It's not possible to form a consensus government among a religious population without making room for religious beliefs. Our government is far, far, far from a theocracy, and one need only revisit the horrors of that sort of government in human history to see how high we stand above it. We cannot fail to be vigilant in the protection of our freedom of worship, which necessitates the separation of church and state, but we also cannot allow an unreasonable fear for those freedoms to make the government the enemy of religion, and thus the enemy of the people.
I applaud Obama's proposal to support faith-based programs therefore, because it sooths the dangerous strife between a portion of the electorate and the political class. Many religious groups in this country have felt ostracized by the political process and resentment has grown into bitter rivalry. Such enmity makes way for opportunists, who both exacerbate that enmity and, weilding it, deplete the moral, legal, and economic substance of our country. Worse yet, this strife festers amongst us, turning our people against one another and hardening ideologies unreasoningly against valuable elements of both religious and secular society. At the same time it allows prejudices and archaic taboos to grow into rallying cries, while the ideals of compassion and charity recede into silence.
A friendship between government and charitable religious organizations goes a long way to developing friendship amongst the citizenry in general. The presence of religion in politics cannot be eliminated, because we are a people both religious and secular, but in a well managed relationship all things are moderate. The friendship between religion and politics can be made salutary, as long as that friendship is restrained so that it never favors religious groups over secular groups of similar charitable purpose. Obama, in his speech announcing this program, is careful to note that secular organizations will receive equal attention:
"Well, I still believe it's a good idea to have a partnership between the White House and grassroots groups, both faith-based and secular."
And that tax dollars won't fund gross spectacle or discrimination which corrode free society and degrade religious institutions :
"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. 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."
As in any good friendship, this one will draw out the virtues of religious practice and stifle its vices by giving those virtues room to grow. Allowing Christian organizations (for instance) to exercise their mandate to care for the poor and the sick by ensuring medical care, food, and shelter for those that cannot afford it brings succor to our nation's poor and a fruitful development of Christianity's highest ideals.
No doubt, needless evil has flowed from religion and state alike, and both at once, but the value of Obama's candidacy is that it affords us an opportunity to turn away from the violent pendulum of categorical rejections and bitter revenges, and towards a compromise between the parties at hand, between ourselves.