He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking \u201cas someone who used to teach constitutional law,\u201d\u009d he spelled out \u201ca few basic principles\u201d\u009d to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.<\/p>\n
\u201cFirst,\u201d\u009d he said, \u201cif you get a federal grant, you can\u2019t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can\u2019t discriminate against them \u201d\u201d or against the people you hire \u201d\u201d on the basis of their religion.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
That little phrase between the dashes \u201d\u201d \u201cor against the people you hire\u201d\u009d \u201d\u201d ignited a political explosion. \u201cFraud,\u201d\u009d declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. \u201cWhat Obama wants,\u201d\u009d Mr. Donohue said, is \u201cto secularize the religious workplace.\u201d\u009d In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama\u2019s position \u201ca body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.\u201d\u009d No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.<\/p>\n
The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama\u2019s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.<\/p>\n