Jacques,

What stuns me about both your original post and comments, and your clarification and comments, is that I have not found what should be otherwise, blatantly obvious.

There are vast, incompatible differences between African American evangelicals who have historically shown the highest commitments to political rights stated in our Constitution, and the Christian Reconstructionist theological ideology of white evangelicals that holds democracy is intrinsically un-Biblical, godless, and therefore, a politics which come from hell itself.

On the one hand is a total commitment to constitutional, representative democracy, on the other a total commitment to a theocratic, fascist state. In such a context, it is no surprise that secularists, agnostics and atheists could vote for Obama, and at the same time roundly denounce the likes of theocrat-Huckabee.

As deplorable as all the "god-talk" is in our postmodern political spectacle, religion and individual religious belief of presidential candidates has been part of various presidential campaigns. Thomas Jefferson was labeled as a howling atheist, infidel, etc., during the 1800 campaign. Then, as now, it was the right-wing Christian clergy who were beside themselves that an "infidel" would bring the country to ruination.

From the West Texas Bible Belt where you can kick a bush and seven Christian fundamentalists jump out, damn each other to hell, then you for expressing an honest doubt.

I have read the original post on Huckabee's "blunder." What I read appears to chide Huckabee for actually saying what he believes, which will not do in the current political climate. He must attract more than evangelicals, so must hide his real thoughts. Nowhere do you say it is wrong to want the Constitution ammended to eliminate the separation of church and state.

Thus, when I review my comments concerning your post equating these comments by Huckabee and Sen Obama's prefessions of faith, with his acknowledgement that even people of no faith have a place in our country, I find my conclusions confirmed. Either you do not understand the difference, or you are consciously engaging in a purile debating exercise. In either case I still question Georgetown's committment to academic honesty.

When I was in college, I debated against some of the brightest Georgetown students. Their intellectual accomplishments suggested to me that Georgetown maintained very high standards of both learning and argumentation. What a dissapointment to read your illogical and purposely misleading work.

I think your analysis on Obama's religious beliefs and trying to tie it to some conflict with constitution is very shallow. Obama's religous affiliations came to forefront as a response to fear psychosis and zenophobic rumour about his religion. People in the country are still ages behind when it comes to these issues. A country having a constitution that espouses separation of the government from religion is hell bent on degrading other religions, but uses GODs bible in swearing ceremony to say "so help me GOD" This shows how mature the electorate is. Lastly there is nothing wrong in Obama's saying that government should have a set of values not only based on Christianity or Judaism or any other but based on human values--caring, sharing integrity, ethics, treating humans as equals (and not based on black, brown, white or polka dot )and discipline in keeping peoples trust etc. We all know how Geroge Bush's compassionate conservativatism ended up killing over 600,000 people in Iraq and rendering another 4 million Iraqis homeless as refugees in Jordan, Iran, and Lebonon etc.

Debate should be not about GOD but about the human who created the GOD to seek help when rendered mentally weak. Tilak

i think that a lot of people made a big issue about obama religion especially hillary clinton campaign.what is her reglion thats what people fell to look at.and i think that a lot of people hate to see a black african america as president if the american people have to judge you by your religon what kind of country do we live in. obama is uniting all race,color,and gender.and i think he is doing a wonderful job because he has my vote. not because of the color of your skin or your religon its because of HOPE.

The vast majority of "secular" people are actually quite tolerant of religion. Relatively few are openly hostile to it, even though they themselves choose not to participate in it. That is largely because the vast majority of religious people are not obnoxious about it. There are, of course, exceptions to both. There are obnoxious people on both sides of the question, but they are vocal out of proportion to their numbers.

In the previous column, Jacques, you seemed to be convinced that the "secular" left would have been outraged if Huckabee had said what Obama did say; I don't think there's much truth to that, given that Huckabee said all kinds of similar things without much reaction. The truth is, Huckabee was being true to himself, and nobody that I know of thought that he was a bad person for doing so. Of course, the secular left wasn't going to vote for Huckabee in the first place, but it wasn't because he had evangelical religious beliefs. A lot of people would be concerned about any candidate who promised to amend the Constitution to make it more compliant to his or her own personal religion.

In the current column, you don't seem to have gotten that message, either. By all means, please do scrutinize Obama's religious statements. To believe that God has a plan for America is a different thing from believing that one religion should rule all others; to have a personal faith story isn't the same as mandating religious practice. As long as Obama doesn't cross that line, he'll have plenty of people from the "secular left" happy to vote for him.

there wasn't silence from me. i'm sickened by the fact that religion is discussed in politics at all. this isn't a christian nation anymore than it is an athiest nation. but it's definitely a nation that should keep religion out of the presidency.

When will we begin to understand that our country's strength is the mixture of people and cultures that live here? Why is there a Judeo-Christian litmus test for American political candidates?

Our society is ignorant about other world religions, particularly Islam . Our media and our president have systematically tied together the words "Islamic" and "fascist" or "Muslim" and "terrorist", so much that much of our population finds it normal to think of Muslims in pejorative terms. The discrimination is so wanton, it's reminiscent of the way German and Japanese Americans were treated by the media during and after WWII. The vast majority of Muslims are by and large "just like us". So let's get over this shameful period of discrimination. It's un-Christian of us.

When Clinton supporters conducted a whisper campaign against Obama that he's a Muslim, it was intended to scare voters. (Note the similarity to to Karl Rove's hate-based tactics regarding McCain's daughter in 2000) The American public has been conditioned to fear Muslims, and thus "just in case" many have voted against Obama, despite their political leanings toward him.

Sadly, the fear mongering tactics worked, and Obama discovered he had to demonstrate his Christian credentials, if nothing else than to appease the ignorant people who wouldn't elect him if he were anything else. If it weren't for the vicious attacks, Obama would not have made a public spectacle of his faith.

Obama's political values, style, etc. are shaped by his Christian background within the United Church of Christ (UCC) denomination. The UCC is one of the most democratically structured Christian denominations. Each congregation hires its own minister, and manages its own finances, etc. The UCC encourages church members to experience faith in an intellectual manner, studying Christian foundations, asking questions, and developing a personal relationship of faith with God. It is not in the nature of most UCC members to proselytize, but to live by example. Thus Obama's life story of working to empower poor communities.

If people want to learn more about the UCC, to better understand Obama's background, they can check out the UCC website: http://www.ucc.org/

And if there is one thing that terrifies us secularists it is the proposition of yet another violent theocratic regime leading the USA into glorious battle against the Babylonians.

Obama's christing up is categorically different because he is not running on the Christian Platform- just occasionally playing the Jeebus card, as you said.

The Huckabee ad spots that ran in many markets sold him specifically as "A Christian Leader", that was his whole platform. Huckabee ran for "Christian In Chief" (per another commentator in On Faith) while Obama is running as a politician who knows when to preach to the choir.

At least now maybe the "Muslim" (o-o-o-scary) rumors are being replaced with "guess what? Obama belongs to a predominantly BLACK (o-o-o-scary) Christian congregation." If you really would like the facts about Trinity United Church of Christ, read this statement from UCC President John Thomas:

http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html

Howard Richman wrote:

". . .I had presented no evidence that Obama's campaign was reassuring secularists that he was emphasizing his Christianity as a tactic.

However, he was ignoring the evidence that I quoted which can still be read online in the original at:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201367877076&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I do not see anything in this article that says Obama's campaign is reassuring "secularists" (or atheists). They are not even mentioned, and Obama's views are hardly mentioned. This article is about how some Jewish organizations have criticized Obama. I think their criticisms are overstated. Obama has said nothing that should worry Jews or atheists.

I note that Richman's sig is "jews4huckabee.blogspot.com" Huckabee?!? Now THERE is a candidate who should worry Jews or atheists and anyone born in the last 400 years.

Also, I recommend you stop tossing around the word "secularist." Everyone, at all levels of the U.S. government is either a secularist or he has violated his oath of office and the Constitution. The Constitution spells out in no uncertain terms that there shall be no religious test for office, and completely religious freedom -- including freedom from religion.

As an ever-evolving Christian, I can identify more with Barack Obama than those whose beliefs are set in stone. I was raised Roman Catholic, which is a very authoritative, patriarchal religion. As a young adult, I found that, especially as a woman, I couldn't handle that restrictive, guilt-based society. My spiritual journey continued after I quit going to church. A few years ago, I happened on a religious community that doesn't force answers, but encourages QUESTIONS. It is the same denomination - United Church of Christ - that Barack Obama belongs to. I feel closer to God than I ever have, now that I'm able to express freely what God means to me as an individual. So, I understand where Obama is coming from. UCC uses a quote from Gracie Allen "Never place a period where God has placed a comma." Amen

What kind of Christian generously contributes and stays committed to a church whose pastor derides "Eurocentric" Christianity and who is an ally of Louis Farrakhan? The Reverend Wright has traveled to Libya with Farrakhan and the church magazine, run by pastor Wright's daughter, gave Farrakhan an award for citizenship last year.

Obama's claim to religious sincerity is somewhat tarred by his membership in, and generous donations to, a pastor who openly embraces Louis Farrakhan

Bush spoke of Jesus as a philosopher, I assume, not only to pander to the religious right, but because he had never read any actual philosopher. Remember, Bush is not exactly an intellectual. He's about as smart as Spiderman 2.

Obama doesn't call for Church and State to be the same. Basically HUCKELBERRY does.

Huckabee is a white evangelical pastor/politician (and frankly, every pastor is a politician in their dealings with a congregation), so everything he said was scrutinized, criticized, and hyperbolized with a fine tooth flea comb. Obama on the other hand is the second son of God and therefore above all earthly criticism. Personally I prefer James the Apostle's assessment - you shall know them by their works. Both Huckabee and Obama give wonderful homilies - but what have they really done for their fellow human?

Prof. Berlinerblau: I do think there is a fundamental (no pun intended) difference between Huckabee's so-called use of religion in politics and Obama's, but it has more to do with the outlook of their respective parties than with either of the two candidates. Huckabee is (was) running in a party that has reconciled itself for quite some time to the presence in the party of a large number of devout Christians (and other type of believers) who allow their faith to influence their political actions. Obama is running in a party that still has not accepted that one can be a loyal democrat and a devout Christian (or other type of believer) that sees faith shaping if not directing political action. Among other changes on the political landscape he may engender, if he keeps at it, Obama may find himself (eventually) in a Democratic party and its media subsidiary not completely uncomfortable with members who attend religious services on a regular basis and who allow what they hear at those services to influence what they do in the voting booth.
Regards, EgS

why are jewish people so prejudice against christians and african americans--it unreal the ny times now this i think you need to stop hiding behind you education and start being honest!!!!

Your previous article hit the nail right on the head. It articulated exactly why I think Obama is a buffoon when compared to Hillary Clinton. It's that average to just slightly above average IQ, you know that Starbucks customer type who thinks he's some great orator. He's a moron. Can you imagine a State of the Union address by Obama? He'll invoke God so many times - I can't stand to think about it. In God's America wher His vision - blah blah blah blah. and I'm a Christian! It goes to show he's educated beyond his own understanding, poor thing. If he really cared about his party's platform and long term future, he'd back out now, be Hillary's number 2 (so he has time to learn a few things and get tested) and the Democrats could own the White House for the next 16 years. But he just wants to win. I don't even think he wants change, just to hear himself talk and be president. Hillary so obviously wants Democratic policies carried out--it's why she's so villified. Paint a picture that is opposite of what someone is and people begin to see that. In a debate, Obama declared something about how his speeches are pretty good ones- he said 'and some of 'em are pretty good ones if I do say so myself'--UGH! He's such an idiot. Even Reagan said he wasn't a great communicator, he said he was communicating great ideas. Obama proclaims change, but never says what it will be. He says have faith for change for God's plan for America! What?! People just don't see it. He ain't no Jack Kennedy. ...just another proselytizer to gain power for himself. Hillary has no need to go back to the White House and everyone makes her out to be power crazy. Maybe Revelations is really upon us.

Mr. Berlinerblau:

First, I believe you are looking at Christians and "Christians" and seeing them as one and the same. There is a big difference between one who calls peace, love, and tolerance godly and one who calls greed, hate, and war godly. Unfortunately, we have more of the latter in our country.

Second, the only reason Obama is touting his Christianity is to combat the lies and fear-mongering that he is a Muslim, terrorist, Manchurian candidate, etc. He is not (as Huckabee did) purporting to change the Constitution to abide by God's standards. I would make the argument that he would rather have secular, yet value-oriented, changes come from within ourselves. Everyone has values, right? Christians have values, Jews have values, Muslims do, Satanists do, Atheists do. A government with no values is akin to hell (President Hillary? Just kidding, that's not very Christian of me). Definitively, some one with no morals/values is psychopathic.

Spiderman2, I pray for you that you may see your hate.

I recommend Deepak Chopra's column.

Mr. Professor Berlinerblau:

Is 'christing up{" the same as "jewing up"?

You enjoy insulting 98% of us?

Jacques was confused too coz all the while he was thinking that the atheists/liberal people would be supporting his views about Obama. Lo and behold, he seems to be alone in his persuasion. Confusing indeed.

Regardless of who wins the presidency, the prophecy still stands that the atheist/liberal people are an endangered specie. It's really a question of who do they want to see sit in the White House as they (atheists/liberal people) fade away.

Poor guys, even at this one, they don't know who to choose. Hillary or Obama? They would think "who would protect me (security wise) better and at the same time protect my silly ways? Oh no, not a girl. Oh no, not a "religious" man. I thought it's Obama but Jacques confusing me again. Oh no, I'm losing my mind."

Keep it up, Jacques. Now the super delegates are confused too. Hee-haa ..

In response to my earlier post, Jed Rothwell claimed that I had presented no evidence that Obama's campaign was reassuring secularists that he was emphasizing his Christianity as a tactic.

However, he was ignoring the evidence that I quoted which can still be read online in the original at:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201367877076&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Howard Richman
jews4huckabee.blogspot.com

I see your point, unfortunately it is still wrong.
The key difference you are missing is that one speech is about values reflected in governance. Which secularists like as much a religious folk. The other speech hints at the government mandating what those values should be. That is why people have such different reactions to the statements.

I find it disturbing that part of any presidential candidate's resume must include a Christian religious affiliation.

Obama's heavy-handedness with religion is just one of the many, many reasons I won't vote for him.

As an atheist, I don't find what he says any more or less disturbing than what Huckabee said. So far as I'm concerned, it's all bad and in varying degrees, it's all a necessary part of appealing to the mindless, god-crazed masses.

Berlinblau is determined to help Hillary dirty Obama.
You see, Obama isn't a "new yorker" nor has he bought the whoooole farm for Israel, as HIllary has. She's bought and sold, 'airtight" we hear.

So we get Obama bashing and sneers of "bible thumping" from Berlinerblau, and columns mostly about BErlinerblau explaining his former writings and self congratulation beyond bearing.

IS there anyone more obnoxous or obvious?

JED:
Though I have my own reasons for doubting Obama's religious fervor (I was his constituent when he was in the Illinois State Senate and have followed his exploits and his career for many years), I never said that it should be obvious that he doesn't sincerely believe in Jesus. On the contrary, he's done an excellent job of appearing very committed to Christianity. However, his voting record makes it very clear that he doesn't religious-based, right-wing ideas influence his politics. That much should make it obvious that when he talks-up God in speeches, he's just trying to appeal to people who want to like him but are bothered by his liberal social policies.

JED:
Though I have my own reasons for doubting Obama's religious fervor (I was his constituent when he was in the Illinois State Senate and have followed his exploits and his career for many years), I never said that it should be obvious that he doesn't sincerely believe in Jesus. On the contrary, he's done an excellent job of appearing very committed to Christianity. However, his voting record makes it very clear that he doesn't religious-based, right-wing ideas influence his politics. That much should make it obvious that when he talks-up God in speeches, he's just trying to appeal to people who want to like him but are bothered by his liberal social policies.

Why would China who's a godless nation ban gay marriage? What separation of church and state are we talking about when there is no church there? It only means that gay marriage is not a church issue but is simply an abnormal behavior.

We should ban gay mariage because it is abnormal and that's a universal view that is held even in godless countries.

The same logic applies to abortion. It's not normal.

As Pamela so nicely points out, Obama is at best an interpretive Christian, if not, as I'm sure most politicians are, a Christian in name only. He talks about "God's Love" and so forth in order to pacify voters who care about having a Christian president, but, outside of a socialist bent, his politics don't follow the teachings of the Church. That's why atheist liberals like me are comfortable with him. I'm still backing Clinton, but that's beside the point.

Alex wrote:

"It's obvious, at least to most atheists, I'm sure, that he is just pandering to voters."

I am an atheist and I do not find that obvious at all! On the contrary, it is obvious to me that Obama is sincerely religious. Most religious people are sincere, after all.

I do not think he is pandering to anyone, and I do not think it is fair for you to say that he is. You can't read his mind. His religious views are not unusual or extreme, so he probably believes them, along with ~80% of other Americans. There is no reason to think he is faking or pandering.

You might suspect he is pandering if he were a hypocrite, or if there were stories that he was cruel or rapacious, an adulterer or what-have-you. But there is no evidence for that. He seems to be a model Christian family man who has devoted his life to public service.

HAVE YOU READ WHAT OBAMA STATED AT HOCKING COLLEGE IN NELSONVILLE, OHIO, THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT JUSTIFIES HIS SUPPORT FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX UNIONS? AND HE ALSO TOLD THE COLLEGE CROWD THAT HIS POSITION IN FAMOR OF LEGALIZED ABORTION DOES NOT MAKE HIM ANY LESS CHRISTIAN. MARCH 3 NEWSMAX.SUNDAY
TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, OBAMA VOTED AGAINST A BAN PROHIBITING 3RD TRISEMESTER PREGNANIES.
IM NOT FOR SURE WHAT THE LIBERAL CHURCH IN ORD IS TEACHING,(PERHAPS FARRANKAN KNOWS MORE SPECIFICS) OR PERHAPS ITS THE "OPHRA NEW CHRIST RELIGION", CHECK OUT HER WEB FOR PROGRAM. BUT I DO KNOW ITS NOT WHAT GOD'S WORD SAYS.

DID YOU GET OBAMA'S SPEECH AT HOCKING COLLEGE IN NELSONVILLE,OHIO? HE STATED THAT HE BELIEVED THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT JUSTFIES HIS SUPPORT FOR LEGAL RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX UNIONS, HE ALSO TOLD THE CROWD THAT HIS POSITION INFAVOR OF LEGALIZED ABORTION DOES NOT MAKE HIM ANY LESS CHRISTIAN> MONDAY MARCH3 NEWSMAX>
TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, MR OBAMA VOTED AGAINST A BAN TO STOP 3RD TRISEMESTER PREGNANIES.
im really not for sure what the liberal church in ord believes--- PERHAPS ITS BELIEFS ARE SIMILAR TO OPHRA'S NEW CHRIST STUDY PROGRAM, but it doesnt seem to be with GOD'S WORD!!!!

Jacques,

You're missing the point about Barack, which Metavosk articulated well.

You KNOW that Barack will not attempt to enforce his religious views on anyone, and will not try to have the government do that either.

The GOP biblethumpers will try doing that.

Jacques,

You're missing the point about Barack, which Metavosk articulated well.

You KNOW that Barack will not attempt to enforce his religious views on anyone, and will not try to have the government do that either.

The GOP biblethumpers will try doing that.

As an atheist, I am very concerned when I see a politician who seems likely to press a religious agenda. I don't want schoolchildren exposed to religious propaganda, or reproductive rights restricted, or homosexuals disenfranchised. That's why I get so upset when we hear someone like Huckabee or McCain talking about religion and politics. I'm afraid such a person will try enact legislation to chip away at the separation of church and state, or, in the case of the Presidency, will appoint justices who also seek to keep America a "Christian Nation". However, I know enough about Obama from his record to know that, if elected, he won't appoint any right-wing justices or encourage creationism to be taught in schools. It's obvious, at least to most atheists, I'm sure, that he is just pandering to voters. He did the same thing to win the Illinois Democratic Senate primary in 2004 (for those who don't know, he was not doing well and had no support from black leaders in Chicago until he started giving speeches in churches on the South Side).

Howard Richman wrote:

"The real reason that secularists are not upset about Obama playing of the religion card is because they think that it is just a campaign tactic. They think that he is really one of them."

It is not clear what a "secularist" is, but if you mean atheists, this assertion is absurd. Obama clearly is a Christian, just as he says he is, and most atheists couldn't care less whether he believes or not. Most Americans are Christian, but they never bother or hurt atheists, so who cares what they believe?

This is a bit like asserting that all Jewish people living in the U.S. secretly want everyone else to convert because they don't like living as a minority in a Christian country. That's nuts. I have never met a Jew who felt that way.

"Obama's campaign has been reassuring secularists privately even while he plays the Christian card in public."

It must be doing this very privately indeed, because not a word of it has appeared in the press and they are not good at hiding secrets. They can't even keep a private meeting with the Canadian government secret. The Clinton camp is better at hiding stuff; maybe you have confused them with Obama.

"The problem is that when a candidate says things as a tactic, nobody ever really knows when he really means what he says."

That can be said about anyone who says he believes in God. You can never be sure, because you can't read minds and there is no documentation. It isn't like checking to see if he paid his taxes, for example.

How do you know it is a tactic? Eisenhower and Reagan seldom attended church before they were elected, and they evinced no interest in religion. When they were presidents, they went to church more often. Was that a tactic, or hypocrisy, or did they think they were setting a good example? You would have to read their minds to know.

I suppose that since Obama often sits in church on Sunday, he probably does believe. He doesn't have to do that to establish bona fides with religious voters. Many other politicians such as McCain seldom go to church, but no one questions their piety.

someone needs to ask his pastor to ask farrakhan what he thinks about the muslim that just gunned down 7 jews in a seminary in jerusalem today. they killed the guy but i was wondering if louis thinks he got 72 virgins. myself i hope he gets 72 virginians.

Politics is my hobby and I watch the media carefully. Since I have seen little in the
way of balanced coverage of Obama, I have come to the conclusion that at this time in our culture
we are incapable of evaluating him equally.
I attribute this to our shame of our terrible racist past.
It does not appear to be deliberate, but unconscious.
The result is that Obama is not given the respect of full and equal investigation and reporting and we, the people, receive information borne of
unconscious bias, which is inevitably distortion.

Jacques,

If you do not see the categorical difference between professing one's personal beliefs and stating that those beliefs should fundamentally alter the laws of the Nation, then I'm not sure what constitutes a valid nuance in your mind.

Obama evokes religious imagery in his speeches, and it is a language he and his audience can relate to. This is a practice even most of us secularists can appreciate. The metaphors and fables of religious texts, the Bible in particular, tap our national shared subconscious, whether we happen to believe in them or not.

It is a savvy political tool -- one that has been invoked throughout history by people who have done a generally decent job of protecting my right as a non-believer. To question Barack Obama's ability to follow in this tradition is truly grasping at straws, or to put it in context, following in the ignoble footsteps of Doubting Thomas.

It is an interesting thing how the press cannot
bring itself to evaluate Obama equally. I attribute it to the shame our culture feels at
our terrible racist past. As a result, Obama does not get the respect of full and honest media
investigation. Every punch is pulled. It does not
seem to be done deliberately, but unconsciously,
which makes it ever more powerful and difficult
to combat.
The logical conclusion to draw is that we are making a less than aware choice for our president
based biased information offered by a media
unaware of its bias.

Looking too long at the bizarre and unproven nonsense spouted by religionists tends to desensitize us secularists, I think, about the shaky footing our non-religious values are built on.

Let's be honest -- there is virtually no objective and absolute proof that secularist "values" of right and wrong, generally, are anything other than expedient if-then notions or personal druthers.

That may still make them superior to values derived from airy-fairy superstition, but maybe not nearly as superior as we tend to unthinkingly believe.

If we could learn to put aside all our religious labels; whether Christian, Jew, Muslim or whatever, and focus on living the principles or the qualities of our Divine nature and what God/Allah/Jah whatever... represent, then all would be well with the world; Unconditional love, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, kindness.....

God is LOVE.... need we go any further from this? If we can re-condition our thinking to go forth in EVERY aspect of our lives with this as the foundation of our thoughts, words and deeds... would there not be a Universal connection between all man? Instead, we choose to remain stuck within the labels of who we think we are and who we think the Creator is....
alas, that is mankind's greatest tragedy... we're too "intellectual" for our own good.

Jeff: fair enough, but even the comments to which you refer do not explicitly, or even implicitly cross the line he has drawn (and I suspect they were indeed carefully crafted with that in mind). And setting aside both extremes who would rewrite the history of our founding to make it utterly secular or utterly religious, the fact of the matter is that the truth is much messier. We do have a religious tradition, and it has been part of our political heritage. We have had any number of politicians showing little respect for the appropriate separation of church and state, properly and historically understood. I just don't think Obama has given us much to be concerned about, especially by comparison, and especially given the need to respond to the absurd Muslim innuendo.

Jacques,

The real reason that secularists are not upset about Obama playing of the religion card is because they think that it is just a campaign tactic. They think that he is really one of them.

Obama's campaign has been reassuring secularists privately even while he plays the Christian card in public. For example, in January his campaign spokesman Eric Lynn told the Jerusalem Post that Obama had played up his Christianity in a South Carolina mailer in order to counteract the perception that he was a Muslim.

Specifically, Lynn said, "Barack Obama is not trying to introduce Christianity into the campaign. This mailer's intent is to inform the voter about who Barack Obama is in light of the number of smears that have defined him incorrectly as a Muslim."

Obama got in trouble recently for playing the anti-NAFTA card as a debate tactic even while his chief economist was telling the Canadian government not to worry. Now he is playing the religion card even while his campaign tells secularist supporters that it is just a tactic to allay the perception that he is a Muslim.

The problem is that when a candidate says things as a tactic, nobody ever really knows when he really means what he says.

Howard Richman
jews4huckabee.blogspot.com

To be fair to Mr. Berlinerblau, he was not referring only to ambiguous comments by Obama about his own beliefs, he also referred to Obama's statements about our religious beliefs as a nation. Obama has made comments about how Americans go to church, without appearing to acknowledge the existence (and thereby the uprightness?) of those who do not attend church. In the context in which these words were spoken, they legitimately cause some of us to worry about Mr. Obama's perspective on the legitimacy of religious beliefs other than his own and the separation of religion and the state.

While I agree that Huckabee's plans for the Constitution are of a different explicit degree, Obama's outlook certainly should warrant close inspection on these issues relating to our most important constitutional rights and the health of our supposedly inclusive and pluralistic society.

I still marvel that we are bogged down in parsing how some ambiguous religious statements may or may not give us a hint as to Obama's views on faith in politics when Obama has, in exquisite detail, clearly, intelligently, and with remarkable wisdom, written on the subject. I cannot find the lengthy quote (it has been posted by one of the On Faith panelists here), but it is to the effect that faith is just fine, and need not be hidden, and may be the legitimate source of a politician's position, but it may not be the justification for advancing that position in any legislative, judicial or executive action. Rather, any such position must be advanced instead by appealing to non-religious arguments persuasive to those who do not share the religious belief. If you credit that premise (and I don't find anything else he has said that suggests he doesn't practice what he preaches on separation of church and state) Obama can say anything he wants about his religious beliefs without scaring me.

The religious issue with Bush is not necessarily his speaking of Christ as philosopher. The issue is that fundamentalism often seems to drive Administration policy, such as abstinence-only sex education.

You wrote:

"They hit the roof when Bush spoke of Christ as philosopher."

I do not recall anyone hitting the roof. I recall only mild ridicule. And after all, Bush meant it, and Christ surely is one of the most important ancient moral philosophers, along with Gautama. Founding a religion does not disqualify you as a philosopher.

I think there is a HUGE is a huge difference between talking about one's own personal faith, which is what Obama has done, and calling America a "Christian nation" or saying you cannot have freedom without religion. Obama is telling the honest truth: he really is a Christian, whereas politicians who think the U.S. is Christian nation are seriously misinformed and dangerous. People who believe that you cannot have freedom without religion are ignorant.

I am an atheist, but I couldn't care less whether Obama is an Christian or not, as long as he abides by the Constitution and honors the separation of church and state.

Politicians have been openly religious since politics began, and there is no harm in it. In the past they did not wear religion on their sleeves, but they did not hide it either. Above all, great leaders did not consider themselves philosophers or people who shape ideas so much as action. FDR conspicuously lacked a coherent, unified political philosophy or world view. He was a pragmatist who tried something, and if it did not work, he tried something else. A reporter once pressed him to state his political philosophy. He replied, "I am a Christian and Democrat -- that's all." That seems like an excellent answer to me. It is much better then 10 minutes of hair-splitting philosophy or bible thumping. If you are sincerely religious, say so briefly and have done with it.

FDR and other politicians prior to the 1990s seldom talked about religion. As far as I know, he only led the nation in prayer once, on D-Day. Even an atheist should admit this was appropriate. If ever there was a time when a national leader should pray, that was it! I am sure it did not turn away a single bullet or save a life, but it helped calm millions of people during the worst crisis in the nation's history.

Jacques , it just means that you have a wrong perception of America. It is a godly country so start geting used to it. You've been day dreaming for so long already.