Two somewhat opposing views on that question. First up, AU's Barry Lynn, argues that nothing has changed:

During his presidential campaign, Obama specifically promised that "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."

This sounded pretty unequivocal. But more than a year has gone by since Obama set up his Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and no substantive policy has been changed, least of all discriminatory hiring.

Melissa Rogers - who led the President's Faith-Based Advisory Council in crafting a report of recommendations for the White House - responds, making the case that lots is about to change:

Beyond the council's unanimous endorsement [of reform recommendations], these proposals also received support from an array of national organizations, including Barry Lynn's Americans United for Separation of Church and State. And Lynn served on a task force the Advisory Council established to develop these and others recommendations. His helpful suggestions strengthened our work.

But in recent comments on the council's report, Lynn and Americans United hardly mention these important reforms. Instead, they focus narrowly on a few other items, one of which is a significant issue the council was instructed not to address: the practice of allowing religious groups to make religion-based employment decisions in government-funded jobs. The White House decided to deal with that issue outside the scope of the council process.
...
If the administration implements our recommendations in this area swiftly, and those rules are especially durable given the fact that they are supported by such a broad constituency, won't that be a great victory? I think so.

Thomas Farr, former head of the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, writes in today's Washington Post to protest the Obama Administration's failure to - as he sees it - live up to the promise of the Cairo speech with a real focus on religious liberty. He points to rhetorical trends in the President's diplomatic language that more often mentions the "freedom to worship" and not the "freedom of religion" (a move Farr interprets to refer to freedom that is only assured inside houses of worship, and not outside).

Primarily, though, his concern is the President's not having nominated an ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, a position created by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

Congress recognized that the State Department would likely resist giving much attention to international religious freedom, which is why the IRF Act was passed in the first place. The statute made explicit Congress' intent that the religious freedom ambassador be given at least the status of other ambassadors at large by establishing the position as "principal advisor to the President and the Secretary of State."
...
Not only have the State Department's other ambassadors at large been in place for many months, but a whole platoon of other senior foreign policy officials are now at work -- for example, envoys for Global AIDS, Disabilities, Climate Change, Guantanamo, Global Partnerships, International Energy Affairs, Muslim Communities, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Farr recommends, in addition, that the administration adopt the foreign policy proposals of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

The Texas Board of Education has begun meeting yet again to debate Social Studies curriculum standards, picking up where they left off: with high school courses. As always, the Texas Freedom Network blog is the place to go for live-blogging the event. Meanwhile, the Dallas Morning News reports that amid the growing media frenzy around the 3-day event, the Texas Education Agency even issued a press release criticizing one network for inaccurate reporting.

The board is poised to vote Friday on the new standards.

A Wisconsin Judge dismissed the case against an Amish farmer who refused to comply with the state's "premise registration" law. Emanuel Miller argued that requiring him to enroll his farm and livestock with the government placed him in direct conflict with his religious belief. His Bishop had advised him that such an act is too great an entanglement with modern society, and that the resulting identification number represents a step toward the "Mark of the Beast" foretold in Revelation as the way of the antichrist.

Faced with this clear religious liberty dilemma, Judge Jon Carroll ruled that the State failed to prove that this mandatory registration law is the "least restrictive" way to achieve its otherwise compelling interest: protecting the animal health and food safety. He noted that the system was not shown to be more effective at containing disease outbreaks, and that the law already contains provisions that the Agriculture Department could use to accommodate Miller and other Amish farmers.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has said that “[a]compelling interest is not just a general interest in the subject matter but the need to apply the regulation without exception to attain the purposes and objectives of the legislation.” The premises registration statute allows for exemptions to registration... [based on the number or type of livestock kept by a person or on the type of locations where a person keeps livestock.]

If premises registration is the “only” way to meet the State’s interest, then the statute could not allow for exemptions. The State’s position therefore fails of its own internal inconsistency.
...
It is only the bureaucracy of the DATCP that has chosen not to create exemptions.

Yesterday, the Obama Administration received a final report and recommendations from its 25-member Faith-based Advisory Council. At the Washington Post's On Faith blog, Melissa Rogers describes the process and the results of the various task forces making up the council.

Those involved in these conversations did not consider or come to agreement on every issue. Indeed, our differences on a couple of issues are described below. But we were able to unite around a call for a number of important reforms. If implemented, these proposals would make a real difference on the ground, helping us to serve people in ways that are sensible, effective, and much more respectful of religious liberty.

Kudos to Rogers - former BJC General Counsel - for shepherding this important process through an extremely diverse panel of viewpoints, and to BJC executive Director Brent Walker for helping draft recommendations for reform of the faith-based program. Here's hoping the President will implement all, or at least most, of the council's advice.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that Cheryl Perich, dismissed by the Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran School in Redford, Michigan, may bring a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The decision overturns the district court's finding that courts are not allowed to intervene in the case because of the ADA's "ministerial exception" which gives a religious institution the ability to control employment consistent with its religious mission. Here, writing for the panel, Judge Eric Clay argues, Perich's role at the school was not religious in nature, leaving the exception inapplicable.

[W]hen courts have found that teachers classify as ministerial employees for purposes of the exception, those teachers have generally taught primarily religious subjects or had a central role in the spiritual or pastoral mission of the church.
...
the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying Perich as a ministerial employee. Perich spent approximately six hours and fifteen minutes of her seven hour day teaching secular subjects, using secular textbooks, without incorporating religion into the secular material.

...The fact that Perich participated in and led some religious activities throughout the day does not make her primary function religious.

At the Wall of Separation, Ilana Stern notes that today is the 62nd anniversary of a key church-state decision. 1948's McCollum v. Board of Education determined that public schools may not use instructional time for religious education - even under the guise of a "voluntary" program.

In 1944, Illinois fourth-grader James McCollum returned home from school and handed his mother a batch of homework assignments and a permission slip. James’ class was not embarking on a field trip, but rather, he and his classmates were asked to participate in “voluntary” religion classes that would be taught during the school day.

Initially consenting, his mother, Vashti McCollum, quickly changed her mind. After reviewing the course materials, she prohibited James from engaging in the school’s released-time program based on her belief that the classes were inappropriate for the public schools and offensive to her humanist sensibilities.

Robert Barnes of the Washington Post explores the question no one seems to think he should have bothered asking: "Does President Obama's next Supreme Court nominee need to be a Protestant?" 

Clearly, the court thinks of itself as post-religious. Last fall, Alito said he was frustrated that discussions about the court's Catholic majority became "one of those questions that does not die." He complained of "respectable people who have seriously raised the questions in serious publications about whether these individuals could be trusted to do their jobs."

Scalia has said he would be "hard-pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic." Ginsburg has said that whereas her predecessors on the court have been known collectively as the "Jewish justices," she and Breyer are "justices who happen to be Jews."

If President Obama nominates another Justice, here's hoping the media and the Senate confirmation process spends as much time considering the nominee's record and viewpoint on the constitutional balance of church-state separation as they do the denominational balance of the court's own members. More substance, please.

In a quick about-face, the head of the Dallas Housing Authority has now agreed that worship services for senior citizens may take place in public housing apartment buildings. Earlier, DHA President MaryAnn Russ had claimed otherwise, citing the separation of church and state.

The Oklahoma Senate yesterday passed a bill authorizing an elective class on the Bible in public high schools. Courses would be required to remain neutral on religious matters, but would use the controversial National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The measure now goes to the State House.

Recently-fired employees of the Ohio Workers Compensation Council allege widespread religious discrimination and coercion at the state office.

The Texas Freedom Network Insider blog analyzes election results for the Texas Board of Education. Incumbent and former chairman Don McLeroy - a leader in the effort to add religious perspectives to the science and social studies curricula - was very narrowly defeated in a Republican primary.