Lighten up.

I just want to list a little more from Obama's speech, since you are so adverse to links:

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that. In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that. But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. 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 American renewal.

and this

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles. This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Hardly sounds like Hagee. Does it?

I am glad you saw fit to respond. This site, which once was a great place to throw civilized ideas back and forth, has become so full of venom that I seem to only post comments that debunk such venom.

From the wording of your post, it seemed not much commentary was necessary, and posting the speech would adequately debunk it for other readers who happened to pass by.

I am glad you have seen fit to peruse what I have posted, which shows you are among those who would much rather have reasoned debate that intolerant discourse.

MORE kittens!

My comment's pretty simple. This flyer is old news and by old I mean it was already available in all the primaries including before Rev. Wright. I should know because I have some. Picked them up by actually volunteering on the campaign trail. How about you?

Barack's opponents have convinced millions of voters that he is a Muslim. Christianity is part of Obama's life. What on earth is wrong with a photo of Barack in a Christian church?????

Anyone who believes that Barack can be elected president without playing up his christianity is, unfortunately, wrong.

Kentucky? West Virginia? Former Slave States? Did you happen to see the video of those "open-minded" W. Virginy country folk saying he is a muslim, to which the reporter said,"he says he's christian," and the kindly old woman says,"I know he SAYS he's christian." In 18 contests he carried a good percentage of the "white vote." My head wants to explode every time I hear that "poll cluster" illustrated. Hang me on a cross, PLEASE!

Reading you last post reminded, again, of the same type of divisive language employed by various republican god's-on-my-side candidates of the last 25 years or so. They too always perfunctorily acknowledge that there are many different religions being practed in the USA, but they always get slide in the knife with this line from your own post:

"But this is still a predominately Christian nation."

It's not! It's a nation whose citizens predominately identify themselves as christians. I know you see the difference as clearly as do I.

The underlying issue here is not whether a healthy chunk of uninformed, under-educated voters think Barack is a Muslin; the issue is the separation of Church and State.

Obama certainly is ariculate and intelligent enough to be on the correct side of that Constitutional issue while simultaneously
disabusing the notion that he is a Muslim among HRC and Reagan Democrat supporters.

Any way one interprets his cross pic, it falls squarely within the tactics used by those who consider the United States a Christian Nation.

If that's what BO needs to do to win, so be it.

But I still think it will come back to haunt him in the General because now he's ensured that Rev. Wright will be resurected from his current footnote-status and once again be given center stage...and this time not for 15 mins.

In summary, I think it was a strategic and tactical error for Obama to play the god-card; it redounds to his opponent's favor; it allows the nasty fumes of disingenuousness or hypocricy to penetrate the walls of his sqeeky clean campaign; and most important, it almost codifies religion as a permanent component of national politics henceforth.