this is really worth a read but i highlighted some interesting points. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1814206,00.html Obama's Play for the Faithful By AMY SULLIVAN Thursday, Jun. 12, 2008 It's safe to say there's no page in the Democratic handbook that recommends sitting down with several dozen right-of-center Christian leaders one week after clinching the party's presidential nomination. So the fact that Barack Obama slipped away Tuesday afternoon to a borrowed Chicago law firm conference room for some prayer, frank talk about his faith, and to face some tough questioning from heavy hitters in the evangelical, Catholic, and mainline Protestant worlds could be the clearest sign yet that he really does intend to practice a different kind of politics. But it's undoubtedly also a signal that he recognizes the damage done to his campaign by a spring that featured the Jeremiah Wright show and rumors about his true religious leanings — one that ended with a decision to leave his church. Among those gathered on Tuesday were African-American preachers like T.D. Jakes, Hispanic pastors like Sam Rodriguez, and a few conservative Catholics, such as Pepperdine professor Doug Kmiec, who has been denied communion because of his public support for Obama. But the majority of attendees were white evangelical leaders, including one conservative member of evangelical royalty, Franklin Graham. "The purpose was not to line up endorsements," says one Obama aide. "But some very important evangelicals left this meeting impressed. I think they'll go back to their enclaves telling an interesting story." The nearly two-hour-long meeting opened and closed with prayer. For the balance of the time, Obama spoke about his own faith journey — a topic about which he has written and spoken extensively, but which was new to many of those present — and fielded sometimes pointed questions. "It never got heated," says another Obama adviser, "but these issues are tough. Abortion is going to come up. Three or four times, in fact." But while the topic of abortion is often a conversation-ender or results in a terse "agree to disagree," this group wanted to get at real answers, asking Obama to explain how he thought through the issue {abortion} as a Christian. They also talked about poverty, health care, and Darfur, among other concerns. "When he talked about trying to bring people together on poverty or abortion reduction," says one participant, "there were a lot of nods in the room, even from some traditional evangelicals who are frustrated with the lack of progress." The conversation became most personal when Obama talked about the decision he and his family made just a few weeks ago to leave Trinity United Church of Christ, where he has worshipped for almost 20 years. The move has mostly been dissected in the press as a matter of political calculation. But the pastors seemed supportive of Obama, understanding the difficulty of leaving a religious home. "That crowd got it better than anybody," says an Obama aide. Several of the evangelicals who were present say that despite their differences with Obama, the vigorous discussion was a welcome break from the tepid theological inquiry that has existed during the Bush years. "Obama is not some neophyte who is intimidated by the prospect of conversation with religious leaders on these matters," says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. "That makes it a lot of fun, because the country desperately needs the capacity to carry on a conversation about religion and politics in a way that is affirming of people's differences." The meeting ended on a positive note, with many of the leaders thanking the candidate for bringing them together. Some of the most conservative seemed especially surprised that a Democratic nominee would seek out a conversation with them. A smaller group even walked back to the candidate's headquarters in downtown Chicago to tour the office and pick up some bumper stickers. Throughout the Democratic primaries, Obama consistently lost white evangelical and Catholic voters to Hillary Clinton, raising questions about his ability to appeal to those constituencies in the general election. However, two polls conducted in May appear to indicate otherwise — at least in terms of John McCain's support among those voters. Gallup survey released last week showed him pulling even with McCain among Catholics, and a Calvin College poll revealed anemic evangelical support for McCain (57%, compared to 72% who voted for George W. Bush in 2004). But even so, Obama's relationship with religious voters remains a concern for his campaign. To Obama's advisers, the John Kerry campaign is a cautionary tale of what happens when a candidate allows his opponent to define his faith. Which is why the Obama campaign has a senior religion adviser, a Catholic outreach director, a half dozen religion interns, and just announced it is bringing aboard an aide to focus on evangelical outreach (it is expected to be Shaun Casey, professor of ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary). The campaign has also announced an effort to reach younger religious voters and will likely benefit from the work of a new PAC — called Matthew 25 — launched this week to rally Christian support for Obama./p> The candidate's advisers believe that if he can improve upon Kerry's standing among white evangelical voters by 5 to 10 points in November (essentially returning to Bill Clinton's level of support in the 1990s), he will win the election. And he might have a chance of doing that. More and more evangelicals have broadened their list of priorities to include issues like the environment, the economy, and health care. They're as frustrated about the war in Iraq as most Americans. And when they look at the GOP — and especially McCain — they no longer see a solid political home. The fact that many evangelicals consider the 2008 election a real choice has to give Obama hope. At the same time, another lesson of 2004 looms large. The Kerry campaign was unprepared when Republicans went after what they had assumed would be their strength — Kerry's military service. And that may be the real reason Obama is wasting no time reaching out personally to religious leaders and their constituencies. He may be the only Democrat who could hold those conversations. And he may also be the only Democrat who has no choice but to.
Could it be that the religious voters who will hold their nose to vote for is Obama and not McCain? I would consider Obama a decent presidency if the only thing he did was get the American people to talk and understand where the other side was coming from. If he could get Americans to trust each other again, it'd give us hope and courage to solve our problems ourselves rather than to rely on a big government. No amount of government spending can be fruitful without that.
He's been reaching out to fellow people of faith for a long time, as is illustrated in this thread from two years ago, recently dug up by Batman Jones... Obama on religion and politics http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=115104&page=1&pp=20 Politicians need not abandon religion By Barack Obama, for USA TODAY For some time now, there has been talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country falls sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, between red states and blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. This gap has long been exploited by conservative leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who tell evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting that religious Americans care only about issues such as abortion and gay marriage. It's a gap that has also been kept open by some liberals, who might try to avoid the conversation about their religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that constitutional principles tie their hands. Some might even dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith. And yet, despite all this division, we are united by the fact that Americans are a deeply religious people. Ninety percent of us believe in God, 70% affiliate ourselves with an organized religion, and 38% call ourselves committed Christians. This is why, if political leaders truly hope to communicate our hopes and values to Americans in a way that's relevant to their own, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. 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. But the conservative leaders of the religious right will need to acknowledge a few truths about religion as well. For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice. After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith. Universal values This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, 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. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous. In the months and years to come, I am hopeful we can bridge these gaps and overcome the prejudices each of us brings to this debate. I believe that Americans want this. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and divide. Americans are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They might not change their positions on certain issues, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms — those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points. Impeach Bush.
