Oh, honestly. The conservative ideology is so far spent that all they can think to do is throw out more sophisticated versions of school-yard taunts. In this case: "So are you!"

Critics of “Christendom” or “Christianism” vary widely. But the more left-leaning critics just got a bit of a blow with Obama’s newly-professed support of faith-based initiatives. Crunchy Con Rod Dreher points out the quandry in which this puts Obama supporters, like Andrew Sullivan.

It’s always been clear to me that liberals don’t really object to religion in public life; they object to conservative religion in public life. Church-state, “Christianist” talk is just rhetorical expediency. After all, how many liberals would have objected to the Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicating obstreperous segregationist politicians in the 1960s?

I think Dreher makes an excellent point. Christians who are concerned with establishing the independent polis of the Church have reason to be concerned about government-funded/faith-based initiatives. Because the present “conservative” administration first championed the movement, those on the left had an easy target. It’s easy to rail against the “Christianism” of a political movement you hate. But, really—American civil religion has always been championed just as much by the left. Perhaps even more so. The Victorian Social Gospel wasn’t exactly driven by proto-neocons.

No, it isn't an excellent point. It's more wanking from Dreher, who never met a facile point he could pass up. It's quite true that some folks on the left have problems with Obama's continuation of Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives (it's not a new position, by the way).

But for crying in the night, can you blame them? It's not like this program doesn't have a track record. It was designed to shovel money at religious conservatives, many of whom have no use for teh queer like Andrew Sullivan. The church-state concerns raised by faith-based programs may be justified, or they may not. But they're hardly beyond the pale, and they're hardly just partisan slings and arrows.

And since when does Andrew Sullivan get to represent the left? And since when do all liberals object to conservative religion in public life? They often criticize it, but there's hardly a widespread movement to disenfranchise Southern Baptists.

This is really just a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't logical fallacy. If liberals admit that they like Obama's position, then aha! They have to admit that Pat Robertson and his protein shakes weren't all that bad!! And if they say they don't care for it, then aha! Democrats are in disarray and if they get their way Richard Dawkins will teach your children to hate America!!! What a load. Burdening policy preferences with social conflict is the cheapest of cheap shots. Anybody who's read Rod Dreher (or Jonah Goldberg, or Michele Malkin, or...) knows that.

But to Davey Henreckson's point, aren't you forgetting the neo-orthodox challenge to civil religion? Obama is certainly aware of Niebuhr's critique of political overreaching, all the more reason to hold him up to high standards on his use of religious institutions as a tool of public policy. Because surely the only thing worse than governmental arrogance in thinking it can solve the problems of the world is to having the church conned into thinking it can do the same, given enough money and government direction. You don't have to be a "secularist" to think that might be something of a problem.