What about separation of Church and State?

Drugs, race raised in Clinton-Obama fight - CNN.com

I have been following the story as noted by CNN of the ongoing and very entertaining feud between the Obama and Clinton camps. I know that there is a lot of vitriol on the right against Clinton but have an opinion that Obama is actually more "liberal" than Hillary and I am actually not sure which one is worse for our country as I just don't have the faith in progressive politics that some of my friends do (and I actually have a disdain/contempt for most (if not all) of progressive solutions).

But the story is actually interesting in another sense. I have already blogged about the "race" race on the Democratic side (see "Is Obama black enough?" where I discuss this idea that blacks would be voting for Obama based on race alone. The CNN story notes that:

Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson has waded into the Democratic presidential race on behalf of Sen. Hillary Clinton, leveling what appeared to be a criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's admitted past drug use.
Johnson, a prominent Clinton supporter, made the remarks during an appearance Sunday at a church in South Carolina, the scene of a January 26 primary with a large share of African-American voters.

Did you get that? Bob Johnson made the remarks at a church in South Carolina? Politics and the pulpit? I thought we had separation of Church and State according to the progressive left? So I went to Americans United for for Separation of Church and State and looked to see if there was any outcry - and surprise - I didn't see anything about this. So I checked into the FAQ of Americans United and it seemed that based on their mission statement (Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.) I would think that they would be mobilizing against this incursion into religious freedom. But it was in reviewing the issues page that I found something very interesting. One of their main bullets on their "First Freedom First Petition" states "Political candidates should not be endorsed or opposed by houses of worship". How does one rectify this position with the CNN story noted above? I think I can explain. Another bullet on their "First Freedom First Petition" notes that "Every American should have the right to make personal decisions -- about family life, reproductive health, end of life care and other matters of personal conscience." Sounds pretty in line with progressive politics. Further the executive director of Americans United, a Mr. Barry Lynn has written a book called "Piety and Politics: The Right Wing Assault on Religious Freedom". What a hoot!! The Right Wing in my opinion is the ensurer of religious freedom which includes the freedom to have a Nativity scene or a Christmas Tree or any of the other outright religious expressions most Americans want preserved. If this guy has a problem with the right wing with no concern on the outright assault that the left is waging on religion, then he has truly missed the boat and is with all due respect, basically another flack for the left who sees the right as the great threat to liberty while allowing/giving the left free reign to continue its minimizing of the moral tenets of this country.

Memo to Barry Lynn. In your "Our Issues" page your group notes that it is against "Church Politicking" and notes:

As tax-exempt entities, houses of worship may not intervene in partisan politics by endorsing or opposing candidates. Pulpit-based electioneering not only violates federal law, many believe it corrupts the true mission of our faith communities.

Your group may want to give Bob Johnson or the Clinton camp a call and straighten them out.

Outspoken Roman