Barack Obama's Religiosity

(an actual political mailer from Senator Obama)

Introduction

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute...I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair."
-John F. Kennedy

Unfortunately, Senator Barack Obama is no John F. Kennedy.

Imagine if Obama had sent out political mailers that said "Committed Heterosexual" on them, and that he said we need more straight folks on Capitol Hill for "an injection of morality in our political debate." Imagine him saying that the Democratic Political Party should reach out specifically to straight folks and that he then attened several "Straight-Only Forums" where he discussed the importance of his straightness to his morality and to his politics. His political career would be over. We would naturally empathize with our gay friends; we would imagine the shock on their faces as they read a political mailer that said "Committed Heterosexual" on it, and we would feel Obama's not-so-subtle message that being gay is unworthy of political participation. Obama did really say these things - and many more as you'll see - but with regards to faith. What, no outcry? No empathy for the nonbeliever? And we wonder why Americans won't vote for a nonbeliever for dog catcher.

I'm not a militant atheist. I'm what many would call an agnostic secular-humanist. I don't want laws passed that limits anyone's right to speak freely about their religion, or nonreligion. I simply prefer that politicians from both Parties speak minimally about their private faith. I would say the same, of course, about an atheistic politician. And I'd argue that most on the Left have historically preferred, as I do, that politicians keep their religion fairly private. Politicians have every legal right to express their private faith; just like they have the legal right to express the power and importance of their "whiteness" or their "maleness" or their "straightness". But when it comes to these latter ways to classify humans, we ask our politicians not to go there, even if they are willing to periodically say something positive about those outside their class. We should ask our politicians not to go there with religion too. Most on the Left used to understand this, but Senator Obama has gone to the religious well many times over the past two years, and there has been little criticism from his supporters. Political power in this country is completely controlled by just one group - those of faith. That doesn't happen by accident. Normally, such a stranglehold on American politics by one group would result in an outcry from the people, certainly from the Left. But all of us - the liberal, the conservative, the atheist, and the believer - have been subtly trained to view this one group as "different" from the rest; we are taught to protect it, to not criticize it too much, to let their members get away with things we would never allow from any other majority group - certainly not from inside the venerated (and purportedly inclusive) institution of American politics. It's time we end the pernicious and pervasive religious-litmus test for political participation.

But ending the American religio-political system begins with understanding that the system is not kept in good health by only those on the Christian Far Right who are against abortion and who want prayer in school. It's more insidious than that. Our exclusive religious-political system's elixir is created by our inability as individuals to feel the injurious effects of the status-quo-supporting actions from our favored candidates.

This web page is not about criticizing Senator Obama in general. Although, his pandering to the center and his change of heart on several issues (e.g. Public Campaign Financing, he now supports the warrantless surveillance mechanisms in the grotesque FISA bill which grants immunity to telecom companies, Gun Control Laws, NAFTA, Capital Punishment Rulings, etc.) are disconcerting because it shows that to secure votes and prove his centrist bona fides he will change his positions. Also bothersome are the unscrupulous methods he used to win his Illinois State Senate seat in 1996. He extinguished his Democratic rivals by invalidating signatures that were printed instead of written in cursive? Are you kidding me? He is a change candidate? Hardly. His is a new style of politics? Sadly, no.

Nor am I saying that Obama will be a bad president. He could turn out to be a great president. I personally agree with more of his political beliefs than I do with GWB's. My point is that in our rush to worship Obama, we are letting him get away with things - in particular in the area of mixing religion into politics - that we on the Left would normally be upset about. I argue that all of us in society are sorta trained to let this kind of thing slide when it is our candidate who is doing it. And that our silence is why politics is so dominated by one group: the religious. This needs to change. And it starts by criticizing some of the things our favorite candidates - including Obama - says and does.

So this web page concerns one broad and important aspect of Obama that I find dangerous - his mixing of religion and politics. The decades old "religious creep" into American politics is well known and well documented. But historically it has been the Republican Party who mixed religious rhetoric from their private faith with politics. Obama has changed all that. In this respect, he truly is the "change candidate"...but not in a good way. My concern over Obama's lack of secularity has little to do with whether I am a believer or not. This isn't a metaphysical debate. I've voted for many Christians in my life; their private religion did not cause them to lose my vote. This is about Obama's overuse of religion in his politics. A person can be deeply religious and still be secular and want Obama to tone down his religious rhetoric - the Reverend Barry Lynn is one such person. To be sure, no politician will agree with me on every issue. But, to me, mixing religion and politics is not a run-of-the-mill political issue, it's a broad political philosophy. And one not to be taken lightly.

Why do I find such mixing "dangerous"? Well, I lay out several reasons in the below section entitled "What's Wrong With Mixing Religion And Politics". But two critical issues are a) it's not inclusive - it keeps American Politics open only to those of faith by reinforcing the pernicious notion that candidates must be religious to be worthy of a vote and b) it helps keep the erroneous myth alive that nonbelievers are immoral. I would additionally add that it changes the way people vote. The more that religion has crept into Liberal politics the more conservative the constituents have voted. Look at how "liberal" California voted for a liberal for President (Obama) and yet simultaneously voted for a very "conservative" Proposition to amend the state consitution to ban gay marriage. It wasn't just conservatives who struck down gay marriage in California, it was black, liberal, Democratic Christians. After reading this web page - and the things Obama has said about religion, politics and gay marriage - that outcome should not be very suprising to you. It wasn't to me. See the below sections for more reasons why mixing religion and politics is not a good idea.

Bottom Line: The way to combat Right-Wing-Religion-In-Politics is not with Left-Wing-Religion-In-Politics; it's with secularism. And it was working. The more the Left let's religion creep into American politics and the more we fail to criticize Obama for the things he has said and done in this regard, the longer American Politics will be an institution only for the faithful and the longer America will look down upon nonbelievers as immoral. No other Western Democracy on the planet has such a strong religious litmus test for political participation or view nonbelievers so negatively. We all need to accept our culpability in this - and we need to start criticizing our politicians accordingly. Let's keep religion to a minimum in everyone's politics. Below is a list of quotes, ideas and actions from Senator Obama that crosses the line with respect to mixing too much religion with politics. I also include sections on why this mixing is harmful, why more people aren't speaking out about it, and I end with some concluding thoughts.

The List

Here are but a few examples of where I, and many others, feel that Senator Obama has gone too far with his religiosity as a politician. Most on the Left would strongly object to these things if a Republican Senator had said them.

Obama's Desire To Inject Religion Into The Democratic Political Party
In many speeches (and even in two of the Primary debates), Senator Obama implores the Democratic Party to reach out specifically on a religious basis. ABC News ("Obama Tells Dems To Get Religion") has even noticed it. It wasn't long ago that such a call would have been met with a stiff rebuttal from the Left. To me, the beauty of the Democratic Party was that it reached out to people based on ideas that transcend one's personal religion. The Democratic Party was for everyone, regardless of personal faith and no one group (religious or nonreligious) was courted. I loved that about the Democratic party. But Obama states openly that he wants to change that. He has criticize Democrats for "taking the bait" and avoiding "conversations about religious values." But is that the job of the Democratic Party? To talk about religious values? Which religious values? There are many, many religions and countless interpretations of religious values inside each one. No. Let's let the priests and ministers do this - not the Democratic Political Party. Unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has courageously resisted the temptation to become more outwardly religious, because to do so would to not be inclusive. We have been winning elections without specifically courting the religious, so we certainly don't need to do it now in order to get more votes (as if that would be an honorable justification). I'm saddened that Obama's supporters remain so silent on this issue. Most of them used to loathe this type of thing from the Republicans. Future liberal political candidates are being influenced by Senator Obama and will imitate his use of religion in politics. Some will be as closed minded towards nonbelievers as many Republicans are. For example, here is a recent story about Monique Davis - a Democratic State Senator from Illinois who berated a nonbeliever during State testimony. Your voices need to be heard; you can vote for Obama and still criticize various aspects of him. In fact, I would argue that it's your civic duty to do so.
Senator Obama's "Call To Renewal" Speech
In this speech Senator Obama criticizes secularists & progressives far too often, and in the process he overstates the moral superiority of religion. He repeatedly states that "morality conversations" must include un-translated religious language and that our society has been hurt by secularists' efforts to "scrub" the English language free of religious rhetoric. Imagine if politicians spoke about the importance of being male to morality or being white. Imagine if they attended "Maleness Forums" or "Whiteness Forums" to talk about how those things have guided their morality and how we need more of it in society's morality conversations and inside our politics. With regards to religion, Obama goes so far as to say that the evil secularists' efforts have already "prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms." Besides inferring that morality is dependent upon religious language, Obama also makes the mistake of accusing secularists of something most of us don't do. That is, do most secularists really try to scrub the English language of all religious content? No. Yes, many of us secularists (even religious secularists) feel that there is enough religion (as compared to atheism) in our society. And we often wish that our politicians would minimize their use of religious language (for inclusive reasons)...but that's about it. Obama (and the Jim Wallis' of the world) try to paint secularists as being more militant than we really are. It's a tactic that the Right uses also. And in doing so both the Right and Obama pump up the importance of religion in morality to the point that religion and morality become nearly equivalent; causing many to unfairly view nonbelievers as lacking in morality. Of course, I would argue that doing good to others out of pure empathy for that other person is more "moral" than doing so in the hope of pleasing a judgmental God. But I digress.

At one point, Obama makes the very broad (and Christian-Rightesque) claim that religion "is the moral underpinings of the nation." At best, it is for some of the nation. This kind of talk only adds to the pernicious and undeserved belief that nonbelievers have low (or no) morality. And exactly how does Obama expect a diverse group of people in society to undertake "morality conversations" using the language of religious specifics? As soon as, say, a Christian says "I believe X to be wrong because Jesus said so..." he has lost atheists and non-Christian religious folks. No, the best language for morality discussions is a secular, universal one. Most other Western Democracies are doing that now and are less violent than we are. In the speech Obama strangely states that we need Christians, Jews, and Muslims on Capitol Hill for an "injection of morality in our political debate". Besides the Church/State issues I have with that statement, he easily could have inlcuded nonbelievers in that list - but he chose not to. Imagine the outrage from the normally-empathetic Left if Obama had said that America needs more men on Capitol Hill for an injection of morality in our politics. But when it is nonbelievers on the receiving end of such comments, not even the Left cares very much. This is how we have all been subtly trained by our society. Obama's implication is that religion is morality. He does throw us nonbelievers one small bone by mentioning that the religious don't have a "monopoly" on morality (notice that the implication is that the religious naturally possess morality, but that the nonreligious might possess it). But this one decent line does not make up for the fact that he implies over and over that religion is morality, and thus society & politics needs more of it. Why a U.S. Senator feels the need to talk about this in this level of detail is beyond me. And not long ago most of my Liberal friends would have agreed with me.

In the speech, Obama also says that "You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash way. " To me, that's just too preachy for a U.S. Senator to say. And I would argue that many on the Left would have agreed with me not long ago. As a non-Christian, I'm left wondering what Obama thinks of me - and what he thinks will happen to me if I don't "embrace Christ" to wash away my sins. This is why politicians should avoid this kind of specific religious rhetoric; it isn't inclusive and it doesn't belong in politics. And others (most notably his followers) are influenced by his words and can begin viewing nonbelievers in a negative light. Again, I'm not saying such language from politicians should be illegal. I'm saying that it's not inclusive, so I'd like politicians to let the clergy speak in these terms. I'm also saying that many on the Left used to feel this way too - but they have now changed their minds when it's a Democrat saying these ministerial words.

In the second part of the speech Obama does say that religious politicians should translate their values into rational "universals" before putting them into law. That's nice, but I think all people on the Left and even many on the Right have felt that way for decades, if not centuries. And he's on record stating that he's against legalized gay marriage because it goes against his religion - thus he breaks his own rule anyway (i.e. he's putting his religion into law without first translating it into universals). He also claims that American Law is "grounded" in Judeo-Christian values, something Thomas Jefferson said was not true. American Law was founded on pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon values. On many of these issues, Obama sounds like a conservative Christian. I never dreamed I'd have to argue such things with a fellow liberal. And in this speech (and in others, like the "Politics Of Conscience" speech), Senator Obama praises past political speeches (e.g. Lincoln's second inaugural address) for their religious rhetoric instead of for the powerful & beautiful & universal ideas those speeches contained. I find that to be a terrible message for a political leader to give.

So, many of the ideas that Senator Obama expressed in that speech are things that we on the Left (including many on the Religious-Left) used to oppose with near uniformity. Some on the Left have said that Obama was asked to give this speech, as well as his other speeches on religion; as if that removes him from criticism. But Obama could easily have turned down giving these faith speeches. I would argue that U.S. Senators should turn down giving speeches on religion. Instead, he chose to give these speeches knowing full well that the media was covering them and that he would put the speeches on his web site for all to read. He knew that his audience was not just the people in attendance.

Many Obama supporters somehow interpret that speech as being a slam against only the Far Right fundamentalists. But only a tiny fraction of the speech was directed against the Far Right (i.e. the part about not directly mixing religious language with law making). The vast majority of that speech was about the utter importance of religious language in society's "morality conversations". And it was about the need for more religion in a society that Obama sees as extremely religious - as he unapologetically says, more Americans "believe in angels than they do in evolution". And the speech was a criticism against progressives and secularists. Many newspaper columns, like this one entitled "Obama: Democrats Must Court Evangelicals", agrees that the speech was more of a criticism against progressives than it was a criticism against the Religious Right.

Many people have criticized the "Call To Renewal" speech as being too much of an attack on secularists. Clearly, I agree.
Here is a remarkably detailed and well-written criticism of Obama's "Call To Renewal" speech. I was shocked at how many of my thoughts on the speech were expressed by the essay's author.
Here is another well-written criticism of Obama's "Call To Renewal" speech by the well-known secular scholar and critic of the Far Right, Frederick Clarkson. In his essay, he criticizes Obama's and Jim Wallis' needless attacks on secularists, and states that both men portray us secularists as being far more extreme than we really are. They do so in an attempt to garner centrist Christian's votes for the Democratic Party. Secularists and nonbelievers are being attacked and marginalized by both the Right and the Left in this country for partisan reasons. I'm tired of it.
Religious Language From A Politician
In several speeches Senator Obama has said things like "Doing the Lord�s work is a thread that has run through our politics since the very beginning." Again, I'm not saying it should be illegal for politicans to say something like that. But I am saying that when politicians do speak like that, they are not being very inclusive. I'd argue that not long ago most liberals would have deemed the above statement as being very inappropriate if a Republican Senator had said it. Obama has also given several Christian sermons in churches since becoming a U.S. Senator. No, that's not illegal - as long as he doesn't endorse a candidate from inside the church - but I'd prefer that Senators and Presidents not give Christian sermons. Even many Far Right Republicans choose not to do that. But Obama lacks the self control to just say no when it comes to overly-expressing his religion as a politician. As mentioned above, he has said "You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash way." He has also said "I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God...I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.". Kingdom on Earth? Pray for him to be an instrument of God?? If a Republican Senator had said those things the Left would have been very upset - and rightfully so.

As an aside: just a few years ago the Reverend Sinkford, the first black president of the liberal Unitarian Church, indicated that he thought the Unitarian Church should use more un-translated religious language in their sermons. But many Unitarians, to their credit, spoke up against that idea, saying that such language is not inclusive. Well, that is one of the reasons why I feel it's inappropriate for high-ranking politicians in the United States government to use a lot of religious language too. Senator Obama is calling for more religious language in public and from within politics. And he is certainly using religious language himself. So it begs the question...if Unitarians find Christian-specific language inappropriate inside their churches, shouldn't they find Obama's statements & religious desires for society as a whole inappropriate too? Where is their outcry?
Christian Prayers & Religious Rhetoric At Political Events
Most of Obama's Primary political rallies began with a Christian prayer. I think his political rallies would have been more inclusive without the Christian prayers. If I had been at a rally, I would have felt very out of place and would have left. That's not the way liberal American politics should feel! Again, most of the pro-Obama liberals I know would have agreed with me not long ago. In many political speeches, Obama begins by saying "all praise and honor to God", but most news outlets do not include that portion of the speech in their transcripts. And the rallies Obama held with Oprah were infused with messianic Christian rhetoric. Below is what a Dallas Morning News columnist had to say about Senator Obama's Primary rally in Dallas. I emailed the columnist and it turns out that he is an Obama supporter - but he doesn't like the religiosity aspects of Obama. Good for him for speaking up.

"The rally struck me as having the quality of a religious revival, and I found that a little troubling. The opening prayer, with all heads bowed, turned into a campaign speech that ended with the weird phrase: "Barack Obama, in Jesus' name, yes we can." Obama got on stage and apologized for having a cold, then said, "If my voice starts faltering, just know that my spirit is still strong." I don't know, I just started feeling that there was too much of a religious overtone to the opening of the rally, as if we were brought there to witness the arrival of the chosen one." -Tod Robberson, editorial board member
Faith Forums, Bible Studies and Faith Web Sites
In several Primary states, Obama joined Bible Studies and held "Faith Forums" to encourage people to talk about how religion should influence politics. Oh my. Again, the Left used to loathe this kind of thing from the Right. How times have changed. The end result of this mixing of religion & politics, of course, is the obscene numerical dominance of openly-religious people elected to public office. Another result is the furthering of the notion that religion is the best teacher of morality & social justice, and that the nonreligious are lacking in morality and compassion. Obama is using religion to a far greater extent than other Democrats (some of who are using it too much themselves). As Jeanne Cummings at The Politico says:

"Obama's campaign is unique among Democrats in that it has adopted faith as an organizing tool, a tactic mastered by the Bush-Cheney campaigns in 2000 and 2004."

Way ta go Obama - you are now on par with the Republicans when it comes to mixing religion and politics. Note also that Obama is the first Democratic candidate to launch a faith-based web site: www.faith.barackobama.com. And so it continues.

Imagine that only males were deemed worthy of a vote in this country. So there are no female mayors, no female Governors, no female Senators. And imagine that polls show that most Americans feel that women just aren't very moral - they unfairly rank below all other subgroups when it comes to morality. Likewise, polls indicate that women are not worthy of a vote. Now imagine that Obama had the audacity to go before an all-male group that hosts a "Maleness Forum" and that he discusses how his "maleness" is vitally important to his personaly morality and to his political decision making. Imagine him saying that it's good to have men on Capitol Hill "for an injection of morality into our politics." He even says that if elected he would expand "Male-based Initiatives" to give federal tax dollars to male-only groups. Oh, he periodically throws female voters a condescending bone by saying that being female is "okay too". But imagine the outrage from this country upon hearing these things. Surely a female voter (or female would-be participant in this make-believepernicious political system) would feel that the American political system is hopelessly and unfairly stacked against her. She would at the very least ask that the all-male candidates stop attending "Maleness Forums" on the campaign trail and stop insinuating how incredibly important "maleness" is to morality. Well, substitute "religious" for "maleness" and you know how I feel. I would have loudly protested Obama if he had been so closed-minded and harmful to women. But where are the supposedly empathetic and enlightened liberals (women or otherwise) when it comes to Obama's mixing religion and politics? Why do they not defend me like I have them? Obama made choices as a politician that he should not have made. By remaining silent on this issue, his supporters are making a choice too.
Not Enlightened On "Under God"
In the Call To Renewal speech Senator Obama indicated that he was for Faith-Based Programs, for prayer groups in public school and he was dismissive of the feelings that non-believing children have when they are asked to say "Under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance (a patriotic Pledge, not a religious Pledge). The Left (even the Religious-Left) used to take Republicans to task for pushing "Under God" to be in our Pledge. Where are their voices now?! "Under God" wasn't even added to the Pledge until 1954...in an effort led by Catholics in a paranoid effort to assuage the growing influence of the "godless" Communists. I have worked hard at getting conservatives to see that this religious phrase should not be in our patriotic Pledge. I sure don't want "without God" placed in your Pledge either. Amazingly many Christian conservatives, including talk-radio host Mark Davis, have bravely said that "Under God" should be removed from our Pledge. Sadly, though, Senator Obama is less enlightened than many on the Right are on this issue. And now that a liberal has come out in favor of "Under God", the hope of removing it from the Pledge may be lost for a generation or more. It is true that very few Democratic politicians have said that "Under God" should be removed from The Pledge - out of fear that this religious nation would become very upset. But notice that few Democrats have come out in favor of that phrase, much less be dismissive toward children not wanting to say it. But Obama has. And his liberal fans have been eerily silent about this. The fact that he felt the need to say something negative about those wanting to revert the Pledge back to its inclusive, non-religious roots speaks volumes about his self-centered view of his religious beliefs. The fact that his fans can not criticize him on this says a lot about them too.
Not Enlightened On Gay Marriage Either

"I'm a Christian. Although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
- Barack Obama, September 2004

Wow, so much for Obama's claim in his "Call To Renewal" speech (see above) that religious political leaders (are there any other type in this country?) must translate their religious beliefs into universals before making law. Few of the other 2008 Democratic Presidential candidates were for gay marriage. Well, actually Kucinich was, but most were not. But most of the other candidates said their reason for opposing gay marriage was societal. Obama, however, said that his Marriage-Equals-One-Man-Plus-One-Woman nonsense sprang forth from his personal religion. Obama's and The Far Right's religious argument against gay marriage is very weak. He should have known better. Jesus, one of Obama's favorite philosophers, never mentions homosexuality. The Old Testament mentions it briefly - but far less than, say, adultry. Why Obama thinks his private religion is a valid reason to exclude others from a very basic human right is beyond me. And the Left weeps over this guy?

And this from a man who is the product of a mixed-race marriage. It wasn't that long ago that people in this nation felt that those marriages went "against religion" and should be outlawed too. And, sadly, those marriages were outlawed. But progressive politicians put their political necks on the line to fight for those marriages. They didn't take the easy way out and fight for the separate-but-equal concept of "mixed-race civil unions". Nor did they lend their support to the idea of allowing mixed-race marriages in some states but not others. No, they fought for true-blue marriage that was color blind. Obama, of all people, should have emulated their bravery. Instead, he had the audacity to say that his faith tells him that marriage should not include two loving people of the same gender. Sigh. And he is considered progressive? Really?

Proposition 8
Obama's words hurt the Vote No side in California's recent Prop 8 campaign - a proposition that occurred on the same ballot as the vote for the Presidency. As a result of Prop 8's passage, anti-gay marriage rhetoric will most likely be added to California's state constitution. I know several gay men who supported Obama that were practically begging him to give more voice to the Vote No side. But Obama said very little. When he did rarely lend support to the Vote No side, it was a dry and uninspired argument about how state constitutions were the wrong places for laws that restrict rights (um, a right that Obama wishes not to grant), whereas state legislatures were more appropriate places. And then he would follow up his half-hearted Vote No support with his usual, of course, my faith tells me that marriage is for one man and one woman. Aack. The combination of Obama's lackluster support for the Vote-No side and his obsession with specifically targeting religious voters (ya know, the ones Obama thinks the Democratic Party has oh so neglected...try being a nonbeliever Mr. Obama) didn't do the Vote No side any favors. In fact, it cost them dearly.

The Prop 8 outcome should not have been a surprise to anyone. California is a state that voted overwhelmingly for Obama for President. And Obama is a politician who has connected morality to religion many, many times. He has said things that we liberals have argued against for decades: e.g. that religion "is the moral underpinings of the nation", that we need more religion in politics for an "injection of morality", that American Law is "grounded" in Judeo-Christian values, etc. And then he repeatedly says that one of those "Christian values" is that marriage is for one man and one woman. So we're suppose to be shocked when a pro-Obama state uses religion to vote against gay marriage because why?

So besides all the mixing of religion and politics and the harm that does to the perception of nonbelievers (see above & below), Obama also thinks gays should be excluded from the institution of marriage and he is against removing "Under God" from the Pledge (to the point of being dismissive of the feelings of kids not wanting to say it). At 46 years of age he should be far more enlightened on these topics. I was at 14. And nearly every liberal I know is. And, yet, he turns liberals into votaries? I don't think he's just trying to get votes by fibbing about his positions on these issues (as if that would be a noble thing to do). He would have worded his opinions much more softly (like other Democrats do) if he was simply going after votes. The way he came out against these issues will make it hard for more open-minded liberals to change them in the future. And the Right will no doubt use Obama's words to hurt these efforts. In fact, the Vote-Yes-On-Prop-8 folks did use his words to support their side.
Favors Faith-Based Programs
In July 2008 Obama gave a speech to yet another ministry - this time to the Eastside Community Ministry in Zanesville, Ohio. Obama announced that if he was elected President he would expand President Bush's Faith-Based Programs. Saying that he recognizes "the value of a partnership between the White House and faith-based groups,� Obama said that he wants to give more federal money to churches to do Christ's work (e.g. fight poverty, aid the community, etc.). Polls show that most on the Left oppose using tax money to support Faith-Based Programs, yet they remain strangely silent on Obama's support for doing so. Note that I wouldn't want a Christian's tax money to go to an atheistic "church" either. Let the church members pay for these things! The way Obama worded his faith in GWB's faith-based programs was disheartening. He more than insinuated that if you don't like federal money being given to faith-based groups then you are probably a person who "bristles" at the notion of faith existing in the ""public square". Oh brother - there's a Straw Man's Argument for you. No Mr. Obama, people who are against faith-based programs bristle at the notion of faith existing in the governmental square. Big difference. Just like in his "Call To Renewal" speech, Obama uses the same hyperbolic frames that the Christian Right uses to mischaracterize secularists & progressives as the boogeyman.

By the way, many studies, like the one conducted by the Charitable Choice Research Project, found that Faith-Based programs perform worse than secular programs (see here and here). Several people have critized Obama for his plans for Faith Based Programs. Among them are conservative political blogger Andrew Sullivan and The Secular Coalition For America.
Sex Is A "Sacred" Act?
To lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, Senator Obama stated in two presidential debates that we should teach our children that sex is a "sacred" act. And in an interview in the Christian magazine "Relevant" he indicated that public schools should be teaching this. I take issue with this - and I think most progressives would also take issue with it if anyone but Obama had stated it. First, religious ideology should not be driving our sexual education policy, especially when public schools are involved. Second, his solution leaves out those children and teenagers who don't happen to believe in a higher power. We live in a pluralistic society, and despite what most Americans think, nonbelievers have worth. So solutions need to be universal - not everyone believes that God is in our bedrooms looking over our shoulders. More importantly, Obama's "solution" encourages the pernicious Western myth that sex is dirty and sinful unless it is done in the "right" way and in the "right" context (i.e. inside a heterosexual marriage). The Christian obsession with sanctifying sexual intercourse has proven disastrous for gays, women and any backslider of the religiously-defined norms for sexual conduct. Progressives like Obama should know this by now. As a politician, Senator Obama should have simply stated that we should teach our children that sex can have several serious unintended consequences. It is not his job to tell us what is and is not a "sacred" act. That is why we have clergy. If a conservative Presidential candidate had stated that we should teach our children that sex is a "sacred" act, the Left would have voiced concern. Where are their voices now?
Overly-Religious Political Mailers
For the South Carolina and Texas Primaries (and possibly more), Senator Obama sent out overly-Christian political mailers like this one and this one. The picture at the top of this page came from one of the mailers. The mailers have been verified as coming directly from Senator Obama from news sources such as the Washington Post and the Dallas Morning News. We on the Left used to loathe such Christian-laced political mailers from the Right. We disliked pandering on a religious basis when Republicans did it. But as with all things connected to Obama's use of religion in politics, liberals have given him a free pass. Among other things, the mailers had "COMMITTED CHRISTIAN" emblazoned across them.

Some say that Obama had to do this to combat the erroneous claims that he is a Muslim. So if he was accused of being gay, would you really think it was appropriate for him to send out political mailers with "COMMITTED HETEROSEXUAL" on them? I bet that you would innately feel the pain that such a mailer would cause the gay community, and that the mailer would send out a not-so-subtle message that there's something wrong with being gay and a politician. And yet society has subtly trained us all not to feel this way with regards to religion in politics. There is no such empathy for the nonbeliever. This must change.

These slick Reverend Falwell-like mailers also said "Called To Christ" and "Called To Serve". Again, normally the Left recoils at politicians even hinting that God had "called" them to serve as a politician. I remember my fellow liberals loathing a similar sentiment that George W. Bush was said to have expressed. I'm not liking this hypocritical, double-standard the Left has created for the mixing of religion and politics. Apparently Republicans are on a very short leash, but Democrats can do and say just about anything they want. I say, let's keep them all on a short leash. Let's keep American Politics predominately secular - it's the most fair and inclusive way to run our government. But because Obama's fans are so reluctant to criticize him, we can expect to see more Christian mailers like these from liberal politicians in the future.

The "Faith Forum" with Evangelist Rick Warren
On August 16, 2008 Obama agreed to attend a Faith Forum along with his presidential contender, Senator John McCain. The Forum was hosted by Right Wing Evangelist Rick Warren and held at Pastor Rick's mega-Church in Lake Forest, California. Obama had the choice to turn down the invitation. He did not. Just like he had the choice to turn down invitations for the other Faith Forums, giving faith speeches inside Churches, etc. It is inappropriate to give an evangelical Pastor such access to the two most important politicians in America. And it further blurred the line between politics and religion. At one point, Mr. Warren asked Mr. Obama, "What does it mean to trust in Jesus". Obama's response should have been "Sir, that's a private religious matter. By now I have made it clear that I'm a Christian, let's leave it at that." But the Democratic Party has changed of late and so Obama's answer was "It means I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him.". And I need to know that level of religious detail from a politician because?

After this forum, a few Obama supporters (including Christians and liberals) have said that maybe Obama is mixing too much religion in his politics. Gee, ya think? It's a shame that it took a visit to a mega-Church and a Right Wing evangelical host to get liberals (of all people) to finally see the light...if only momentarily.

Conservative Catholic political commentator (and Obama supporter) Andrew Sullivan had this to say about the Forum:

"It's perhaps the most depressing fact of this campaign so far that the first major encounter between McCain and Obama will be presided over by a mega-pastor and in a church."

And secular Reverend Barry Lynn had this to say about it:

"Let's get to the big mistake first: Barack Obama should not have agreed to do this...we knew enough already about each candidate's personal faith. We aren�t hiring a chief theologian for America. Whether the questions are about abortion or poverty, how could the candidates not throw in a few church-based anecdotes or biblical allusions to this crowd? But why? Surely they know that presidents don�t have religious functions - that�s what a secular government is all about. So those comments would probably be read as subtle �I�m really more religious than that other guy� winks and nods."

The 2008 Democratic National Convention
I think this letter I wrote to the Dallas Morning News sums up my feelings on the Convention and on the hypocrisy of the Left:

I had alway been a liberal nonbeliever, but after watching the Democratic National Convention I'm now a believer! I have often heard liberal Christians groan when conservatives pray in public. Something about how the scriptures say we should pray in a closet, otherwise we are hypocrites. But the recent DNC is being called the most religious DNC in history. Each day opened with a lengthy prayer, there were daily "faith caucuses", Tim Kaine's speech was practically a Christian sermon, and the entire spectacle ended with a closing prayer led by an Obama-picked conservative evangelical preacher. Yet, Christian Democrats didn't complain. Yep, I'm a believer now - only a god could make 70 million Democrats believe that an 85,000-seat arena in Denver is a closet.

What's Wrong With Mixing Religion And Politics?

As long as a politician does not try to force his religion into law, it is often asked what's the harm in a politician talking about his personal religion? Liberals used to be able to answer this in their sleep, but clearly a change has taken place within the liberal community so here goes:

Religious language from a politician helps create a religious-test for political eligibility. This Christian nation is already loathed to vote for a, gasp, nonbeliever. Well, the more a candidate talks about his private religion - and the more his supporters don't complain about it - the more Americans expect to hear that kind of thing from future candidates. Shouldn't American Politics be open to everyone? And remember, Senator Obama's sin isn't just talking in religious terms, he is also dispensing his theological advice to the country. E.g. stressing the importance of religion in morality, criticizing secularists, telling the Democratic Party to reach out on a religious basis. If you don't think that influences how people view nonbelievers, you aren't letting yourself think deeply about this issue. Unlike blacks and women, as a nonbeliever I can not get elected to dog catcher in this country. It's not because I don't have good ideas or compassion for others. It's because of my nonreligious beliefs. It's terribly unfair. Yet, where is the outrage from the Religious-Left? The Left often acts suprised when opinion polls show that Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist. Well, if you are an Obama supporter who has been made aware of his voluminous Christian rhetoric and you have not complained about it...look in the mirror for your answer.
It adds to the myth that only the religious are moral. The more a politician speaks in religious specifics, the more the public connects morality only with religion and the more the public incorrectly assumes that a nonreligious person lacks morality. Obama implies over and over that religion is badly needed to teach morality (see his "Call To Renewal" speech and "Politics Of Conscience" speech). I'm hearing more and more Liberal politicians and theologians (especially from the African American Christian community) who unapologetically say that the public must know about a politician's personal religious beliefs because that's the only way we can know about his morality. I find this disturbing beyond words. We liberals must speak up against this!

A few Christian liberals have told me that I shouldn't worry too much about the fact that most of the country thinks I'm immoral. Because as soon as someone gets to know me personally, they'll quickly see that I am a moral person. So instead of helping to change the misperception that Americans have for nonbelievers, liberal Christians do virtually nothing. They are not asking Obama (or any other Democratic politician) to tone down their religious rhetoric and to tone down the talk of how religion is imporant to morality. And meanwhile, nonbelievers can't get elected to Dog Catcher because Americans view them as immoral. And most nonbelievers keep their beliefs private because they worry about other forms of discrimination. Nonbelievers are paying a price for your silence. There's simply no way that these same Christian liberals would act so flippantly about any other minority group who was facing prejudiced thoughts against their morality and who were completely shut out of politics. No way. Imagine a white Democratic politican attending a "White Form" where he expressed how simply being white has made him, say, smart. Oh, he says under his breath that blacks can be smart too, but the main focus is on how being white is tantamount to being smart. Do you really think that a white, liberal Christian is going to tell a black man, "Hey, just because the country thinks you're stupid and just because this Democrat politican is empowering that belief, don't worry about it! People will know you are smart once they get to know you."" Please. I know many white, liberal Chrisitans - they would feel empathetic towards the black man - and rightfully so! And, thus, they would chasticize the Democratic politican and write letters to the editors about it. But, alas, they won't do that for nonbelievers. This is how society has trained us to think on matters invovling nonbelievers. Even the normally kind hearted liberal is on the dark side of this issue.
It_is_not_inclusive. When a person becomes a politician - and certainly when he reaches the level of U.S. Senator - he must have the self-discipline and strength to do what J.F.K. said; keep your religion private. I've heard my Religious-Left friends tell me many, many times that they prefer for people (and politicians) to keep their religion private. Well, that's not what Obama has done and it's not what Obama thinks other Christians should do. Religion is one of the most divisive systems humans have ever created; and that's one reason why we liberals have historically wanted religion kept to a minimum in politics. But Obama has called for more religion in the public square and he has spoken about his personal religion a lot. Doing this makes others feel not included. We simply can't have that feeling emanating from our government. Many Unitarians don't even want religious-specific language in their churches, and for the same reason: it is not inclusive.

It's safe to say that every liberal would object to politicians doing "white forums" or talking about how being white has positively influenced their morality and politics. Yet these same liberals are fine with letting politicians do "faith forums" and speaking repeatedly about their private religious beliefs and how those beliefs are important to their morality and to society at large. Note also that some Christians - even liberal ones - claim that religion is different from other classifications (e.g. sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.) because religion crosses into all those other classifications. But the others do that too! Think of a giant room full of gay people - you will have people of all races, all genders, all religions, etc. Religion is not special in this regards. It's just another way to classify people - and yet it gets treated much differently by society. We are trained to put it on a pedestal.
Politicians, especially U.S. Senators and Presidents, wield enormous influence over the public - especially over their supporters. So when politicians use overly-religious language (and clearly Obama does) it is tantamount to endorsing and promoting religion. That's not an appropriate activity for American politics. Promoting atheism wouldn't be appropriate either. Let's keep this stuff out of politics and keep it in our churches and homes as much as possible. Obama lacks the self-discipline to keep his religion private.
Religious language from politicians legitimizes the use of religion in political decision making. That is, the Christian Right will see that the Left uses religion to morally support their political decisions (i.e. Obama's belief that marriage is for one man and one woman, the desire to help the poor, etc.) and they will be embolden to use religion to morally support their political decisions even more. This is already happening. Look at McCain' pick of Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She is very Pro-Life, and believes that creationism should be taught in public school. What we liberals should have done is to keep religion out of our politics and fight Right-wing-religion-in-politics with secularism. By invoking religion so much, the Left (especially Obama) may have guaranteed that American Politics will be imbued with religion from both the Left and the Right for generations. This didn't need to happen, both parties were on the cusp of finally pushing religion out of politics, but Obama blew it.
There is no guarantee that overly-religious candidates will not attempt to put their religion into law. We've seen it with conservative Christian politicians (e.g. stem cell research, prayer in school, gay marriage amendments, etc.). If we liberals keep allowing our candidates to espouse their private religion then we can expect the same from them, sooner or later. Obama even admits that the only reason he is against legalized gay marriage is due to his religion. Are you kidding me? What else is he willing to make against the law...mixing cloth? And he clearly wants "Under God" to be legally kept in the Pledge (a legal position) and he is in favor of Faith-Based programs (again, a legal position).
We liberals were the last bulwark against religion-in-politics. If we, of all people, follow the neo-cons down this path, American politics can be lost to a non-secular, religiously dominated existence for decades. Other liberal politicians will surely emmulate Obama's use of religion in politics. And many may take things even further than Obama has. As mentioned earlier, this unenlightened liberal Christian Democrat attended Obama's church and is obscenely anti-secular. And already several liberal black ministers have announced that they are turning to politics, and the secular blacks in those districts are having to ratchet up their religiosity or face getting kicked out of office. This is not a good trend. I get the feeling that the Christian-Left is wanting to show the world that Christianity has a kinder side to it (despite the meanness that Obama's church of 20 years has shown). Fine, but American Politics is not the proper venue for this religious tug-of-war! I beg you to fight that fight in your homes and churches. The Far Right isn't going away. Just look at the overly-religious candidates they fielded this year alone (Romney, Huckabee, etc.). They will respond to this new injection of Left Wing religion in politics with more religion of their own. In fact, folks like James Dobson are already shouting back. This fight between liberal and conservative Christianity should not be fought inside American politics. But Obama has forced this confrontation. The Religious Right was already losing "faith" in the Republican Party and they have little use for John McCain, so the Democrats did not need to head down this path!

Why Aren't More Liberals Upset Over Obama's Religiosity?

Well, most liberals are themselves quite religious and not all liberals are secularists. Thus, they are often biased toward not seeing the dangers of allowing their version of Christianity to creep into everyone's politics. But, yes, there are some nonbelieving liberals and some secular Christian liberals who are also not complaining much about Obama's religiosity. So the better question is why aren't they complaining? Here are some possible answers:

The "Grandchild Effect". My father came up with this clever political description. That is, many Americans can not see faults in their candidate of choice; just like a grandparent can't seen faults in their grandchild. It turns out that most Obama supporters have not been shown his overly-Christian rhetoric until after they began supporting him for other reasons. It's too late at that point to have them objectively assess him. The troubling thing is that this means that nearly anything he does - including mixing religion and politics - is now deemed acceptable in their minds because, after all, Obama is doing it. See "cognitive dissonance".

It is this penchant for not seeing our candidate's faults that have led many Obama supporters to only see the positives in his religious speeches. For instance, Obama very rarely mentions "atheists" in his religious speeches, but one time he stated that nonbelievers exist in our nation. And his liberal supporters thought he had hung the moon. Wow! Obama acknowledged that nonbelievers exist in the nation! How enlightened! This is what I'm talking about. His supporters failed to notice the dozens of anti-progressive and inappropriate ministerial religious statements he made in the exact same speech. It's as if Obama's supporters compare him to the worst of the Right Wing judgmental preachers and then say "Wow. That Obama sure is enlightened!". But we shouldn't be comparing our politicians to the clergy, much less to the most closed minded of the lot. But that's the power of the "Grandchild Effect".

Many folks (religious and nonreligious) have expressed their displeasure over Obama's mixing of religion and politics. A quick Google search will show this.

Here is a well-written article on "religion-creep" in American politics, with emphasis on Obama and Huckabee.
Here is an article written by Mary Shaw on Obama's "Kingdom On Earth" statement and the increasing use of religion by Democratic politicians.
Popular nonbeliever, Austin Cline, has written many essays about Obama's over-use of religion in politics; such as this one and this one.
Several people have criticized Obama's "Call To Renewal" speech for its anti-secular tone as well as for its message of equating morality with religion. As mentioned earlier, here is a particularly good critique of that speech.

Here is a blog entry by the popular Christian conservative political blogger Andrew Sullivan. Although Andrew has come to support Obama, in this entry he expresses great angst over Obama's mixing of religion and politics. Money quote:

"Obama is aggressively staking his candidacy in part on an explicitly religious appeal. In this, he is Bush's natural successor, and threatens to make secular politics even more elusive in a fundamentalist age. I believe Jesus had no politics, let alone the big government politics of our time. And the attempt of both Right and Left to co-opt His truth corrupts faith and politics simultaneously."

By the way, here is the full text to the article that Andrew Sullivan (see above) was referring to in his blog entry. Andrew's implication is right - if the Christian Broadcasting Network likes Obama's religiosity, you know he's gone too far.

Several folks have critized Obama for his plans to expand GWB's failed Faith Based Programs. Among them are Christian conservative political blogger (and Obama supporter) Andrew Sullivan and The Secular Coalition For America. Here is Andrew's take on Obama's appreciation for Faith Based Programs:

"He's not as bad as Bush-style Christianism, but he's not in a different category either. If Obama could get religious institutions supportive of the Democratic party at the grass roots, he'd be thrilled, and his Trinity United Church Of Christ experience shows exactly that. There's liberal Christianism and conservative Christianism. I prefer my Gospel and my politics distinct - for the sake of each."

In short, although the mainstream media has not criticized Obama's mixing of religion and politics very much, you can certainly find plenty of others who have. And you can find several conservatives who are angered by the fact that the Left would have heavily criticized a conservative politician if he had said the same things that Obama has said. I agree with this sentiment; the Left is being terribly hypocritcal on this issue.

Many Obama supporters have simply not come into contact with his excessive religious statements. After seeing it, some of his supporters would respond very negatively to Obama's use of religion in politics and would remain loyal to the classically liberal principle that mixing religion & politics is not inclusive. Some liberals, of course, would find ways to justify it (see Grandchild Effect above).
Some Obama supporters think Obama is purposely exaggerating his religiosity to get votes, and thus they are not too concerned about it. But if Obama is exaggerating his religiosity to get votes then a) I don't think that's a very honest way for Obama to act, and b) it still has consequences for American politics (i.e. it continues the new trend of mixing too much religious rhetoric in politics, it makes voters expect religiosity from future politicians which keeps nonbelievers excluded from being viable candidates, etc.). After looking at the sum total of Obama's over-use of religion in politics (see The List above), I don't think he's just pandering to Christians.
White guilt. Many white liberals want to feel better about themselves (and better about the bleak situation that white society has put blacks in) by supporting a black man - at all costs. They are letting this feeling cloud their objectivity about Obama, and are thus letting him off the hook on many things that they would normally be against.
This nation is very religious - much more so than any other Western Democracy. Whether we consciously feel it or not, we are each subtly taught the proper rules for talking about, and complaining about, religion. Nonbelievers are effected by this too! Thus, many nonbelievers have been "taught" not to complain very loudly about the double-standards, unfairnesses and injustices that exist in our current religiously-biased political system. To do so would needlessly hurt the feelings of believers we are taught. Some of us have even been trained not to view things such as mixing religious language with politics as being particularly unfair or harmful. I'm not so easily indoctrinated by the wishes of the dominant majority in society.
Fear of looking racially insensitive. Many white liberals don't want to voice concerns even if they see aspects of a black leader (or a black culture in general) that they feel are "wrong". And I certainly understand - who am I to tell another culture what's wrong with it when clearly there are things in my own culture that need fixing. I'm getting a sense that many blacks don't have a problem with injecting political rhetoric inside religion - or injecting religious rhetoric inside politics. Especially those who were trained in the tradition of "Black Liberation Theology" or its cousin, Reconstructionist Postmillennialism. So perhaps blacks & whites culturally see the Separation Of Church And State differently. But since this particular problem (i.e. injecting religion into politics) affects me, I am not hesitant to say that I don't approve of it. In fact, I feel we must speak up. Unfortunately, other white liberals are reluctant to voice their concerns over some African American's desire to mix religion and politics. Liberalism, and American Politics in general, will suffer in the long run from their silence.
Liberals tend to use the worst examples of mixing religion and politics from the Republicans as a barometer from which to gauge how pernicious such mixing is by Democrats. And, thus, some Church/State trespasses by liberal politicians may not feel quite as bad as they really are. But if we on the Left use the worst offenders of mixing religion & politics as our measuring stick, then we have greatly lowered the bar for what is acceptable! We don't have to do that. Unfortunately this type of thinking has led many liberals to tell me "well, at least Obama's use of religion in politics isn't quite as bad as what some Republican Christian politicians do." So that's our standard now?! I find that kind of lazy thinking very dangerous. It's little wonder why "religion creep" in American politics has become worse over the years.
Misogyny. The vast majority of Americans are Christian. And Christianity is a tremendously patriarchal system. Do you really think it's a coincidence that nearly every major character in the Bible is male? Jesus, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Peter, Paul, et. al. Well, the male dominance taught in Christianity effects everyone in a Christian-dominated society - religious or not. Bill Maher, for instance, who is never shy at criticizing religion, has made several unfair and hateful comments toward Hillary. More than one person has accused him of being misognystic through the years. So I think some Hillary-bashers (including women) are driven by the subtle and almost unspoken directives of our male-dominated culture. The whisper from our culture is this: Women Should Not Be President. And that message results in Obama getting away with things that his liberal supporters would normally be critical of. The more you disrespect a person, the more you overlook the negatives of that person's competitor.

Once again America has found itself having to select between two male Christians for president. This shouldn't be surprising; it's the way our society has trained us to think. Male Christians have been our only choices for two hundred years, and if the actions (or inactions) of liberal Obama supporters are any indication, it could be a very long time before a woman, much less a nonbeliever, makes it the General Election for President.

I was not a huge Hillary supporter, but even I saw how exceedingly biased the mainstream media was in favor of Obama. Besides the sexist talk about her shrill voice, her outfits and her apparently overly-aggressive attitude (i.e. a "normal" male attitude), nearly everything Hillary said was twisted to have the worst possible meaning. While Obama's mistakes, lies and gaffes were either ignored or given a convenient excuse. CNN's coverage was particularly slanted in favor of Obama. Respected CNN analyst David Gergen cynically declared that if Hillary becomes the V.P. then Obama should "get a food taster". Ouch. Would he have made that comment if Hillary was considering Obama for V.P.? No way. CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin angrily said that the Clinton's were clearly "deranged narcissists". Goodness, why the bitter slams? Because an uppity woman didn't concede to The Man at the precise moment they wanted her to. America may or may not be "post-racial" but this race showed that we are most definitely not "post-sexist", even if we on the Left don't want to see our own misogyny and tendency to worship only those possessing a Y-chromosome.
Anti-Clintonism. Some people, including liberals, flat don't like the Clinton's. The reasons are varied: according to some Bill (and apparently by proxy, Hillary) didn't do enough to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia or the genocide in Rwanda, they backtracked on some gay issues, Bill lied to us about Monica, etc. Some believe the Clinton's to be power-hungry and ruthless. But frankly, the media has greatly exaggerated that family attribute. Still, these negative feelings towards the Clintons do exist in many people. So even atheists like Christopher Hitchens are letting Obama off the hook a bit for his mixing of religion & politics because Hitchens is an unabashed Hillary-basher. To Hitchens' credit, however, he was one of the first people to criticize Obama for the 20-year relationship he had with his wacky and mean-spirited "spiritual mentor", Reverend Wright. Some of the words Wright used against the Clintons during the Primaries were childish and distastefully cruel - especially where they pertained to the Lewinsky affair. The Left would not have tolerated such words coming from a Republican candidate's "mentor". But Obama's supporters said little. Well, actually, many of them said that such mean-spirited words were okay coming from inside an African American Church and that whites must put black's "hatred in context", so back off. Hatred in context? Sigh. And this is the nicer, more liberal side of Christianty? Oy. In any event, these anti-Hillary feelings cause some Obama supporters to yawn at his mixing of religion and politics to a degree they wouldn't have if Obama was running against someone other than Hillary.

Conclusion

I do not like the direction that liberal politics and the Democratic Party are headed. The new acceptance by liberals of religion-in-politics is not an inclusive endeavor, and it hurts nonbelievers; atheists and agnostics will naturally be viewed as less-than-equals by a society primed to support openly-religious candidates. Beliefnet.com tracks the religiosity of major politicians; Democrats often rate higher on their religious scale than the Republicans. Obama is usually twice as high as McCain. Many people have spoken about the religious turn the Left has made, but few have taken the time to feel what it does to the nonreligious. If you have dreams of your adorably precocious toddler becoming President, you had better enroll her in Sunday School. Forty years from now, if she is a nonbeliever, she doesn�t stand a chance at being elected to Congress, much less the Presidency. Sound fair? It doesn�t to me either. Why has our political system become so religiously biased? Well, it�s probably your fault.

When it comes to the well-documented problem of religion's creep into American politics, we on the Left haven't just given up, we've given in. The Religious Right started us down this path, but sadly the Left is now joining this non-secular effort. When you think about it, and I mean really think about it, the religious requirement for political participation is disturbingly unAmerican. But we have all lived with it for so long that we don't really think about it. We certainly don't ask ourselves if we are complicit in its continuation. It's past time to put an end to this. Each time we remain silent when a politician overly expresses his private religious beliefs we push the collective psychi of America further down the path of equating religion with morality, and being religious with being a worthy politician. Enough. We need Democrats, of all people, to resist the temptation to mix religion with politics; there�s simply no one left to untangle the two. By remaining silent on Obama's excessive use of religion in politics (see above), his supporters are strengthening the religious test for candidate acceptability that we liberals have previously railed against. The religious requirement for political participation wasn't created by some unknown, mysterious force. Society created it; and society can destroy it. But it takes effort - and a conscience of fairness.

Through no fault of my own, I can not get elected to any meaningful political position in this country. Poll after poll shows that Americans really don't want to vote for a nonbeliever. We rank at the very bottom of the list...well below gays and Muslims. I am excluded from politics not because I lack intelligence or leadership skills or empathy for others. I simply believe in one less god than you do. The American political system is immeasurably tilted in favor of the religious. How long would I remain in office as a U.S. Senator or on the Presidential campaign trail if I spoke one tenth as much about my atheism as Obama has about his Christianity? Could I speak repeatedly of my disbelief in God or host Disbelief Forums or speak of the utter importance of atheism in our society's morality conversations? I would, of course, see no need for such talk. Yet, Obama and many Republican politicians do it with alacrity. We-must-ask-them-to-stop. Democratic Presidential candidates routinely attend debates and forums hosted by overtly-religious groups such as Sojourners and "Faith In Public". They are asked about their favorite scriptures and asked how religion shapes their policies. Imagine how poorly a non-believing candidate would fair in this new religiously-charged atmosphere.

Imagine if "maleness" was being treated in this way instead of religiosity. Imagine that every American politician is male and that Americans view females as generally immoral. Imagine the all-male Presidential candidates attending Male Forums where they express how important being male is to their policial decision making and to society's morality discussions. Imagine these men saying that they want to give federal tax dollars to Male-Based Groups. Imagine these men saying that we need more maleness on "Capitol Hill for an injection of morality". Imagine.

Good people are being unfairly denied participation in the single most important realm of this nation: the political system. Write emails to your politicians. Write letters to your local newspaper. Talk about this unfairness in you Churches. With each new overly-religious candidate the problem only worsens. And yet the Left (and the Religious Left in particular) can't find the empathetic will to help us? They can't call on politicians - who represent us all - to limit their religious-speak as J.F.K. asked? I'm not asking for laws banning such talk from our politicians. I'm just asking that we ask our politicians to tone down the religious rhetoric. It's the only way voters will eventually view nonbelievers as being equally worthy of a vote. And yet, many liberals are all too willing to let the Democratic Party become more and more religiously-biased. It didn't use to be this way. As stated elsewhere on this page many on the Left belong to liberal Churches, such as the Unitarian Church, that either limits or eliminates religious-specific language precisely because it is not inclusive. Yet their voices are eerily silent on Obama's overuse of religion and on his calls for more religious language in the public square & in the Democratic Party itself. To where does the liberal's admirable call for fairness and political inclusion go when matters turn to atheists and agnostics? Where is their outcry on our behalf?

As a liberal, I am proud that so many African Americans and women have been elected to political offices across this nation. They are mayors of large cities, police chiefs, Governors of states; they are United States Senators and members of Congress. Great progress has been made in the acceptance of blacks and women as political equals. And yet how many openly-atheistic people have been elected to these positions? Zero. Over the course of my entire lifetime, how much progress has been made toward the election of a nonbeliever? Virtually none. The notion of an atheist running for, or winning, the Presidency is still sadly laughable. So you'll have to excuse me if I don't have quite the sense of urgency that many of my fellow liberals have for electing a black man to the Presidency. Especially when that particular man exploitatively takes advantage of a religious-political system that is unfairly tilted in his direction and away from mine.

As for me, I have most likely voted for my last Christian politician. Since I turned 18 years old I have voted, without complaint, for a Christian in every Presidential election. I'm middle-aged now; I've done it enough. Probably too much. If this fine Christian nation still won't vote for a nonbeliever then why should I continue voting for them decade after decade? And now that so many of my liberal brethren are enablers of our non-inclusive, religiously-biased political system, I feel even less motivated to support a system that values my vote but not my candidacy.

I will consider voting for another Christian politician if one comes along with the principles and strength to say, "I am saying this just one time, so listen up; I happen to believe in a higher power. As a politician, for me to say more than that about my private religion is to do harm to others." That person is certainly not Barack Obama.

Thank you for your time and I wish you well.
-Brad Stone