Reply #13: Wow! Did that ever touch a nerve here.

[elocs]

If people would more closely read the words of the OP they might notice that is poses a question which asks IF Obama is non-religious, is he electable as President? It might be good to think a bit before snapping off a snippy reply.

I heard Barak Obama give an interview on NPR the other day and he did indicate that he was raised in a non-religious family. His mother would have him go to church, but also to places like a Buddhist temple. Obama does have a personal faith and here are a few of his thoughts about religion: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm

Here is a snip:
"My lesson

I've fallen into this trap myself. During my 2004 Senate race, my opponent said, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response: that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another. I said I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not the minister of Illinois.

But my opponent's accusations nagged at me, and I knew that my answer didn't address the role my faith has in guiding my values. I, like other progressives, should have realized that when we ignore what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, when we shy away from religious venues because we think we'll be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum: those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.

If progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates with all Americans. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America's renewal."

My guess is that many here have absolutely no desire to reach out to the evangelical community, but would just as soon write them off. That's too bad because I would also guess that they believe that it is only Republicans who have narrow minds. Senator Obama makes good sense. How many will listen to him?