, Obama has every right to take part in such affairs. But, federally funded faith based initiatives are not. And, though in theory, the practice can be handled on an equitable basis, I fear that is basically impossible.
Still, perfection will never be the rule here. We have more reason to entrust the likes of Obama with the system than various other sorts. Be on guard though.