Martha Minnow, a professor of law at Harvard University who has written about religion-based initiatives and has advised the Obama campaign on the issue, said Mr. Obama would move to "return the law to what it was before the current administration," in other words barring the consideration of religion in hiring decisions for such programs that receive federal financing.

"I don't think there's anything too controversial about that," said. "Any religious organization that does not want to comply with that requirement simply doesn't have to take the money."

But I would be MUCH happier to hear that Obama wants to return the POLICY to what it was before the current administration.

I do not want to hear these words from my President to be:

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," he declared.

I do not want basic human services managed and delivered by organized religion. I do not want my government giving organized religion money.

In one example of how he would use the approach to carry out a policy goal, Mr. Obama proposed $500 million per year to provide summer education for one million poor children, with a goal of closing the achievement gaps between wealthy students and poorer ones. The campaign did not provide a cost proposal for the full program, but said the educational piece could be financed by reducing the growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the management of surplus government property.

This is yet another Obama inkblot, just as with many, many other Obama inkblots, where whatever you believe, there's a piece of that in his policy for you.  

The ambiguity is deliberate.  I only hope others get as sick of it as I did early on in his campaign.

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

The program would "be central to our White House mission," he said, and would consider elevating the director of his Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to a cabinet-level post.

yikes.

Why are we so willing to believe that a President could just set a policy when it is contrary to law and precedent?  Because people have gotten used to this under the current administration.  The President and his administration have, in too many ways to list, simply disregarded law and precedent repeatedly.  It has decreed that treaties don't matter.  It has issued signing statements that it has decreed to be the law.  It has rather blatantly disregarded FISA and the Fourth Amendment itself.  On and on.  And nobody - not the courts not the Congress - have stepped forward to stop this.

I do object to taxpayer money going directly to a religious organization. Most religions require charitable works as part of their doctrines. Don't see why these activities need to become  government paid for profit events. Also, there has not been enough data to prove that these organizations are better than secular organizations in providing services and too many ways that this type of direct funding can be abused. I agree with Rev. Lynn's position.

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

I am extremely - and I cannot emphasize that word enough - extremely uncomfortable being lectured about faith and religion and God and calls to service by a freakin' politician who wants to hold the reins of power of the government.  

I think religious and other charitable organizations have always done important and meaningful and much-needed outreach and assistance for those in need; that work should be applauded and respected.  But someone will have to explain to me why the government can give grants to Church X for its feed-the-homeless program, but can cut services that it offers for the same purpose.  If there is need, and the government is prepared to help another organization provide it, why is it unwilling to meet that need itself?  The message that the private sector can always do it better is one we have been hearing for years from the Republicans who want to kill government, and I do not believe it is a place I want a Democratic president to be running toward.

The more I hear politicians sermonizing on the campaign trail and in the halls of power, the more I tune them out.

I would invite obama to take the jay-z off the playlist and put on some David byrne.

-- and the laws of man are not the laws of heaven
-- and an angel's breath is like the desert's wind
-- and the terrorists are acting out of love sweet love
-- to bring us home again

Organizational outreach is great.

Great returns to "moral centers" are worrisome.

I don't see the need to disrespect people of faith by comparing god to Santa claus but we should do things because it is rational to do them not because religion approves.

I have the same problem with his position on the DC gun ban, NAFTA, and telecom immunity.

What I think he is promoting is greater support and (maybe) greater exploration of the successful ones.

Maybe he believes (as I do) that what often works best is a blend of larger efforts with smaller ones. And, I'm also not sure that the term 'grassroots' precludes government management. Maybe it would mean more local gov't engagement.

Did the AP erroniously report what they were told by the "anonymous" source?

It does matter that a more disturbing picture emerges about Obama. He is making Democrats out to  consider religion in the context of another failed Bush policy. Obama looks to be justifying it. More disappointment from candidate Obama.

I never believed GWB was totally on board the religion thing. Its not a huge constituency, but  GWB gave it more attention than it deserved.

As Democrats we should stay out of trying to be everything to everyone as it is an impossible task.

Plus I don't want to fund ANY religion from hard earned tax dollars. Seperation of church state works fine for me like it was prior to GWB.

excerpt:

In any event, now we know what Obama was talking about when he preached his daily sermon on "hope" and "change." You thought he was talking about peace in Iraq, health care for everyone, and other leftist nonsense. In reality, Brother Obama hopes to change all of you into evangelicals. He and George Bush are old pals. God told George to invade Iraq. What will God tell Brother Obama?

Our founding fathers (we had no founding mothers) got it all wrong. They believed in the separation of church and state. Evangelicals want to separate the state from your tax money by turning Sunday's collection over to certain religious groups that will use it for "faith-based initiatives."