Religion & Law

Well, this is strange.  Jonathan Turley's recent USA Today screed puts me in the position of feeling compelled to defend President Obama from a deeply misguided attack.  The "argument" is muddled, but familiar:  Rick Warren is a pastor who thinks that his (bigoted, narrow, etc.) religious views have public-policy relevance, Pres. Obama invited Warren to pray at the inauguration, and so we should have "doubts" about Obama's commitment to the "principle of separation of church and state."  Yawn.  (A possible upside:  If the silly "theocracy!" charge starts being levelled at Pres. Obama, maybe that will be the end of the charge.)

Turley writes, regarding the faith-based initiative, "[many people assumed that any Democrat would restore the secular work of government and strive to remove religion from politics."  Hmm.  How, exactly, did these people think that "religion" would, or could, be "remove[d] from politics"?

As I have said before, I worry that Pres. Obama's version of the faith-based initiative will not include the important protections that the Bush Administration's version provided for faith-based hiring.  But, Turley's effort to swirl together his rancor toward Warren, his still-lingering Bush-loathing, and Pres. Obama's own openness to religion in public life misfires badly.