The Wall

A very good post from Steve Benen at C&L on separation of church and state, based on a very good answer that Obama gave on that question -- particularly good in light of Obama's reliance on religion in his campaign.

“My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.

“That, by the way, is a view based not just on my concern about the state or the apparatus of the state being captured by a particular religious faith, but it’s also because I want the church protected from the state. And I don’t think that we promote the incredible richness of our religious life and our religious institutions when the government starts getting too deeply entangled in their business. That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe. Part of that has to do with the fact that, traditionally, it was an extension of the state. And so there is less experimentation, less vitality, less responsiveness to the yearnings of people. It became a rigid institution that no longer served people’s needs. Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.”

As Benen points out, Obama is calling for a return to the model that was in place pre-Bush. He also makes a very important point in the second paragraph that needs to be stressed again and again, and one that the Founders stressed: the wall is as much for the protection of religion is it is for the protection of the state.

This really should be a no-brainer. It's an indication, yet again, of how the discourse in this country has become warped by those who see a road to power in the subversion of our basic institutions.