Obama-“Yes We Can” Be like Republicans

The list is starting to get longer. Barack Obama will allow amnesty for the telecoms, agrees with the conservative Supreme Court decision on the right to bear arms, supports the death penalty and now wants to expand the illegal government funding of faith based organizations.

According to the speech wording:

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.

In what could only sound like a religious right talking point and a frightening mix of church and state, Obama’s speech did spell out his intentions clearly: "In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work."

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama's proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties. "I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration," he said. "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

There’s some wisdom in Lynn’s advice. James Madison noting in a July 10, 1822 letter: "Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government."

For instance: Faith Based Initiative? Madison objected to the government giving money to churches to care for the poor. It would be the beginning of a dangerous mixture, he believed - dangerous both to government and churches alike.

Thus, on February 21, 1811, President James Madison vetoed a bill passed by Congress that authorized government payments to a church in Washington, DC to help the poor.

In Madison's mind, caring for the poor was a public and civic duty - a function of government - and must not be allowed to become a hole through which churches could reach and seize political power or the taxpayer's purse.

Funding a church to provide for the poor would establish a "legal agency" - a legal precedent - that would break down the wall of separation the founders had put between church and state to protect Americans from religious zealots gaining political power.

Now we have the Democratic candidate, ignoring the wisdom of one of our founding fathers, set in place one of the most divisive issues of Madison’s time and ours.

This is the kind of “change” Obama’s been talking about. This is an abandonment of the core principals of the Party, and a scaled back approach to what should have been a dramatic action to reverse what has taken us to this economic and foreign policy disaster.